Religion

Deep13

(39,157 posts)

201. Wrong.

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:46 PM

Dec 2012

"Evidence" that is based on logical fallacies like confirmation bias is not evidence. For it to be evidence, it has to be, well, evident. That is, verifiable by anyone.

We have proved that god does not exist. Given what we do know about the universe, biology, human behavior etc., no all good, all-knowning, all-powerful, immortal, deliberate creative force can exist. Take away any of those qualities and what you have is something other than god. Further, nothing has ever been observed that requires something other than ordinary nature to explain it. Some things remain unexplained, but that by itself is not evidence of the supernatural. The universe would be a fundamentally different place if he/she/it/they exists.

I.m using "proved" in the common sense of the word. Strictly speaking, "proof" is a mathematical demonstration.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

244 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dawkins Is Wrong. Religion Is Rational [View all] cbayer Dec 2012 OP

Still trying to figure out here how rationalists can have anything rational to say about something patrice Dec 2012 #1

He makes this interesting point: cbayer Dec 2012 #4

Agnostics can be either theists or atheists at the same time as being agnostic Fumesucker Dec 2012 #13

Totally disagree with you here, though I know many share your opinion. cbayer Dec 2012 #16

I doubt you are claiming that no agnostic has an opinion on the existence of a god or gods Fumesucker Dec 2012 #32

No, I am claiming that there are many agnostics who have no opinion on the cbayer Dec 2012 #34

I got my Christmas visiting done over the weekend Fumesucker Dec 2012 #42

What a beautiful young girl! Is she your only grandchild? cbayer Dec 2012 #44

Two more but there were scheduling conflicts Fumesucker Dec 2012 #56

OMG, she sounds just like me at her age.. cbayer Dec 2012 #62

WOOT! I have a mini-dachshund daughter AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #230

Speaking of LGBT okasha Dec 2012 #124

That is exactly how I recall it as well and still have a handful of friends who cbayer Dec 2012 #134

I hear you. okasha Dec 2012 #143

And I hear you, too. cbayer Dec 2012 #146

That is not without the qualifiers of reason Shadowflash Dec 2012 #19

In terms of your first example, what you cite would render proof that Alberta exists. cbayer Dec 2012 #21

There were times when the majority of people thought Shadowflash Dec 2012 #24

There were times when scientists actually believed they had proven that the world cbayer Dec 2012 #27

All Hasan is saying is that there are no absolute atheists intaglio Dec 2012 #87

I disagree and have run into absolute atheists, just as I have run into absolute theists. cbayer Dec 2012 #95

It's funny how you bash Dawkins yet mimic him. trotsky Dec 2012 #98

You do realize that even Dawkins isn't an absolute atheist, as you define them. n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #103

I am aware that Dawkins has described himself as one step below an absolute atheist. cbayer Dec 2012 #104

The fact that you draw such a comparison is bigoted... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #114

^^^THIS^^^ cleanhippie Dec 2012 #168

Well, what do you expect? skepticscott Dec 2012 #173

"prominent atheists who call for the death or subjugation...evidence...religious fundamentalists... humblebum Dec 2012 #176

Try Dawkins who wants us to think religion is the root of all evil and the cause of most wars. Democratopia Dec 2012 #182

Could you provide the exact quotes where Dawkins has said those things? trotsky Dec 2012 #188

Here you go. rug Dec 2012 #203

In other words skepticscott Dec 2012 #204

I'm exhausted. It took me all of five minutes. rug Dec 2012 #207

Gee, since you were responding to a request for exact quotes skepticscott Dec 2012 #211

No, I was not responding to a request for exact quotes. rug Dec 2012 #212

Uh, lie...big fat obvious lie skepticscott Dec 2012 #217

Such bulllshit. rug Dec 2012 #218

For God's sake! He had a TV show called "The root of all evil" and the intention of that show was Democratopia Jan 2013 #236

Minor correction. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #237

Oh! So you think the question mark was meant to suggest the answer "no!" I saw that show, did you? Democratopia Jan 2013 #238

No, but I understand punctuation. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #239

Let's put it this way: The clue about the show's content was in the title. Democratopia Jan 2013 #240

Actually, I found it on YouTube and I'm watching it now. deucemagnet Jan 2013 #241

As an atheist, I find him to be beneath contempt. But thanks for watching his show! Democratopia Jan 2013 #242

BBC Channel 4 insisted on that title to create controversy Rob H. Jan 2013 #243

You should know better than to confuse ranters like our friend here skepticscott Jan 2013 #244

Am I just not seeing where the quote is in your post? Nowhere do I find it. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #206

I wonfer ehat he meant by this. rug Dec 2012 #208

That revealed faith is potentially very dangerous, its in the first sentence you quoted... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #209

