Meta-study shows religious people are less intelligent

[deano]

Anyone got any evidence for a supernatural being that hasn't been generated in their head?

Anyone got any evidence to prove God desn't exist that hasn't been generated in their heads.

Or are you going to fall back on the weak "You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn' exist" argument. That's so lame it's almost a cry for help. Stand up like a man and show the real deal. Philospohers down the aeons such as Hegel, Nietzche, Marx, Dhuring, have all contemplated the nature of existence, and none of them has ever taken the easy road.

I respect them (yes, even Marx!) more than someone who only holds onto atheistic principles because it's the "cool" view to have, and resorts to the child-like simplicity of "non-existence can't be proven".

[Ruprect]

Anyone got any evidence to prove God desn't exist that hasn't been generated in their heads.

Or are you going to fall back on the weak "You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn' exist" argument. That's so lame it's almost a cry for help. Stand up like a man and show the real deal. Philospohers down the aeons such as Hegel, Nietzche, Marx, Dhuring, have all contemplated the nature of existence, and none of them has ever taken the easy road.

I respect them (yes, even Marx!) more than someone who only holds onto atheistic principles because it's the "cool" view to have, and resorts to the child-like simplicity of "non-existence can't be proven".

The religious do tend to get quite angry in these types of threads...

[Mich the Tester]

Is a big cop out

Yep. Anyway, let’s work on the assumption, just for moment, that there is a god. He’s an extremely clever, immeasurably powerful being that can make universes and planets and living organisms. He came from somewhere. Somehow this unfathomably complex being emerged from nothing.

Now let’s take off the god hat, and assume that the universe emerged from nothing. The universe is actually quite simple compared to the aforementioned god; it’s just a big messy stew of energy and matter (same thing really) spread out pretty randomly with some lumpy bits called galaxies. Not much organisation or complexity in that. Sure, complexity emerges in small parts of the universe and gives us people, dodgy agents and pot noodles, but on the whole it’s all a bit of a disorganised mess.

Now then, if the first really well organised being (god) can appear spontaneously, then surely it’s much easier for the second rather messy thing (universe) to appear spontaneously. Ergo, if god CAN emerge from nothing, there’s really no need for him, because so can a universe, without his help.

[Moscow Mule]

See previous answer to this

Thats the bit thats wrong. You don't know, and can't prove anything nor can anybody else.

Atheism does require some faith. Not as much as a believing in a flying spaghetti monster, but some.

We've had this argument about 3/4 times now and we never change any ones mind so we might as well not bother.

[Board Game Geek]

It should always be the role of the True Believer to provide evidence of his or her beliefs.

It should never be the role of the non-believer to prove that the true believer is wrong. That way wars and hatred lie.

There was a philosopher called Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), who coined an analogy called "Russell's Teapot" (sometimes known as the Celestial Teapot")

This is what he wrote :

“ If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Basically, if you are going to make claims, then be prepared to provide evidence to back up those claims.

I have fairies living at the bottom of my garden. I cannot provide evidence to prove this statement. But you must believe me.

[Mich the Tester]

I have fairies living at the bottom of my garden. I cannot provide evidence to prove this statement. But you must believe me.



Does anyone

I believe you, because they keep coming to my garden and eating my cabbages.

[cailin maith]

Basically, if you are going to make claims, then be prepared to provide evidence to back up those claims.

But isn't that what faith is all about?

[Ruprect]

Thats the bit thats wrong. You don't know, and can't prove anything nor can anybody else.

Atheism does require some faith. Not as much as a believing in a flying spaghetti monster, but some.

We've had this argument about 3/4 times now and we never change any ones mind so we might as well not bother.

I suspect this is a semantic interpretation of the word Atheism really... as MTT pointed out most atheism is actually "strong" agnosicism.

[Mich the Tester]

But isn't that what faith is all about?

What do you mean? Are you suggesting faith is about choosing to believe something that you don't actually think is true?

[sasguru]

Anyone got any evidence to prove God desn't exist that hasn't been generated in their heads.

Or are you going to fall back on the weak "You can't prove the non-existence of something that doesn' exist" argument. That's so lame it's almost a cry for help. Stand up like a man and show the real deal. Philospohers down the aeons such as Hegel, Nietzche, Marx, Dhuring, have all contemplated the nature of existence, and none of them has ever taken the easy road.

I respect them (yes, even Marx!) more than someone who only holds onto atheistic principles because it's the "cool" view to have, and resorts to the child-like simplicity of "non-existence can't be proven".

This "argument" proves the truth of the thread title because it's so infantile.
Thinking something exists puts the onus on you to prove it.
Otherwise we might as well believe whatever anyone tells us.
So I'm willing to believe in God if you can show me some evidence.

According to your "argument" I could say:

"Anyone got any evidence to prove God (that Muslim fundamentalists believe in ) desn't exist that hasn't been generated in their heads?