Yuku free message boards

I agree Andria, I've lost count of the number of times a religious person has defended their belief in god to me by saying, "you can't disprove god's existence". And of course, they're right, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a mythical being either way. Very few people dispute this, the only difference is people's response - religious people decide that god must then exist, agnostics decide that this is absurd.

It's absurd because if you follow that line of reasoning, you could believe in (literally) anything. All you need to do is propose the existence of some untestable phenomenon, and then rationalise this position by saying, "well nobody can prove it doesn't exist". This is how many people reason, and it's a recipe for believing in all kinds of absurdity. I call myself an agnostic because like everyone else I don't have the luxury of being able to prove for sure that there isn't a god out there. But we shouldn't mistake this for 50:50 agnosticism - my agnosticism is a footnote which recognises my limitation, but in practice this is atheism. I'm a garden fairy agnostic too, in principle, but in practice this is garden fairy atheism.

There is an exception to this in that some people say (as the JWs do) that "creation" is evidence enough. First of all, some people just use this as a circular argument, defining everything they see as created, and concluding there's a creator. Others are more "sophisticated" (but not much more), and say that life is "irreducably complex". Dawkins melts this argument brilliantly in The God Delusion, first by noting that any creator would have to infinitely more complex (amongst other things) and is therefore subject to the same argument, so we're back to square one if we are seeking to explain away complexity. Secondly he shows that evolution is not a chance process, this is a straw man and a favourite argument of the WT society.

Chance has never been an explanation for the development of life and never will be. If our choice was between "god" and "chance" we'd be screwed, since neither of them have any explanatory power, especially the god choice, since that one is infinitely regressive and just pushes the requirement for explanation to one side. The real choice to begin with was between "chance" and "natural selection", and as the word selection implies, it is not a random process, and whether it is the environment (natural) or breeder (artifical) which effects the selection, it is not a chance process (the origin of genetic variation has a random element, but that is irrelevant). Abiogenesis might one day explain how we got here, but we can be sure that the origin will be simpler than the result.

So for people to run others down for not believing in god is disappointing - many of society's most thinking people decide that agnosticism (with a strong dose of skepticism) is the most logical position.