# Do you believe in God?



## The RainMaker (Dec 16, 2014)

I like to think there is. But I'm not religious or anything. I live my life to the best of my ability and moral code, and if when I die, there's a God that accepts me for that, then great, if not, that's okay too.


----------



## TheLapsedFan (Jan 13, 2017)

I don't believe in god.
I'm not devoted to anything but my wife and daughter.
I'm not converted.
I stopped believing the second my parents took me out of Sunday school when I was 7. Shockingly enough, I just found out within the last year that I'm not baptized (I'm 36) which I'm pretty happy about.

My in-laws whom I'm very close with are extremely religious but I'd hope if I died tomorrow, they wouldn't say a single fucking prayer. I don't want or need them.

Fuck "god". Believe in yourself.


----------



## Mox Girl (Sep 29, 2014)

I don't believe in God, and I'm an atheist.

My parents never raised me to believe in any religion, they let me pick my own path and atheism is where I ended up. My Grandma is deeply religious though, she's Catholic and used to go to church every week until she got too old to do so. I never told her I was an atheist, lol.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

The god threads are always entertaining.

opcorn


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

yes I believe in Bob Dylan I have even been to his shows why do you ask???


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

I am a deist.


----------



## Mastodonic (Oct 11, 2015)

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?


----------



## NoodFactor (Jan 30, 2017)

I believe in Satan.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I am God.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

No, mainly because I wasn't brainwashed as a child. I was christened and went to christian based schools but I always saw it as baloney. I was always ambivelent to religion, it was a benign nothing to me. Then 9/11 hit and out come people like Dawkins and I realised how manevolent and awful religion is (even the cute cuddly new wave kind).



> The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.


 - Dawkins.

Reading the God delusion was a fantastic wake up for me.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Instead of the bible my dad just read Tolkien to me. It was nice.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

I was raised a Muslim. When I went through my edgy new atheism phase, I started hating religion and got really arrogant and annoying towards religious people. Then I realized that I was over-compensating for having found another excuse to wallow in my existential dread and was misplacing my anger at my own detachment from the group that raised me and made me who I am towards them and others that believe what they do. Then I accepted that my religious upbringing despite its flaws didn't destroy me, but rather a religious schooling in a catholic school gave me a deeper appreciation for different cultures. In fact, without my christian school, I probably would never have had white friends nor a white wife. 

For converts to atheism, it's much to easy to ignore the virtues of religion at an early age.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm not religious myself but i believe everyone should have a right to believe whatever they want.


----------



## nucklehead88 (Dec 17, 2012)

No. Religion spreads more hate and violence than any other reason.


----------



## Cooper09 (Aug 24, 2016)

I'm kind of weird, because I despise religion, but I believe in a higher power - not a god - but something there. It might be subconsciously a comfort thing for me.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I have no clue whether a God exists or not. And really couldn't care less. I think if one does exist then it doesn't give a shit about us. 

I do not believe in religion. I hate religion. That's not to say I hate religious people as that is absolutely not true. My entire family are very religious and I never see that changing. I just live with their constant religious stuff and they never bother me with it so it's all good.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. *


----------



## Heath V (Apr 9, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

RipNTear said:


> In fact, without my christian school, I probably would never have had white friends nor a white wife.


I'm confused how it had to be a Christian school for you to have white friends? Could it not have been a secular school with predominantly white people?


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

there is no god, therefore nothing to believe in.

but if anyone wants to then carry on, none of my business.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

Meh. Don't know, don't really care. 

I can't control it so whatever.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Nope.

An outdated concept with far less backing to it then what should be acceptable for an origin of the universe. Not only outdated, but constantly changing in every religion to fix the flaws exposed by scientific discovery. 

And if a god does exist then he might as well be satan with the way shit played out on earth with one species completely dominating most of the others and controlling their fates.


----------



## Mastodonic (Oct 11, 2015)

An omniscient sky wizard who apparently loves us all yet punishes us for disobeying him? Don't worry if your life's miserable, just be good and you'll go to 'heaven' when you die? Just a load of old shite made up back in ye olden days to manipulate the ignorant masses.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

I believe in Dionysus


----------



## THE HAITCH (May 18, 2016)

God's marks are some of the most idiotic marks on the planet-uhh.

