Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


Super19

Recommended Posts

No...the FIGHTING takes too much effort. Did you just miss that part of the post you quoted from? Or do you just lack reading and comprehension skills? Fighting a circular battle takes far more effort than it is worth, considering there is no reward for winning it, at least in this "lifetime". I personally don't think there's a god or an afterlife or invisible flying purple unicorns revolving around the sun, but the argument is simply childish...much like your reading skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Mr. Semantics...the debate takes too much effort...and is ridiculous, because it is fruitless...this is like the case of Sisyphus and the boulder...both sides are attempting to explain everything in a nutshell, and even though the atheist/non-believer contingent is not required to disprove a negative, even they don't have that one crucial piece of evidence to call an end to the debate...and the boulder gets very close to the top of the hill...but willful ignorance and the power of persuasion (call it brainwashing if you see fit) prevents them from rolling it up over the top...and it stagnates...just like this argument....Until further evidence is presented, the logical stance is that of the de facto atheist. Those who cannot say for certain that god does not exist but who lives their lives based on the assumption that he's not there, an assumption based on observation and the evolution of human intelligence. Extraordinary claims do certainly require extraordinary evidence, which has thus far not been presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Mr. Semantics...the debate takes too much effort...and is ridiculous, because it is fruitless...this is like the case of Sisyphus and the boulder...both sides are attempting to explain everything in a nutshell, and even though the atheist/non-believer contingent is not required to disprove a negative, even they don't have that one crucial piece of evidence to call an end to the debate...and the boulder gets very close to the top of the hill...but willful ignorance and the power of persuasion (call it brainwashing if you see fit) prevents them from rolling it up over the top...and it stagnates...just like this argument....Until further evidence is presented, the logical stance is that of the de facto atheist. Those who cannot say for certain that god does not exist but who lives their lives based on the assumption that he's not there, an assumption based on observation and the evolution of human intelligence. Extraordinary claims do certainly require extraordinary evidence, which has thus far not been presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Mr. Semantics...the debate takes too much effort...and is ridiculous, because it is fruitless...this is like the case of Sisyphus and the boulder...both sides are attempting to explain everything in a nutshell, and even though the atheist/non-believer contingent is not required to disprove a negative, even they don't have that one crucial piece of evidence to call an end to the debate...and the boulder gets very close to the top of the hill...but willful ignorance and the power of persuasion (call it brainwashing if you see fit) prevents them from rolling it up over the top...and it stagnates...just like this argument....Until further evidence is presented, the logical stance is that of the de facto atheist. Those who cannot say for certain that god does not exist but who lives their lives based on the assumption that he's not there, an assumption based on observation and the evolution of human intelligence. Extraordinary claims do certainly require extraordinary evidence, which has thus far not been presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall that. I seem to recall numerous people pointing out that there's plenty of evidence suggesting that there is no need for a "god(s)" to exist and that there is none to prove there is/are "god(s)". I don't recall anyone even once stating they had evidence of the non-exsistence of one/any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my buddy James in Virginia, man. His blunt, direct honesty was a key factor in the two of us becoming friends to begin with. We both agree with Carl Sagan...in order to be termed atheists (aside from the de facto kind he mentioned), we'd have to have one hell of a lot more information than we have currently. James will probably only post sporadically here, as he owns his own business and spends a lot less time on the internet now. I'll pass your comment along to him, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall that. I seem to recall numerous people pointing out that there's plenty of evidence suggesting that there is no need for a "god(s)" to exist and that there is none to prove there is/are "god(s)". I don't recall anyone even once stating they had evidence of the non-exsistence of one/any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you missed out on a lot of this thread. I wasn't referring to you in that post. Others have suggested that such evidence exists, and tried proving it to me but failed to prove anything.

I actually started posting in this thread because people were claiming to have this evidence.

We could go on and on about the more subjective aspects to this topic, but the more important thing that should be discussed is the evidence that we have and don't have. Makes for a fun debate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...