'He' is all around

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by phobos

It can be argued that they failed to apply their critical thinking skills and skeptism to their religious beliefs.

That would only be true if atheists can prove or show evidence that God doesn't exist, in which case your statement is perfectly valid.
The reality is atheists can't do either. Believers are in the same boat for the converse case.

The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.

Regards

Steven

[Zaps]

Not falsifiable = not interesting. At least, not to scientists. Philosophers maybe.

Science and scientists have no time for junk like UFOs, ghosts, gods, sea monsters, invisible fairy princesses and any other silly nonsense that can only be defended by claiming, "Oh, it's real, you just can't see it and refuse to believe!"

Originally Posted by sjastro

The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.

[Zaps]

You have no understanding of what true science really is.

But in response to your last comment, remember that there are a lot of people who live their lives as virtuously as any religious cult adherent and in most cases more virtuously, with far less hypocrisy; they don't live that way due to a mortal fear of "divine retribution." They live that way because they are decent and honest people.

Originally Posted by rcheshire

I love science and what it brings to our lives, but it will not be my moral compass. Guided by men - God forbid - I don't think so!

[rally]

This is a thread about about Helium isn't it ?

[phobos (John)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

That would only be true if atheists can prove or show evidence that God doesn't exist, in which case your statement is perfectly valid.
The reality is atheists can't do either. Believers are in the same boat for the converse case.

The existence or non existence of God isn't a mathematical problem that can be proved using logic or rational thinking and is unfalsifiable as there is no evidence that can disprove either position.

Hence critical thinking cannot play a significant role as a conclusion cannot be reached and both sides use opinion or faith based arguments to support their positions.

Regards

Steven

Atheists have nothing to prove, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that gods exist. Take Russell's teapot for example, if I tell you there is a teapot in orbit around the sun and you can't prove me wrong should you believe my claim?

Critical thinking can easily be applied to religious claims. Many believers compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and don't apply their skeptical tools to them.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by phobos

Atheists have nothing to prove, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that gods exist. Take Russell's teapot for example, if I tell you there is a teapot in orbit around the sun and you can't prove me wrong should you believe my claim?

A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation.
The existence or non existence of God is however unfalsifiable. Whether I choose to believe one way or another is based on faith.

Shifting the burden of proof is symptomatic of faith based arguments. Creationists do it all the time in evolution debates.
Expecting believers to prove the existence of God is doomed to failure and at the same time doesn't strengthen the Atheist position as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Atheism vs Religion debates seem to get bogged down in false dichotomies, namely "You're wrong automatically proves me right" type arguments.

Critical thinking can easily be applied to religious claims. Many believers compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and don't apply their skeptical tools to them.

Then it wouldn't be critical thinking.

Regards

Steven

[LAW (Murphy)]

I think He would be disappointed by the ignoble nature of this debate. It's frankly Boron.

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

Athiests might be pretty skeptical of other people's faith, but they tend not to start religious wars, go suicide bombing or anything in between.

Helium is a lot more fun

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

Thank you Steven. I have deleted my posts to keep within the protocols, but I am glad that you have pointed out the fallacy.

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by sjastro

A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation.

What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?

Too much Helium sniffing around here.

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The existence or non existence of God is however unfalsifiable. Whether I choose to believe one way or another is based on faith.

I have to quote Douglas Adams from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so . . . .......

'The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says He, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Bable fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says He, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

'Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys ..... . . . .

CH 6:V21-V24

The world is a poorer place without Douglas Adams.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

Athiests might be pretty skeptical of other people's faith, but they tend not to start religious wars, go suicide bombing or anything in between.

Helium is a lot more fun

+1
We also don't go door knocking to spread the joy of atheism....

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Zaps

What if it's a magic invisible teapot? What if it can jump between orbits whenever anyone attempts to observe it? What if only True Believers can see it?

You obviously don't know that Schrödinger addressed this very issue by gassing teapots with He.

Regards

Steven

[phobos (John)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

A teapot in orbit is in fact falsifiable, it can be proved or disproved through observation. <snipped>

I wasn't clear and you have misunderstood the teapot analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by phobos

I wasn't clear and you have misunderstood the teapot analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I'm aware of the teapot analogy and its counterarguments.

From the Wiki article.

One counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[8] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[9]

Regards

Steven

[Zaps]

This is why people can claim to believe in the existence of absolutely anything. And frequently do.

[Zaps]

I'm pretty sure that would contravene the Geneva Conventions.

Originally Posted by sjastro

You obviously don't know that Schrödinger addressed this very issue by gassing teapots with He.

[rat156]

Whilst I like the OPs first post, I find it strange that he should have had to add the bit about the TOS, it's a simple set of scientific facts.

However, the post by a moderator of the site, which is little more than religious dogma, is offensive. Not for the content, as you don't have to watch it (I only got halfway through before the religiousness became overpowering and I stopped it), but for the fact that a moderator of the site can post something which so flagrantly contravenes the site's TOS.

Enough said, close the thread.

Cheers
Stuart

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Zaps

I'm pretty sure that would contravene the Geneva Conventions.

I suppose you are going to tell me Geneva is the capital of Denmark.

Regards

Steven