www.paulnixon.org

Perhaps it would work if the occupant of the vehicle were to indulge in prayer?

To be fair, being an atheist is only slightly more reasonable than being a theist. No evidence either way. Surely the only logical standpoint for one who thinks evidence is key to making any decision must be an agnostic?

It depends on your definitions of atheist and agnostic. The latter is prepared to be persuaded, but the former most likely thinks the whole idea of deities is absurdly retarded per Occam's Razor.

Reuben - odd standpoint you have there.

Are you suggesting that every single possible thing that might exist in the universe for which there is no evidence whatsoever must be held in this intellectual limbo?

Surely beliefs that are utterly implausible, cleary man-made fabrications can be safely disregarded.

There are an infinite number of things that might exist that almost definitely don't. I'm not going to waste time believing in any of them and certainly not tolerating the hateful views of those that do.

I suppose that by extension that is what I'm arguing. But only if there is no evidence against it either. You could certainly argue that a lack of evidence of God given his supposed nature is evidence he doesn't exist.

At the end of the day its more a matter of opinion than anything else - which is the conclusion I've come to after a year of philosophy - there's no point arguing one way or the other, people will believe whatever they want to and no argument will convince them otherwise.

I'm not sure it is a matter of opinion or that the atheist position is only slightly more reasonable.

You're not slightly more reasonable than me if I believe that the universe was created and is carefully orchestrated in it's every detail by an invisible man made of cheese and marzipan and you disagree.

There is a point of arguing too. A lot of very bad things have been, and continue to be, done in the name of religion.

Well if you say he's made of marzipan and cheese then, given that we know the nature of such things (eg, inanimate and powerless, as well as tasty for a start) then it would be logically incoherent to argue that they could also be the substance of a supreme being - we have experience from which we can conclude they do not have any kind of power.

But the point is that 'God' is some kind of supreme being who's nature is not known - we have no evidence of such a thing to exist on Earth but if its nature was transcendent (defined as the concept of being entirely above the created universe) rather than physical then we wouldn't have any evidence of it's existence - or against it's existence. Therefore you can only conclude that you cannot know the true answer. You can think a certain way but all you've got to back it up is your feeling that God doesn't exist and the fact that experience has taught you such a thing doesn't exist (but our experience of the entire universe is painfully limited and even if it wasn't limited at all, if God is transcendent then it is inconclusive anyway).

I think the point I'm (poorly) trying to get across is that we have no experience of such a being so cannot make an informed decision one way or another. But given we have no evidence (why hasn't he ever acted to stop natural disasters if he is all loving?) it is slightly more reasonable to say he doesn't exist - but far from a definite confirmed answer that some Atheists (Richard Dawkins would be a prime example of this) would have you believe it is.

And yes agree on the arguing - but trying to convince them God does not exist is a waste of time IMO. Instead arguing why what they're actually doing is wrong would have been the way to go I would have thought.

Reuben

Thanks for the long response.

Regarding the marzipan and cheese of course this is ridiculous. But so are burning bushes, talking snakes and Noah's ark. And transubstantation. And so on. Total absurdity is no barrier for the religious. In fact, the more absurd the belief the more faith required. Bring it on.

Your point anyway seems to be that there might be some things of which we could never know as it is beyond our rudimentary senses. This is plausible. However, giving an unseen, unheard, unwitnessed imaginary entity a name and then start telling other people how to live their lives because this entity says so is madness.

There are an infinite number of such imaginable entities; I choose to believe none of them. You seem to suggest we should suspend judgement on all of them. But for every possible entity that anyone posits I will suggest the total opposite.

That which can be stated without evidence can be refuted likewise after all.

Yes, agreed with what you've written. Although you could argue that the genuine teachings of a religion eg, Christianity (with regards to moral actions, wealth and poverty, and forgiveness for example) are generally pretty reasonable, with the odd exception, and so for people to live their life by these rules would not be such a bad thing. But yes the whole business of his miracles and such need to either be taken metaphorically or disregarded altogether as frankly ludicrous as we know that snakes cannot talk etc etc.

And yes - suspend judgment is probably the best way to sum up my feelings. The personal belief is fine, it is the attempted enforcement of this belief that is unacceptable - and this goes both ways (religious fanatics and also those such as Richard Dawkins who are just as zealous as the religious in forcing upon you their beliefs).

Congrats with your time in the Magnificat by the way!

Reuben

With relief our viewpoints converge.

Some of the teachings of Christianity may indeed be good - but we have to pick and choose I think. How do we choose the 'genuine' teachings? There are those that believe very strongly that homosexuality should be punished by death. Are they wrong?

The problem is that if we have to use interpretation to choose the bits of the Bible that work - do we need it at all? Might it not be possible to draw up a far more equitable, ethical framework without all of the Bronze Age drama?

Quite :)

Yes, such problems are eternal with the Bible. And while I think I was correct in saying some of its teachings are good, they are by no means unique (although since the Bible influenced a lot of western ethical thinking it may well be responsible for these also). So we can probably do without it now as you say. And things would probably be a lot simpler too - no interpretation required.

Is it real?

Hypersports!!