similar.squirrel said:Agnostic anti-theist. We haven't proven the existence or non-existence of God, so making assured statements about either scenario is unwise. Personally, the former scenario is unlikely enough for me not to give a f-ck either way.
That said, an assured belief in the supernatural leads to all sorts of nastiness that a scientific worldview prohibits.
I was religious as child until I spent a year in CoE primary school. I slipped, without noticing, from mildly religious to hardcore atheist.RobCoxxy said:Nope. I went to a Church of England Primary school, where they force religion onto you from your first year onwards. I just thought it sounded weird. Then I read up on science. And it explained everything a lot better than the vicar did.
And now he is smiling on us from above. Or maybe screaming on us from down there.StarStruckStrumpets said:Hold on a moment...
Watch and learn.
Actually, no, if there was proof of it, it'd be a new branch of science. Religion requires there not be a good reason for believing in it.TheDist said:Simple as that. If repeatable, demonstrable evidence is shown, then to me there would be an argument for it, however to this day it has not been provided.
so are alot of things humans do, like art or music, no logical point but we do them anywayAmphoteric said:Religion is pretty damn silly if you look at it from an objective standpoint.
Well yes, you are indeed correct, mostly why I said there would be at least an argument for it at that point. It would as you say become a new branch of science as we learn more about it.thaluikhain said:Actually, no, if there was proof of it, it'd be a new branch of science. Religion requires there not be a good reason for believing in it.TheDist said:Simple as that. If repeatable, demonstrable evidence is shown, then to me there would be an argument for it, however to this day it has not been provided.
Kinda shames me that while a few of my friends actually thought it was bullshit, for every one of them, three went full on religious-whackjob.AngryMongoose said:You know there's a "Religion and Politics" forum right? It's there for a reason. These things tend to go badly in Off-Topic.
I was religious as child until I spent a year in CoE primary school. I slipped, without noticing, from mildly religious to hardcore atheist.RobCoxxy said:Nope. I went to a Church of England Primary school, where they force religion onto you from your first year onwards. I just thought it sounded weird. Then I read up on science. And it explained everything a lot better than the vicar did.
His Dark Materials might have had something to do with it.
Wherever he is, I'm sure he's doing what he does best. Telling it like it is.Vhite said:And now he is smiling on us from above. Or maybe screaming on us from down there.StarStruckStrumpets said:Hold on a moment...
Watch and learn.
Thats funny, I think it is was great book. Give them a pointing finger laugh for me.RobCoxxy said:Kinda shames me that while a few of my friends actually thought it was bullshit, for every one of them, three went full on religious-whackjob.AngryMongoose said:You know there's a "Religion and Politics" forum right? It's there for a reason. These things tend to go badly in Off-Topic.
I was religious as child until I spent a year in CoE primary school. I slipped, without noticing, from mildly religious to hardcore atheist.RobCoxxy said:Nope. I went to a Church of England Primary school, where they force religion onto you from your first year onwards. I just thought it sounded weird. Then I read up on science. And it explained everything a lot better than the vicar did.
His Dark Materials might have had something to do with it.
That school claimed my little sister to their numbers as well.
Sorry almost missed this post to me, going blind it seems. :szehydra said:Sure, except the burden of proof argument doesn't work when dealing with apparently non-falsifiable things. That is, normally the burden of proof works in day to day life, but with regards to things like "the creation of the universe" or other things which we will never observe nor really affect us, it is required that acknowledge that the evidence is lacking for both claims of existence and non-existence.TheDist said:Nope, I am an atheist, as for why? I see no credible evidence for the existence of any gods.
Simple as that. If repeatable, demonstrable evidence is shown then to me there would be an argument for it, however to this day it has not been provided.
I'm not trying to convince you that my religion is right by any means, I'm just trying to show that the burden-of-proof argument isn't as perfect as some atheists think it is.
All hail to Invisible Purple Box!TheDist said:Well let me use an example: I have an intangable, invisible, undetectable box which creates all gravity in the universe (also its purple!). Do you ask me to prove it or belive me untill somone else shows I am incorrect? That is how the claims of religion seem to me.