They're just like Cena marks-uhh.

Just like Cena marks they're childish.

Just like Cena marks, they believe in a guy that they can't see.

:tripsscust


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

ITT: almost everyone confusing the belief of a god with being religious... :mj


----------



## Blackbeard (Apr 23, 2014)

I believe in Aphrodite. :abed


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

No.


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

THE HAITCH said:


> Just like Cena marks, they believe in a guy that they can't see.
> 
> :tripsscust


alright this got me


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

I'm an atheist and former Roman Catholic. 

As to what lead to this change, it had been some time in the making, reaching a tipping point over four years ago. But the short of it is that I don’t see the hand of an all loving, knowing and powerful God at work in the world; rather, I see a God who does his hardest to remain hidden and everything unfolding in a way that one would expect if such a God was not active in the world or simply didn’t exist. I find myself in an universe in which no process attests to God's activity within it.

While I am an atheist now, I do not consider myself a strong/militant atheist, that is, I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Nor do I have a penchant for bashing God or religion. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists. But as new evidence can always emerge which can change one’s mind, I do not adopt the strong/militant stance as some atheists do.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

God is chance.

God is consequence.

God is The Way of Things.

God is black coffee.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I'm confused how it had to be a Christian school for you to have white friends? Could it not have been a secular school with predominantly white people?


Not when you consider that the vast majority of people from my particular race and religious background struggle with truly getting over their disdain and distrust of Christians and Jews.


----------



## DA (Nov 22, 2012)

100% No


----------



## Jersey (Jun 24, 2014)

Yeah because believe it or not we live in a spiritual world. Many call it Law of attraction, blessings, or even good karma but it comes from the most high. I don't go to church because that's bogus, a scam and manipulation. But that's another story.


----------



## 256097 (Aug 11, 2013)

Religion will eventually die, primarily due to our rapid rate of scientific advancement.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Blackbeard said:


> I believe in Aphrodite. :abed


I believe in Eros!


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

Fic Rlair said:


> Religion will eventually die, primarily due to our rapid rate of scientific advancement.


People in general may move away from traditional forms of religion but that doesn't necessarily means that doing so will lead to them becoming more rational or scientifically minded or that they won't embrace a cult like mentality. Look no further than what is happening in the west with present day "liberals" and their regressive mindset which has spawned a cultish like behavior among those labeled SJWs and feminists.


----------



## SovereignVA (Jan 3, 2012)

Only until recently.

Raised as a Christian for 20 years because I was scared of going to hell, until one day I was just like "I'll go to hell before this stuff starts making sense".


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

Fic Rlair said:


> Religion will eventually die, primarily due to our rapid rate of scientific advancement.


There are predictions that Islam will equal or even overtake Christianity in the USA within I think it was 30-40 years.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

I'm a Catholic. I abandoned religion for a while during my teenage years and early twenties but returned to it once I decided to give a fair hearing to the other side of the debate. I spent a few months avidly reading books by various theologians and came to the conclusion that all things considered, the probability of theism is more than sufficiently high.

I was actually really surprised to see how intellectually curious many believers are. The idea that all religious people are backwards, science-denying hicks is a misrepresentation. All competent theologians embrace scientific scrutiny rather than trying to circumvent it. Reading John Lennox in particular was the turning point that convinced me that God exists. He writes extensively about the different types of explanations for reality, and the limitations of science in offering explanations for the "why" questions that lie outside observable physical reality yet are all perfectly reasonable questions to ask. While certainly not a novel argument, his variation of it was articulated very well and made some supporting points that I had never considered before.

I'm fairly devout, and I'm fascinated by the debate as a whole, but I try to not get sucked into arguments about it anymore. Almost all of my friends are atheists. I figure if they ever come to believe, it certainly won't be through me "winning" a debate against any of them. It's the most important question of all, and people can only come to a satisfactory personal answer by taking the time to look into both sides of the argument on their own. I think there's a fundamental difference in the way theists and atheists view the concept of God. If we could come to some consensus on what we all mean when we say "God", these debates probably wouldn't go around in circles as often as they do.


----------



## Born of Osiris (Oct 29, 2013)

No.


----------



## ste1592 (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm not sure about it; years ago, the closest definition I could think of "myself believing in God" was that I believed in the existence of a neutral deity who is there but doesn't act at all, nor cares if we worship him or not.