So is intentional bigotry. rug Dec 2012 #213

What bigotry? n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #215

It seems self evident what he means, yet I'm not seeing where he said what you claim. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #210

Oh it is, it is completely self-evident. rug Dec 2012 #214

Great. Now where is the quote in the post you put up? I'm just not seeing it. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #216

Thanks for that. Sorry I am so late in replying! Democratopia Jan 2013 #235

Evidence? n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #198

But he doesn't assert either of those things. Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #234

Decided? I don't think so. Rod Mollise Dec 2012 #51

So it's all in your imagination? AAO Dec 2012 #205

Sure it is, if you believe irrational belief is rational. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #2

Neither can exist without the negation of the other, so they both imply one another in that patrice Dec 2012 #8

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #68

"Those atheists who harangue us ..." A Richard Dawkins question is not a harangue. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3

Lol! Haranguing is not such a bad thing and Dawkins is pretty darn good at it. cbayer Dec 2012 #5

The strong can stand-to haranguing and possibly become more authentic as a result of it . . . patrice Dec 2012 #9

That's why they refer to it as "faith."..n/t monmouth3 Dec 2012 #6

Do you think faith and rationality are mutually exclusive? cbayer Dec 2012 #7

E = MC squared. Set in a decidedly other format, of course. Theoretical physics. pinto Dec 2012 #20

Much as I loved my scientific education and training, physics was the one thing that cbayer Dec 2012 #23

In the first place skepticscott Dec 2012 #43

Relativity was tested in the real world. Evidence that Einstein was correct can be observed. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #54

Not really. I've never given this much thought..n/t monmouth3 Dec 2012 #28

"Faith" in the religious sense, yes. skepticscott Dec 2012 #35

One can build a rational framework around fundamentally irrational beliefs. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #52

The philosophers cited all precede "Origin of Species..." immoderate Dec 2012 #10

Apparently not, according to the author cbayer Dec 2012 #12

Evolution is not a new idea. "Origin of Species... immoderate Dec 2012 #22

Darwin struggled mightily with how his belief in god meshed with evolution. cbayer Dec 2012 #26

I see it differently. He didn't have a god in his evolution theory. immoderate Dec 2012 #41

Agree. There was no god in his theories, but there was god in his life at various points. cbayer Dec 2012 #45

Thanks for your kind wishes. It's always good when I talk to you! immoderate Dec 2012 #46

Evolution is an Aristotlean idea, and in this quotation, burnsei sensei Dec 2012 #112

Not surprisingly, early ideas on this were relatively primitive, but it cbayer Dec 2012 #117

Many Native American religions, okasha Dec 2012 #125

Very cool and new information for me. cbayer Dec 2012 #129

Uh, no it doesn't skepticscott Dec 2012 #149

? Prometheus_unbound Dec 2012 #11

'I can'�t prove God but you can�t disprove him. ' bowens43 Dec 2012 #14

The difference between the giant purple and pink flying zebras is the number of people cbayer Dec 2012 #18

That one does or does not have a tail can be checked mindwalker_i Dec 2012 #47

I can also think of reasons why people might believe, even though they have no hard proof. cbayer Dec 2012 #49

Nor to me either... Rod Mollise Dec 2012 #53

Which is why it is important to keep religion out of public schools, except as an cbayer Dec 2012 #64

"That something has not been proven mindwalker_i Dec 2012 #65

Are they? tama Dec 2012 #150

Now that is good Ligyron Dec 2012 #80

You got it Ligyron Dec 2012 #81

No deal tama Dec 2012 #151

*yawn* Argumentun ad Populum cleanhippie Dec 2012 #69

That is simply ridiculous. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #78

Of course it does. cbayer Dec 2012 #97

Holy fucking shit, that's stupid, most people believed in astrology, and in the past.... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #100

Holy fucking shit, you are really rude. cbayer Dec 2012 #101

But popularity doesn't make something more likely to be true, because it isn't evidence... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #106

The problem when it comes to religion, as you know, is that there is no evidence cbayer Dec 2012 #108

Its still a fallacy, besides that, once you get beyond the general concept of theism... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #111

Here: Zoeisright Dec 2012 #138

Thanks! What would I do without people like you around to learn me. cbayer Dec 2012 #140

Your "argument" is the very definition of illogic. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #137

OMG, again I can't thank you enough for teaching me here. cbayer Dec 2012 #141

There is. okasha Dec 2012 #145

It does generally indicate lack of a valid counter-argument, IMHO. cbayer Dec 2012 #148

You mean kinda like you label certain atheists "fundamenalists" because they disagree with you? trotsky Dec 2012 #152

By that logic, all the people told that they were inferior because of.... Moonwalk Dec 2012 #119

