It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This cartoon from Tracie Harris explains it very well: http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=33
Decisive verifiable proof is a red herring. None of us can prove that we aren't disembodied brains in a tank. So nothing can ever be proved 100% because there is always the possibility that our experiences, and all of our evidence, might not be real.
You could just as easily argue that all of us are believers because none of us can prove with 100% certainty that god does not exist.
I am an atheist, but this line of argument is going much too far.
Right, now it's over to you. If you think that America exists, the burden of proof lies with you because you are the one making the positive assertion. I can now sit back and leave it up to you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that America exists. I don't have to argue anything.
See the point? It's a false logic.
Every now and again people on either side of the God debate come up with some smart-arse logical explanation about why God either must exist or can't possibly exist. Everyone has tried it from Thomas Aquinas to Dawkins. And smart-arse explanations usually end up being exactly that - smart-arse explanations. They carry next to no weight because they usually rely on some false logic.
"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
I cannot personally put my 'faith' in the unproven. I expect evidence. That's just me. Having said that, I do believe there is more out there than we know and can see, touch, feel etc. We only have 5 senses. That doesn't mean there isn't something out there that is beyond those senses, whatever it may be. So I'm open to learning more in my lifetime through science.
What I personally cannot do is hold steadfastly to some belief for which there is no evidence, and for which more than half of the world's population does not agree, or has their own version of it. That to me is a convenient man made parable until proven otherwise. Sure, people believe in it, but people thought the world was flat too until someone showed them otherwise. Strength in numbers does not make something true - does not necessarily give it credence.......
So as I said, I'm open to suggestion. Open to changing my mind. However, the argument must be persuasive. It does not need to be conclusive mind you. Just persuasive. I have not heard anything in this thread to date that is persuasive for the existence of god.
I know a lot of people who have become believers due to something that touched them personally which they attribute to god. However, from my perspective, it could just as easily have been random chance. That is not evidence. That is not conclusive or even persuasive.
It's interesting that some will abuse you for doubting them, some will walk away from discussing it after bringing it up, because they can't argue it logically (despite their strong belief in it) and some will just not engage in a discussion at all. I can never do that on any subject. If I am to believe something strongly, I need it to meet my internal requirements for logical consistency and evidential conclusiveness - and I should be able to substantiate my belief or argument properly. Otherwise, I could be subject to delusion, which is something I try very hard to avoid. That's just me though. To each their own. I'm not here to judge......just to discuss openly.
Absolutely and completely false. There is by the way overwhelming evidence that America exists. It has already been discovered a long time ago, by the way. If I was telling you that I have killed a few people and buried them in my back garden, you would not believe me out of hand. The burden of proof would be on me (or anyone suspecting me of being a serial killer), to prove that the claim is true. The default position on any claim, especially an extraordinary one, is skepticism towards it until evidence are brought to make you think the contrary. Atheism is the default position to the God claim.
And I do not say that God does not exist for complete and utter certainty and that my opinion is unchangeable on the matter. I am saying, like actually most atheists, that we have no evidence for its existence, for one, therefore I do not believe he does, and furthermore that God's existence, while not completely impossible, is implausible. Atheism is the default position. I am very happy to change my view on the matter if someone brings me evidence on the contrary. This is even the case of Dawkins: he himself said that God is not completely impossible.
@bondjames-You are describing yourself as an atheist, whether you like the label or not (I have no problem with it). If you say there may be hypothetically a god but do not know, thus do not believe (and you said yourself you reject belief unless there is sufficient evidence for it), then you are an atheist. An agnostic can be an atheist, as agnosticism is a stand on knowledge (or the lack of), but he can also be a theist (believing in God while not claiming he has special knowledge).
The reason is simple. There is absolutely no reason why the burden of proof has to lie with the positive assertion. It's a logical fallacy.
You say that there is no evidence for existence of God. Except that is demonstrably not true. People of faith regularly produce evidence. They point to things like miracles. The fact that nearly every human civilization has had some for of God, independently arrived at. The fact that, until recently (arguably), more people believed in a God that didn't.
You might dispute these claims for evidence, but you can't deny that these claims exist. So it is silly talk to say that there is no evidence. It might be more accurate to talk about insufficient evidence or unclear evidence.
So the conclusion that atheism is the default position is just wrong. It is an attempt to win the argument outright based on flawed logic. I have seen the same sort of argument used by people of faith to prove that there must be a god. And their arguments are just as weak and insubstantial.
Go into any bookstore. Alongside Dawkin's "God Delusion" you will find several books arguing for the existence of God and why (in their opinion) Dawkins is wrong. Just as Dawkins produces his "evidence", so they too produce theirs.
Read both sides of the argument. Weigh up both sets of evidence. Decide for yourself. But please drop this line of argument that we are all atheists and there is no evidence. Because that argument is based on several logical holes and will not convince anyone.
I am an atheist. I would like more people to be atheists. But we are not going to convince them with an argument as weak as this.
Claims is no evidence, personal revelation is also no evidence. Believers have given absolutely no evidence of God's existence. Arguing that belief in God and the amount of believers is evidence of God is circular argument and argument to popularity... and pointless to assert the validity of a claim. "I believe in Zeus, so does my fellow Greeks, ergo, Zeus must exist, I mean, if he didn't, why would we believe in him?"
And, by the way, you are making the logical fallacy by shifting the burden of proof: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof
PS anyone feel free to start a thread on why Unicorns, flying pigs, lucky heather, ghosts, mind readers, time travelers , talking rats, spiders on Mars, UFO visits exist because you can't prove they don't so clearly , believers deserve to be respected.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33039815
First off I will prove that there will never be a god, as the existence is impossible. It's logic, baby!
