So why don't atheists proselytize?

[MikeH]

You can't force someone to believe something. You can only force them to pretend to believe something, what's the point of that?

If there's one of something then the conditions exist for it to exist, why can't the conditions exist for another one to appear? Seems against the laws of physics that we understand that if one thing exists that you couldn't have a similar object/being existing somewhere else where the same conditions were fulfilled. This wouldn't necessitate having another one of course those conditions could be very rare, but the universe is very big.

[Snotty]

theres only one of you Mike. If we are gonna get all metaphysical then why wouldnt gods mates have ****ed off and created their own universe.

[Snotty]

maybe god smells, or hes got a really bad sense of humour, or an obnoxious accent. the deeper we try to analyse this **** the more we realise we are debating the finer points of something no one can prove. its like physics, we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority

[Caligastia]

You can't force someone to believe something. You can only force them to pretend to believe something, what's the point of that?

Adding force to your belief that the rejection of the God concept is a good thing wouldn't necessarily entail an attempt to change the minds of those who believe. It could take the form of oppressing all religious groups - perhaps you think they are a bunch of crazies who should be locked up. Let's say you are emperor of the world...what practical policies would you enact that would affect religious groups?

If there's one of something then the conditions exist for it to exist, why can't the conditions exist for another one to appear? Seems against the laws of physics that we understand that if one thing exists that you couldn't have a similar object/being existing somewhere else where the same conditions were fulfilled. This wouldn't necessitate having another one of course those conditions could be very rare, but the universe is very big.

Interesting thoughts. Personally, I think the answer to that is at a level that is currently beyond our ability to comprehend.

[MikeH]

Basically there are billions of me, virtually identical in every way but I am exceptionally good at distinguishing the miniscule differences between us.

That's the point really, if there was a god or gods they could be absolutely anything, it seems ridiculous to pick one of the stories humans have made up about what it might be and decide that one is more plausible than the others.

And once people had researched the way you can recreate the brain stimulus that people consider to be religious experience it seems even more difficult to make the choice to follow some arbitrary religion.

But if people take some comfort from the idea of an afterlife that's cool. Dead meaning actually being dead is a bit of a head****.

[Caligastia]

maybe god smells, or hes got a really bad sense of humour, or an obnoxious accent. the deeper we try to analyse this **** the more we realise we are debating the finer points of something no one can prove. its like physics, we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority

I agree. If we are going to discuss things without evidence, we shouldn't do so with an attitude of superiority.

"we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority"

I like that...that's sig material.

[MikeH]

I don't understand believing in something without evidence, and by most common definitions of God there can never be evidence. *shrug*

Why is "you can't prove there isn't a god!" allowed to be accepted as a reasonable argument in favour?

[Snotty]

well you cant prove theres is a god either. i know that arguements full of holes but that the crux of the arguement right there

[MikeH]

The burden of proof is not on athiests though. There's no logical reason to even need to attempt do disprove God unless there was the slightest bit of evidence to support there being one/some.

[giblets]

Why is "you can't prove there isn't a god!" allowed to be accepted as a reasonable argument in favour?

Yeah, I don't get why some people insist that you need a reason to not believe in something. You need a satisfying reason to believe something exists, so if there isn't one then you don't believe in it.

[Caligastia]

I don't understand believing in something without evidence, and by most common definitions of God there can never be evidence. *shrug*

The best way I can explain it, is by saying that we all have the ability to reach out and experience God...kind of like a sixth sense that we all have but don't necessarily choose to use. Those who make the effort will have the experience, and know that it is not simply their own emotional conjurings. But a person's experience can never be presented in the form of hard evidence.

Why is "you can't prove there isn't a god!" allowed to be accepted as a reasonable argument in favour?

I agree, it isn't. But I think a reasonable person should at least be able to accept that there are things that exist that are beyond our ability to scientifically demonstrate.

[Snotty]

The burden of proof is not on athiests though.

I dont feel there is a burden of proof on either party, as their would be in a scientific debate. neither position is proveable, by any ways or means.

At the end of the day if the atheists are right then 'grats dude' you backed the right horse. youre still going to oblivion. If you follow the ideals and precedents of a compassionate religion and that was the right horse to back....what have you lost by being an upstanding citizen all your life

[Caligastia]

Well said Snotty.

[MikeH]

what is there that says an athiest can't be an upstanding citizen just because they feel it's the right thing to do?

I mean, I think I am.

I don't see why it's not a scientific debate. It should be.

[Caligastia]

what is there that says an athiest can't be an upstanding citizen just because they feel it's the right thing to do?

I think atheists are perfectly capable of being upstanding citizens.]

I don't see why it's not a scientific debate. It should be.

What is the point of having a scientific debate about something that cannot be proven scientifically either way?