I agree with much of what you say and support those that challenge widely held cbayer Dec 2012 #120

Interesting article, but I think the author makes some mistakes. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #15

Glad you liked it. It is a rather unique take that I haven't heard much. cbayer Dec 2012 #17

Obejctivity is subjective tama Dec 2012 #153

I agree to some extent. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #170

Shit happens tama Dec 2012 #184

Dawkins had another gem in that interview. rug Dec 2012 #25

Merry Christmas, rug! cbayer Dec 2012 #29

Same to you and your family! rug Dec 2012 #30

We are going to dinner at our Italian friends house. He is Jewish and we are having cbayer Dec 2012 #37

Nice loving and peaceful Xmas message skepticscott Dec 2012 #40

Turning into a bird? okasha Dec 2012 #195

Yeah, right...that's what she meant skepticscott Dec 2012 #197

So do you support or condemn skepticscott Dec 2012 #229

Ladies and gentlemen, Christian Love in all its glory! 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #224

What the hell is wrong with you? cbayer Dec 2012 #225

Please elaborate. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #227

And once again, she runs and hides skepticscott Dec 2012 #231

She doesn't even get it skepticscott Dec 2012 #228

There is an undeniable pattern in nature which underthematrix Dec 2012 #31

Then who designed skepticscott Dec 2012 #38

Which pattern is that? Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #55

No, there is not. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #70

No, it doesn't suggest design, intelligent or otherwise. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #79

Discipline of Physics tama Dec 2012 #154

Since when is it "haranguing" to question an assertion? BlueStreak Dec 2012 #33

Dawkins can harangue with the best of them. cbayer Dec 2012 #36

So you think truth is a function of how many people believe something? BlueStreak Dec 2012 #59

No, I think that the possibility that something is true may be correlated with the cbayer Dec 2012 #60

The scientific method does not consider disproven hypotheses as "faulty" BlueStreak Dec 2012 #67

Thousands of years of indoctrinating people into that belief caused those numbers. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #71

Sorry to say skepticscott Dec 2012 #73

I guess what bothers me the most is that it seems wilfull. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #74

Religion is not necessarily irrational BlueStreak Dec 2012 #75

" Everybody is happy. Nobody gets hurt" cleanhippie Dec 2012 #82

people don't get hurt by the theology. BlueStreak Dec 2012 #83

"...But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." cleanhippie Dec 2012 #93

And religion provides a safe hideout for evil and sick people BlueStreak Dec 2012 #94

His appeal to "evidence" requires the question skepticscott Dec 2012 #39

"A Flying Horse" is rational? A flying unicorn, maybe. But a horse? no way. nt Speck Tater Dec 2012 #48

How many people on this planet believe in flying horses or flying unicorns? cbayer Dec 2012 #50

How many people on this planet were indoctrinated into flying horse belief? cleanhippie Dec 2012 #72

"rational" should be based on "reality" Speck Tater Dec 2012 #84

I don't have an exact number, but the author of the article claims ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #178

Lots of room for discussion in this op... Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #57

Let's hear your definition of "rational" skepticscott Dec 2012 #58

He actually makes the case that both theism and atheism are based on faith and that cbayer Dec 2012 #61

Hard to take all this gobbledygook seriously skepticscott Dec 2012 #89

No. It's irrational. It just has a rational explanation. /nt TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #63

I love to see the crazed whiny flailing Dawkins elicits. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #66

Well, Medhi Hasan appears to be the idiot here. intaglio Dec 2012 #76

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #77

Yet another clueless Huffpo article... gcomeau Dec 2012 #85

I think I get the drift. At least in the western world, there were far more Jews than Christians dimbear Dec 2012 #86

No, religion is not rational. Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #88

Hasan's best argument just kicks the can down the road. eomer Dec 2012 #90

You are misunderstanding the Kalam cosmological argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #127

How is the argument different for God than for the universe? eomer Dec 2012 #130

The critical point is whatever "begins to exist" has a cause. Jim__ Dec 2012 #132

And which would you say already existed, and what's your basis? n/t eomer Dec 2012 #159

I'm not saying anything already existed. Jim__ Dec 2012 #165

So if God didn't always exist then it is something that began to exist and therefore has a cause. eomer Dec 2012 #171

Read the argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #174

Did already, thanks. Going back to a post where you actually said something... eomer Dec 2012 #183

If you read the argument, why do you keep bringing up god? Jim__ Dec 2012 #190

Because it is part of the argument; why do you want to strip off the conclusion? eomer Dec 2012 #192

