User talk:MrE

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, MrE. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Hi.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific Proof of Atheism"

There is actually a fair amount of proof -- surveys, testimonials, a number of formal groups of atheists -- that atheism exists. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

But what evidence is there that there is no God?--MrE (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any. The Null Hypothesis means you need to prove the existence of god rather than disprove a hypothetical conjecture. Just as you cannot prove that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn guiding the fate the of the USA or a teapot orbiting the Sun. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

EC That's not what you posted. Your post implied that you thought that there was no proof of the existence of atheism. As for scientifically proving the non-existence of God, that's a boring old argument that's been had a million times. I'm not interested in rehashing it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Null Hypothesis means you need to prove the existence of god rather than disprove a hypothetical conjecture."

You guys should read Summa Theologia and untighten your fedoras.MrE (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What evidence is that there is no Father Christmas?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[ec] You mean Summa Theologica? No, thanks, it cuts no ice with me. Unexamined, flawed assumptions, for starters. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I am unfamiliar with Summa Theologia, unless you meant Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which doesn't prove anything. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm The first paragraph is nothing more than argument from popularity so I stopped reading. I don't feel like wading through a sea of bullshit, would you care to point out which parts you feel are convincing?

Scientific proof of atheism cannot be furnished for the same reason that scientific disproof of, say, idealism or Last Thursdayism can be furnished. That doesn't mean we're particularly obligated to take those options seriously, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has come, in recent years, to embrace belief in God....

...just shut up and believe in God. Topics like the nature of God, the question of His existence, what, if anything, His plan might be, how, if anything, He might want us to live, are rarely productively discussed in the spirit of trying to convince another person that they are wrong and you are right. I have come to have faith in the existence of God, but I do not know He exists, and I cannot prove it. Likewise, I do not expect anyone else to logically/scientifically prove that their notion of the divine--or the non-existence thereof--is correct. Whatever. I ain't out to convert anyone, and participating in unwinnable internet debates doesn't bring me any closer to grace, or salvation, or peace, or a sense that I'm doing what God/Jesus/Allah/Jah/The Great Cosmic Muffin wants. Try not to be a dick, and try to have an open mind and heart. Whatever else, try not to be a dick. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sophie^Wilder 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that the idea of settling the existence of God, the Supreme Being, in the back pages of a philosophy journal or, even worse, an internet discussion board seems pretty blasphemous from a theist perspective. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"nothing created nothing which exploded and randomly created self-replicating things that became self-conscious life"

Actually the first nothing could be a number of things, none of which are 'nothing'. The secondly it created everything, existence itself but there was no explosion rather a rapid inflation in all 4 dimensions. Finally there was nothing random about the self-replicating as it is a natural chemical process that while not very well understood is thought to have lead to the spark of life.
So an F for understanding and another F for originality. Keep up the good work. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)