They could form a support group dealing with all the hatred they get subjected to from religious people?
The Atheist movement coming to Canada
- Thread starter miniboss
- Start date
They could form a support group dealing with all the hatred they get subjected to from religious people?
I suppose that might be relevant if you live in the US but in Canada? You have to be thin skinned to be persecuted by the religious, and not be too sure why you don't believe. Best defense is to know your reasons and back them up.
Last time I checked, I was in fact able to prove that there were no pennies in my pocket. Last time I tried, I was able to prove that in fact 2+2 does not equal 5. In general, I find myself able to prove all sorts of negative statements.
Heck, the very statement: "It is impossible to prove a negative," is a negative statement, thus it denies that it can be proven itself. Were it true it would prove itself false, and if it is false, it is simply false without paradox. Therefore, its false.
A world without religious connotations, influence, and dictatorship would be pretty nice, given that anyone who wished to worship his/her specific higher power, still could.
Actually the argument for proof of god was made, the evidence of his existence was determined, and then found to not exist.
The idea that god can't be disproved is basically false unless he is like a little garden gnome that could be hidden under a rock on any planet in the universe. The argument then goes: in order to disprove god you must be able to see all things in all places at once, since that would be impossible, it is also impossible to prove god does not exist. However, this is true only if god were a material object of little significance like a little garden gnome statue or pennies in your pocket.
The reality is that god should be omnipresent and blatantly apparent. There should be a material that does not change, is not affected by time, distance or anything else and permeates the entire universe. Such a material should be detectable and all things should be made of it to some degree or another. If this material exists so does god, if it doesn't then neither does god.
Plato called this material the aether and it was proved to not exist by Michelson and Morle. The aether has since been replaced by relativity.
So people say god can't be disproved for two reasons: they don't know he has already been disproved, or they are being nice to the religionists.
But you are right.
There is no god and that is indeed a fact.
I do not believe there is no god but instead I know there is no god; just like I know there is no Santa, unicorns, or trolls under bridges, and there are no pennies in my pocket (currently).
Last edited:
Last time I checked, I was in fact able to prove that there were no pennies in my pocket.
With respect, Niflmir, that is nonsense. How do you prove there are no pennies in your pocket? Try to prove it to me.
If you put your hand in your pocket and come up empty handed, I will claim that you do have pennies in your pocket, but chose not to bring out any. If you invert your pockets, or ask me to examine them for myself, I will claim that you are a magician, that you indeed did have pennies in your pocket, but salted away somewhere by sleigh of hand. I not being a magician, you were able to fool me easily (then are you going to try to prove that you are not a magician?).
So, how do you prove that there are no pennies in your pockets? It cannot be done.
As to proving that 2+2 do not make 5, you can prove nothing of the sort. You can prove that 2+2 make 4, and by elimination you prove that it is not 5. You are not proving a negative here, you are proving a positive (that 2+2 make 4, and hence do not make 5).
Logically a negative cannot be proven. E.g. try to prove that you haven’t been to Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the past 10 years (I assume you haven’t). You cannot, same as you cannot prove that there are no pennies in your pocket.
With respect, Niflmir, that is nonsense. How do you prove there are no pennies in your pocket? Try to prove it to me.
If you put your hand in your pocket and come up empty handed, I will claim that you do have pennies in your pocket, but chose not to bring out any. If you invert your pockets, or ask me to examine them for myself, I will claim that you are a magician, that you indeed did have pennies in your pocket, but salted away somewhere by sleigh of hand. I not being a magician, you were able to fool me easily (then are you going to try to prove that you are not a magician?).
So, how do you prove that there are no pennies in your pockets? It cannot be done.
As to proving that 2+2 do not make 5, you can prove nothing of the sort. You can prove that 2+2 make 4, and by elimination you prove that it is not 5. You are not proving a negative here, you are proving a positive (that 2+2 make 4, and hence do not make 5).
Logically a negative cannot be proven. E.g. try to prove that you haven’t been to Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the past 10 years (I assume you haven’t). You cannot, same as you cannot prove that there are no pennies in your pocket.
Last edited:
The reality is that god should be omnipresent and blatantly apparent. There should be a material that does not change, is not affected by time, distance or anything else and permeates the entire universe. Such a material should be detectable and all things should be made of it to some degree or another. If this material exists so does god, if it doesn't then neither does god.