It is not the conclusion of the given argument. Jim__ Dec 2012 #194

I think we agree, actually, to a point. eomer Dec 2012 #200

Just noting tama Dec 2012 #219

You need to understand this about Mr. Jim________ trotsky Dec 2012 #199

HuffPo apparently has an ample and continuing supply... Silent3 Dec 2012 #91

Just FTR, this is no lightweight writer. cbayer Dec 2012 #96

You have to be joking... gcomeau Dec 2012 #133

Agree with you on Deepak Chopra, that is for sure. cbayer Dec 2012 #136

He may not be a lightweight writer... Silent3 Dec 2012 #169

Mehdi Hasan, meet Russell's Teapot. trotsky Dec 2012 #92

"put forth ideas that STILL demolish theistic arguments." If you are referring humblebum Dec 2012 #220

Do any theists even bother listening to atheists, most of us(including Dawkins) are agnostic! Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #99

Jesus fucking Christ nailed to two popsicle sticks? Could you be any more rude? cbayer Dec 2012 #102

So you concede that faith is belief without evidence? Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #105

Yes I would define faith as belief without absolute evidence. cbayer Dec 2012 #107

But you don't criticize Dawkins, you(and the authors you link to) erect straw versions of him to... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #109

We are done. I am not a bigot. cbayer Dec 2012 #110

H_A didn't call you a bigot. trotsky Dec 2012 #121

"there is no such thing as "absolute evidence" you are trying to redefine..." - It humblebum Dec 2012 #221

I'm saying that using the word "absolute" as an adjective usable with the word... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #222

It seems to be a matter of wording to you then. I believe that by the phrase "absolute evidence" humblebum Dec 2012 #223

Subjective "evidence" can only be observed by the individual who observes it... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #232

Yes, that is why it is called "subjective" evidence. And yes it is experience also, or observation, humblebum Dec 2012 #233

Thread title is wrong. Kalidurga Dec 2012 #113

I must ask, what is a pegacorn, because it sounds awesomer than a unicorn. n/t Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #115

Pegasus + Unicorn Kalidurga Dec 2012 #180

How about believing there is no god or gods without any evidence? cbayer Dec 2012 #116

Are you really comparing proof that there is no god with proof that there is no cancer? Moonwalk Dec 2012 #122

Exactly my point. There is no way to compare scientific facts with religious beliefs. cbayer Dec 2012 #123

Wow, consistency just isn't one of your strong points. trotsky Dec 2012 #126

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are rejected as lacking any utility. gcomeau Dec 2012 #135

Agree. God(s) are not testable hypothesis and probably never will be. cbayer Dec 2012 #139

No. gcomeau Dec 2012 #142

It may have been *explained* to me, but I continue to disagree. cbayer Dec 2012 #147

For cripes sake... gcomeau Dec 2012 #156

I defend religionists, but I don't offer factual support for specific religious beliefs. cbayer Dec 2012 #160

Didn't ask you to. gcomeau Dec 2012 #161

I consider great art, great music, great literature, philosophical inquiry, cbayer Dec 2012 #162

Fascinating, now if you don't mind... gcomeau Dec 2012 #163

My goodness. Settle down. cbayer Dec 2012 #164

People who interact dishonestly irritate me. gcomeau Dec 2012 #166

People that are argumentative irritate me. cbayer Dec 2012 #167

Run along... don't trip over that tail between your legs.-eom gcomeau Dec 2012 #179

I'm glad that you got to see for yourself the total dishonesty and denial... cleanhippie Dec 2012 #186

Oh I've seen it before. gcomeau Dec 2012 #191

Was the name-calling really necessary? n/t trotsky Dec 2012 #189

Not worth wasting your time on skepticscott Dec 2012 #172

It never ceases to amaze me. The pure hypocrisy and wilfull ignorance displayed is stupefying. cleanhippie Dec 2012 #187

Is it rational to be absolutely, 100% certain skepticscott Dec 2012 #157

You don't need evidence for things that don't exist. Kalidurga Dec 2012 #181

By all accounts, religion is not rational. DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #118

I think your definition may be too narrow. cbayer Dec 2012 #131

I'm not sure why you need to rationalize feelings or beliefs. DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #175

Control and religion/spirituality tama Dec 2012 #185

When a person is arrogant enough to think they can possibly know everything, DrewFlorida Dec 2012 #196

So? tama Dec 2012 #202

Religion is based on faith. still_one Dec 2012 #128

Other choice bigoted drippings from Mehdi Hasan's brain: trotsky Dec 2012 #144

Well, we all know skepticscott Dec 2012 #158

Saying that a belief is justifiable and rational skepticscott Dec 2012 #155

. Steele1762 Dec 2012 #177

If Mehdi Hasan's religion is rational, then so is Fred Phelps'. trotsky Dec 2012 #193

Wrong. Deep13 Dec 2012 #201

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Skittles Dec 2012 #226