English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since you are so convinced that there is no God, convince me.

2007-01-17 08:50:27 · 12 answers · asked by sowerword 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

hav ken ay pruv dat ay dont hev e dog

2007-01-19 11:16:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

There are so many religious traditions throughout our history. None of the religions have any greater claim in being credible than any other religion. They cant all be right, but they can all be wrong. Religions contradict themselves. No religion is 100% consistent when it comes to doctrines, ides, and history. Gods of every religion is created in the image of man(humanoid figures). Religions are responsible for wide spread immorality and God(s) have characteristics/history of genocide.

2007-01-17 09:04:06 · answer #2 · answered by Maikeru 4 · 1 0

The penguin has wisdom. Atheists can back up their lack of beliefs with something called factual evidence. This is a concept that many religions fail to take into consideration.

2007-01-17 08:59:45 · answer #3 · answered by Desiree J 3 · 1 0

(sho-nuff, surely you meant 'you can't make him *think*)

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

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 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.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.


---


Nobody can prove any gods, much less a specific god, exist; many people will tell you their god exists but no others, but will never be able to prove it, even if they think so. Some will threaten you with eternal pain or promise eternal joy to get you to believe in their god; these are all stories, created for people who were scared long before we understood the universe. Now we have no more reason for these superstitions.

How terrible the bible in particular is:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

How silly and horrible religion in general is:
http://godisimaginary.com/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

The alternative:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

2007-01-17 08:56:21 · answer #4 · answered by eldad9 6 · 3 0

You are the one making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof rests with you. You convince me that there is a 'god'.

2007-01-17 08:56:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

If you want to beleive in stuff with no evidence, I am not going to stop you.

But you know, I have some beachfront properity down in Florida, real cheap. I don't have a deed or anything, but it is a great deal!

2007-01-17 08:57:02 · answer #6 · answered by Alex 6 · 1 0

I don't need to convince you. If you wish to be convinced read Buddhist philosophy on the topic and analyze it yourself.

_()_

2007-01-17 08:56:21 · answer #7 · answered by vinslave 7 · 1 0

Since I think there is a God I won't try. I am curious though, will anyone's opinion really matter to you?

2007-01-17 08:55:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Interesting thing, I don't feel the need to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

2007-01-17 08:57:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

First tell me why unicorns are hollow.

Gorgeous is right, you won't ever not believe. You have 'faith' and facts do not affect it. Faith is making your mind accept something that your intellect would reject, otherwise there is no need for faith.

2007-01-17 08:55:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers