" Still, in the absence of an overwhelmingly argument proving one side or the other - I'd offer that it is down to the guy that says something exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the something does actually exist to prove his point. This is based upon the idea of logical assumptions - as in the case of teapots orbiting (or not) Jupiter.[/QUOTE]" Agree, and i did ask the community a few hundred posts ago to define what the word proof means to them such that we could then argue from a common basis. I think everyone that has a physics bias might agree on the meaning of proof so the question was aimed at those that don't have the same leaning. Unsurprisingly nobody chose to respond.
What, that a random gene mutation causes a bunch of stone age savages in Pakistan to murder children ? Seriously? what muddle headed bollox relates the two statements
Some of you better hope there isnt a god, as the pinapple is on its way...for all of eternity..or you are coming back as a cockroach. Explaining QF is like winning the lottery when you didnt buy a ticket. It just happens. Explaining miracles where peolpe who could not walk now can, or where disease was not being treated due to its nature that is suddenly cured. It just happens. Or to those with their heads firmly up their arses, it ALL a con...bith QF and the occasional miracle
So are you an atheist? Your refusal to accept the slightest possibility of anyone else being right seems pretty dogmatic to me... "Dogmatic : adjective : firmly putting forward your own opinions and not willing to accept those of other people" (Oxford dictionary definition)
In defence of Pete,( certain he can defend himself but hey ho ) i dont regard him as only putting forward "his opinions" , rather, placing into this forum the collective view of the physics following community.
This is slightly disingenuous I feel (although I am happy for it to be Pete's true reflection of where he stands personally). The atheist feels we are being lied to. The existence of God is entrenched in institutions around the world and Britain no less than other countries. Imagine if, upon ascending to the throne, Prince Charles suddenly said: "You know what? All that church stuff is complete cobblers and I want nothing to do with it. No more televised footage of me attending church because I won't be going." It's pretty much unthinkable. On American bank notes, it says "In God We Trust". I says that the nation trusts a made-up entity. It's a case of the Emperor's new clothes but despite everyone agreeing with the wisdom of this fable, when it comes to organised religion, people suddenly can't see the connection. There is no more chance of an avowedly atheist president being elected in the US than there is of one in Iran. I can't even imagine a British Prime Minister being vocally atheist. We may have moved on from Galileo's being tortured by the Inquisition for not renouncing what he had discovered scientifically, but in a sense we haven't at all. So yes, I think that many atheists do feel some sense of indignation, and I think it's understandable. That might lead to a dogmatic viewpoint. What would you feel about a country whose inhabitants professed an institutionalised belief in a large pink elephant, made of sugar, who was the creator of the universe and the arbiter of our lives on Earth? Maybe not too impressed eh? Well, that is probably how many atheists feel.
Atheists may more properly be called reactionary - if they are being particularly vocal or confrontational concerning their atheism. You cannot sensibly call them dogmatic though, no more than you can call me dogmatic simply because I insist upon telling people that there are no unicorns living in my garden.
I got wasted mate and couldn't have pulled a cracker if I tried but apparently I was caught snogging one of my neighbours, we are all having dinner together later so will see what the fall out is