God, by essence, is a 'super natural' beeing, I think we'll all agree. Which would mean God can do things that the laws of physics do not allow. But there's a catch. Science, in essence, searches for explanations of all happenings. When something is registered, science will try to recreate it and thus explain it. So, when science finally finds this 'God' beeing, it will adjust nature's laws in such a way that the proven existence of the 'supernatural'behaviour is explained, making it..... natural! With no 'super' to be found. Hence, there's no way a god can exist.
So, where does this feeling of 'there's more between heaven and earth' come from? Well, perhaps we know more then we do. As we, perhaps, are predestined. Eh? say what? say science! http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/?ts_pid=2
Schrodinger's cat got a lot of litter!
I have decided that I was being hasty and to return to the debates in this thread in the continued interests of balance lest we be outweighed by atheist argument! I wish to stand up for my faith and indeed faith in general and this arena seems as good a place as any to discuss such matters. The arguments have been good, on both sides.
Well said, @timmer. See my article here ('Musings on James Bond and Religion') for my thoughts on the matter:
http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/musings-on-james-bond-and-religion.html
I'd love to hear your views on this article. :)
I agree, it's always good to read both sides of an interesting debate. One which likely will never result in agreement - these discussions have been going on for centuries!
I had a chance to reread @timmer's post above carefully this time, since I admit that I didn't really do that the first time as it was quite long.
From my perspective, what he is describing above are 'human' values. He has embraced the Christian faith that shares these values, but the values themselves are essentially human. That's what I get from reading his post. Why? Because I am not Christian or of any faith, and I have not read scripture, and yet I embrace all of the above values that he describes.
Arguably, the Beatles said it best- i.e. "All You Need is Love. Love is All You Need". We don't need Jesus or Mohammed to figure that out. Compassion for fellow man/woman (or fellow living beings, including trees, dogs, etc. and especially those different from us), along with a purpose driven existence to do good are human attributes. The ability to be swayed to do bad, or 'evil' are also, sadly, human attributes.
Like @timmer (and most intelligent people with a sense of humility) I have wrested with my place in the world. What it all means. Why we're all here. Is there something bigger than us. Why is life unfair. Why do some succeed and some not. etc. etc.
I have also observed...... I see the good, the bad, in all of us. Of all faiths. Those who subscribe to faith and those who don't. Quite frankly, I don't see any difference. I see religious people behaving like buffoons and I see aethiests doing the same. It's true that if one is following religious values at their purest, then one should not commit bad acts, but sadly, no one does that. As @timmer says, "we all like to form our own morality, and naturally we clash, which is what causes much of the strife in the world."
So, one of the problems I have with religion - given my observation that both the religious and the non-religious are capable of absolute barbarism in the name of doing good - is that it is a sort of club, and like all clubs, it runs the risk of creating a false sense of relative righteousness and exclusivity, at the expense of inclusion. That is not because of any problem with religion itself, but rather with the tendency for the human ego to get in the way......i.e. because of the tendency for humans to assume that because they are religious or of a certain denomination, they are in some way superior, or closer to the divine or spiritual than the rest of us. That to me is a load of bull.... Witness the Irish Catholic/Protestant conflicts, or the current Middle East Sunni/Shia ones. Whether one wants to admit it or not, these conflicts are/were mainly about religion, and different interpretations of the unknown. How absolutely idiotic!
Additionally, just because one does not subscribe to one of the major religions or faiths does not mean that one is not spiritual. One does not need scripture or answers to be spiritual.....to be respectful of our minion status in the universe,.to realize that we are all judged, whether by the simple laws of action and reaction (physics) or god.....To not be accepting of that is to be an idiot of another kind imho....
So religion and religious teachings are best taken with a pinch of salt from my perspective. Like a good story or a good fairy tale, they can teach morality.....they can teach correct behaviour......but they must not be taken literally. It is the literal interpretation which is dangerous in my opinion. Why? Because if the literal interpretation were correct, then whether you like it or not, you are essentially saying that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Judaism, to Islam. That is an inherently dangerous conclusion to draw, especially when there is limited or no evidence to back it up. That is where conflict begins because over time these attitudes get seared into the subconscious to the point where they become fact.
My view on this thing is that religion can help someone to find spirituality.....to transcend one's ego....to accept one's relative unimportance in the world, but it is only one way. Not the only way........and certainly not gospel (no pun intended).
I read your blog on Bond, and learnt a lot from it which I did not know, as I've not read many of the novels (shameful I know!). Well written and researched. I think you're correct that he may have been born a Presbyterian Protestant (since he assumed many of Fleming's character) but I don't think there is any evidence that the man is/was religious - moral definitely, but certainly no evidence of religion.
I think, in your article, the evidence is, shall we say, at best circumstantial. The slaying of a dragon is not a religious theme, as there are many non-christian folklore tales of slaying dragons. And even if it was meant to be St. Gearge, which, as I recall, he even says too, it would be his best reference, as St. George is England's patron saint.
In the end, you conclude that Bond is a practising Presbytarian. But I can't agree on that. I myself have a Protestant background, about two generations back. And yes, that would give Bond a certain set of values, but says nothing about actually practising the religion (as you might have deducted, as an example, I'm not religious).
Might as well keep this one. Two threads would be far too depressing.
A darn shame it happened again. But at least the French police knows their job.
I'm being sarcastic of course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140454/Tourists-run-lives-Tunisian-beach-gunman-carries-attack-outside-hotel-packed-Britons.html
yes, the violence continues