Scott Free, that is your interpretation. I would claim that the reality of God is apparent only to those who are willing to receive it, those who are objective about it, those who are not blinded by science (I am playing Devil’s Advocate here, I am an Atheist myself).
And why should there be a material that does not change? I postulate God as a spiritual being who is present everywhere, but cannot be detected by the scientific means we have available at present.
I would argue that even if God is present in material form, the techniques of us mere mortals are too unsophisticated to detect that material.
Now go ahead and prove that God doesn’t’ exist.
Scott Free, that is your interpretation. I would claim that the reality of God is apparent only to those who are willing to receive it, those who are objective about it, those who are not blinded by science (I am playing Devil’s Advocate here, I am an Atheist myself).
And why should there be a material that does not change? I postulate God as a spiritual being who is present everywhere, but cannot be detected by the scientific means we have available at present.
I would argue that even if God is present in material form, the techniques of us mere mortals are too unsophisticated to detect that material.
Now go ahead and prove that God doesn’t’ exist.
I wasn't aware I had confused the two.
If All X are Y, that does not follow that all Y are X nor is it implied. Logic is still taught in schools I assure you.
Side note:
Its not that you can't "prove a negative" or must "prove a positive"
Its that you cannot disprove, you can only prove something contradictory.
To prove there is no god is possible, one must first have a definition of god, then set about proving something contradictory.
Given our abilities, and the vagueness of the answer you are liable to receive, you will most likely instead get to a situation where you can neither prove god exists nor does not exist. Much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Its not that you can't "prove a negative" or must "prove a positive"
Its that you cannot disprove, you can only prove something contradictory.
To prove there is no god is possible, one must first have a definition of god, then set about proving something contradictory.
Given our abilities, and the vagueness of the answer you are liable to receive, you will most likely instead get to a situation where you can neither prove god exists nor does not exist. Much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
To prove there is no god is possible; one must first have a definition of god, then set about proving something contradictory.
Exactly, Zzarchov, the definition of God is so vague, so amorphous that one cannot imagine an experiment that will contradict the existence of God.
Given our abilities, and the vagueness of the answer you are liable to receive, you will most likely instead get to a situation where you can neither prove god exists nor does not exist
Again, I agree. But then there is such a thing as the burden of proof. I take the view that if somebody claims that God exists, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it, not upon the others to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Exactly, Zzarchov, the definition of God is so vague, so amorphous that one cannot imagine an experiment that will contradict the existence of God.
Given our abilities, and the vagueness of the answer you are liable to receive, you will most likely instead get to a situation where you can neither prove god exists nor does not exist
Again, I agree. But then there is such a thing as the burden of proof. I take the view that if somebody claims that God exists, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it, not upon the others to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Sure I have no problem with "One is unable to prove qualities about a sufficiently vague object." But most people go about proving negatives on a daily basis (I do not have exact change for that, I do not have any more clean razors, my hat is not on my head) and I find the notion that negative statements cannot be proven to be odious.
Many theists I have met want to say things like "I know God" and so they will not admit to their concepts being vague or ambiguous, but they will simultaneously not let you pin down any qualities that would be necessary to prove the nonexistence of their abstract notion, and so they keep their heads.
People belong to all kinds of service clubs: the Elks, Anglicans, the Moose, Baptists, the Orange Lodge, the Masons, the Shriners, the Catholics. But those are all voluntary. For those who don't care for meetings, dues, or the secret handshakes, a walk in the woods or a good book is just as satisfying.
Atheists and theists, the light the dark, good bad, up and down and on and on it goes. Tears of joyous anticipation issue forth when peeling the celestial onion.
Down on your knees before Sparky unbeliever. Weather you be an orthodox atheist or a new ager will avail you nothing as you traverse the electric onionverse.:smile:
Down on your knees before Sparky unbeliever. Weather you be an orthodox atheist or a new ager will avail you nothing as you traverse the electric onionverse.:smile:
A local minister asked me why I didn't go to church. I answered with a paraphrase of a famous saying: "Gawd created forests and man made churches. Who you going to trust?"
To a Pentecostal minister I said, "I'm a Born again Pagan." Both are very effective in getting them to stop asking.
people lie about their belief in a diety or dieties.
Are you insinuating "good christian folk" LIE!!! My God!!! Do you know what this means!!! Jesus was a hypocrite!!!
I'm sure the 'born again' and 'I' had different thoughts in mind at the time,
obviously.