Is there a gods?

Generally, films struggle to fuck things, but any films about ethno-musicologists are physically capable according to Wikipedia. As is the fact that Jim Bowen was elected Pope, the other day.

 

 

 In a world where Wikipedia is proof and where anything without proof is without value, I have to come to terms with the fact that although Jim Bowen is the new Pope, the God that he serves does not exist.




In the big debacle that rages between Atheists and Believers on a daily basis, one of the most valued weapons of the Atheist is this: There is no proof that God exists and as such I don't believe that God exists.

Personally, I find the burden of proof a little bit of a red herring. If a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear it then it is a fallen tree and noise and stuff or whatever the philosophical question answer type thing is.

There are hundreds of gods, that isn't me confirming the existence of gods, perish the thought. I would be taken to task by the Dawkinites for creating all the wars and perpetrating racism, slavery, the spread of disease, only it isnt actually religion that does this... it is humans that do. There is a lot of evidence that will back this up.



But there is evidence that all of the bad things done by humans are done by humans.

The next line of argument here is that all of the bad things done by humans have been done in the name of religion... there is evidence to suggest this.



This is the main evidence that Atheists go for.

By doing this they neglect the fact that Stalin was an Atheist and killed twice as many people.





And it ignores the fact that people do good things in the name of religion too. The red cross for example began as a christian institution, as did the salvation army.

Of course, all this is well off the point of whether there is a god or a supernature of some description or other, but this is generally where the arguing goes. Mud is slung and it all gets heated, although neither side admit that they are frustrated both are.

If proof is necessary to confirm the existence of a supernature then I would have thought that the other side of that coin would be to deny its existence would need the same amount of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

As John Locke said, lack of proof does not equate to proof itself.

The worst thing about these arguments that occur every day on the battleground for humanities soul... (or the internet) is that religion and atheism are simply fronts, both of them, to do what the person who changed the Wikipedia entry on Jim Bowen did: To troll. The arguments that routinely pop up are completely pointless and counteract each other. Like electrons and protons in a nucleus.

Neutrons are also found in a nucleus and although they don't seem to have a purpous if you listen to the teachers in C1 GCSE (there is very little discussion on Neutrons apart from the mention that they are in the middle of atoms and have no charge and that they are the reason isotopes exist) well they hold atoms together, if there were just a load of protons with a positive charge in the middle of an atom then the positive charge will repel all of the protons in the nucleus and the atom will just cease to exist.



If electrons, which contain a negative charge, are atheists and protons, which contain a positive charge, are theists, then I am probably going to fall into the category of a neutron, someone who doesn't really give a shit either way; by finishing off on comparing the belief non belief and agnisticism to an atom, I have veered off the point that I was initially trying to make, but both believers and atheists do that as well, so why shouldnt I?