(October 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm)chatpilot Wrote: I am fully convinced that there is no god that is so far the evidence that I have come across has led me to believe that.

so the evidence that you have come across is as far as it goes is it?
You think our (humans) brains are at the evolutional peek do you.
What if there's some chance there's something beyond our brains capacity. How do you know what happens to us or doesn't happens to us after we die regardless of any god?

BTW Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist as many of us are only a small percent of atheists claim to be gnostic.

(October 24, 2008 at 7:01 pm)Bungy Wrote:

(October 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm)chatpilot Wrote: I am fully convinced that there is no god that is so far the evidence that I have come across has led me to believe that.

so the evidence that you have come across is as far as it goes is it?
You think our (humans) brains are at the evolutional peek do you.
What if there's some chance there's something beyond our brains capacity. How do you know what happens to us or doesn't happens to us after we die regardless of any god?

BTW Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist as many of us are only a small percent of atheists claim to be gnostic.

Yeah I'm De Facto atheist, like Dawkins I describe myself as a 6 on his 'Spectrum of Probabilites' - I believe its called - (from TGD). But I'm also leaning towards seven - like Dawkins (because I agree with him because I think he is almost certainly correct about the whole De Facto thing and very probably correct about the 'general', estimated extent one should be De Facto IMO ). Also on a lecture I believe Dawkin's said maybe he would round up his view to a '6.9'...so like Dawkins I consider myself around 6.9 on the scale...I think its a good round up. But really - ( btw I'm pretty sure this is very much like Dawkins) I think like Dawkins - in reality I am actually even closer to seven than 6.9.
Hope that makes sense. I tried to write the above as well as I could, it came about a bit weird though for some reason, so I hope its understood. Well atleast re-reading it still seems understandable myself - but then noone else is in my head are they

7 and proud of it.There is no need to prove to me that a myth exists or for me to go out of my way to try and convince myself otherwise.

(October 29, 2008 at 12:28 pm)chatpilot Wrote: 7 and proud of it.There is no need to prove to me that a myth exists or for me to go out of my way to try and convince myself otherwise.

Ok, I was merely trying to suggest that its possible. You can't disprove God, so yes, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he almost certainly doesn't exist. But he could, because he's undisprovable.
After all the 4th chapter of TGD by Dawkins, whether you agree or not, is called: "Why there almost certainly is no God" its not called: "Why there definitely is no God", is it?
I mean the whole Russell's teapot thing.

In my view it's not undisprovable when it is a creation of man.Man has been making up stories of origins since time immemorial.If that was the case then we would have to try and disprove Santa etc.No need to disprove obvious myths and folktales.

(October 31, 2008 at 10:41 am)chatpilot Wrote: In my view it's not undisprovable when it is a creation of man.Man has been making up stories of origins since time immemorial.If that was the case then we would have to try and disprove Santa etc.No need to disprove obvious myths and folktales.

I agree it is possibly potentitally disprovable, because I agree that I can't disprove that in the future it could be disproved. However currently God isn't disproved. The FSM isn't currently disproved. Russell's teapot isn't currently disproved. the IPU isn't currently disproved and God isn't currently disproved, etc, etc, in fact my understanding is that nothing supernatural is currently disproved 100%. What I'm saying is all evidence suggests that these things are undisprovable, I'm not saying that it isn't possible that in the future, however far, they won't be disproved. I can't disprove that. I don't know that.

There is no need to disprove a myth.The only reason God is such an issue is because it is one myth that people have taken as fact.God has made his way into politics and has built and destroyed nations vicariously through his fanatical followers.

I don't need proof of Gods existence I know for a fact in my mind that he does not exist.One day I will start a forum on this and get deeper into why I am so sure of my convictions.

(October 31, 2008 at 11:04 am)chatpilot Wrote: There is no need to disprove a myth.The only reason God is such an issue is because it is one myth that people have taken as fact.God has made his way into politics and has built and destroyed nations vicariously through his fanatical followers.

I don't need proof of Gods existence I know for a fact in my mind that he does not exist.One day I will start a forum on this and get deeper into why I am so sure of my convictions.

This is as good a place as any, why make a new forum for it? Or do you mean thread?

(October 31, 2008 at 11:04 am)chatpilot Wrote: There is no need to disprove a myth.The only reason God is such an issue is because it is one myth that people have taken as fact.God has made his way into politics and has built and destroyed nations vicariously through his fanatical followers.

I don't need proof of Gods existence I know for a fact in my mind that he does not exist.One day I will start a forum on this and get deeper into why I am so sure of my convictions.

Yes, no need to disprove a myth, but that doesn't mean it is already disproved. Nor does it mean one should take it as gospel (meaning be 100% certain, I don't mean anything religious) that it is already disproved. That would be dogmatic because one would not even accept the tiniest most minute possibility possible of being wrong. That can cause complications because it just isn't scientifically evident to be the case.

I guess a new thread.