31st March 2012

“I'm an atheist because the arguments that the universe must have a creator are demonstrably false, and the notion that it could have one is just logically incoherent.”

Anon.

9 Responses to “31st March 2012”

  1. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    And because it be supposed or proposed isn’t in and of itself anything. To go forward on the basis of one lame hypothesis isn’t any better that going forward another. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism,et cetera are all the same simple minded hypotheses. No facts, no supporting hypothesis, just some clown knocking on my door yapping about salvation.

  2. poky Says:

    Sinjin,
    You wrote, “And because it be supposed or proposed isn’t in and of itself anything. To go forward on the basis of one lame hypothesis isn’t any better that going forward another.”

    ….hmmmm, would this mean that to go forward on the hypothesis that there is NO God, is no better than than going forward on the hypothesis that there IS a God?

  3. reytBob Says:

    Hypotheses based on the detectable are more robust than those based on imagination. Hypotheses based on the purely imagined, without any supporting evidence, are worthless.

  4. Atheist MC Says:

    @poky: would you go forward on the hypothesis that unicorns, fairies, leprachauns, djinns, genies et al do or don’t exist?

  5. poky Says:

    Athiest MC,
    Yes, I could absolutely go forward on that hypothesis by using a deductive research process. The deductive process begins with a hypothesis, then proceeds to collect evidence regarding the hypothesis, then based on the collected evidence, the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

    If my hypothesis is that unicorns exist, I seriously doubt that I will find much credible evidence to support that hypothesis, so in the end I would probably reject that hypothesis for lack of evidence.

    The problem with hypotheses about religious issues is that both sides firmly believe that they have irrefutable evidence to support their opposing hypotheses, and in the absence of a judge, jury, umpire, or referee to rule on the opposing sets of evidences, the evidences just hang out there in mid-air, and each individual is faced with deciding which set of evidences seems more believable to him/her.

    Personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way. I will make my decision and will not try to force my decision on anyone else.

  6. Stephen Caldwell Says:

    I agree with the statement postulated. I might also add on what grounds does the universe need a creator? Just to appease our little minds? The universe is entirely indifferent to our existence. Period!

  7. Dan Says:

    Poky,
    “….hmmmm, would this mean that to go forward on the hypothesis that there is NO God, is no better than than going forward on the hypothesis that there IS a God?”

    Could you elaborate on what your God entails? Are you talking creator god or personal god? Because I’d argue that for a creator god, aka deism, then you’d be right that there is no difference. But for a personal god, aka theism, there is a practical difference that does make a difference.

  8. Dan Says:

    Poky, you also said,
    “If my hypothesis is that unicorns exist, I seriously doubt that I will find much credible evidence to support that hypothesis, so in the end I would probably reject that hypothesis for lack of evidence.”

    Great, so we agree that rejecting the hypothesis that a God exists is a reasonable conclusion.

  9. reetBob Says:

    Ugh, ugly linguistic mistake on my part. By ‘hypotheses’ I meant ‘conclusions’.