To those familiar with Marvel comics, it's something similar to Uatu the Watcher.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Everyone believes in God. Society simply forces people in the western world to move away from such belief so they can devote their life to money...thus making the corporations that run our governments and minds more money.


----------



## VampDude (May 24, 2011)

Nope...

Because there is absolutely no reason (in my personal opinion) to believe.

Each and every person, is their own being in which it is up to them if they fail or succeed in life. Just because a successful businessman believes in God, does not mean that his fortunes were granted on a stand alone belief. Because, what of the homeless bums? 90% of them believe in God, yet they are pretty much further from redemption as the next one, because God, did not make them homeless or unemployed.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

In a way, but not as the op suggests.

Some pagan paths have a 'God' that's hard for those more familiar with typical monotheistic belief systems to put in context. While I can't speak for other faiths, I can explain about about my own.

Basically, I'm semi-polytheistic. Places can have resident spirits that embody 'godlike' qualities. There are also elemental spirits related to, say, water or earth. Then there are Goddesses and Gods, and this is where it gets tricky to pin down a definition.



Spoiler: An attempt to define 'god' for my brand of paganism



There are many sorts of pagans, and among those are some witches. Some witches are pagans and others are not. Some of those pagan witches are Wiccans*** and some are not, though most North American/Western European/Australian folks think pagan witch = Wiccan. I am a pagan witch but I'm not a Wiccan, though close enough that overlap exists. 

Neopagan witches, who are more often than not either from closed family trads or some form of Wicca, generally (but not all) have a Goddess and (in most traditions) a God who may, or may not, be aspects of a singular cosmic energy that is both transcendent deity and within every individual, including oneself. They may have names for a paired singular God and Goddess who are relatable aspects of the one or they may call on various Goddesses and Gods in countless forms who may, or may not, also be manifestations of the one. Many British and Celtic witches and Wiccans (and other europagans) often incorporate genii loci (spirit of place; sacred wells being a classic example), fairies. elementals and suchlike into their system. 

*** Wicca, as a new religion, was influenced by the old ways passed down in certain families blended with ideas borrowed from European occult/secret societies and eastern religions. 

Another sort of paganism with multiple Gods/Goddesses and genii loci appears in Native North American spirituality, which tends to be more traditionally polytheistic. American Wicca, more so than British or Celtic Wicca, draws heavily on aboriginal shamanic traditions.



So back to where I left off.

One (nearly) universal belief among western pagan witches is that deity is immanent (and sometimes both immanent and transcendent, but never just transcendent). That means deity is present in the world and within all life as opposed to a watcher/creator from afar. The familiar book religions of the west have a transcendent God. The importance of this difference cannot be overstated. 

Because my deity is immanent, the Earth and the life it supports is sacred to me. All of it. Our world is not a gift from deity for humans to exploit but is a manifestation of the same deity as am I, and you, and the person sitting next to you and the cat curled up in your lap. 

I seek guidance from various Gods and Goddesses but I don't worship or pray to deity. I access it within myself and within nature. There is no desire to reach a higher existence by denial of worldly pleasures; instead, such are sacred and to be thankful for. I believe in spirit of place and seek wisdom from trees, streams and power spots. 

So yes, I believe in 'god(s)', but perhaps not God.


----------



## Mutant God (Sep 9, 2015)

I believe there is a God


----------



## Mra22 (May 29, 2014)

Yes, I believe in GOD, I am a devout Christian, my denomination is Pentecostal. I have seen people get healed and I have been healed myself. I know GOD exists, the universe itself proves it.


----------



## VitoCorleoneX (Jun 27, 2016)

Yes i believe in God for the simple fact that the world the universe is just to damn perfect to be just a coincidence.
There must be a higher power.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Yes, this world is "too perfect". We have air to breath, food to eat, water to drink, and the right temperature. You won't find that anywhere else in our solar system.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

i believe in a thing called love

also i believe that the story of the life and ministry of jesus as told in the gospels is accurate and if it is accurate then God exists and there's no reason for me to not believe He does


----------



## DaRealNugget (Nov 26, 2014)

do i believe in a bearded man in the clouds? no. 

but whatever God is, he is surely too complex for anybody here to comprehend in our present state of mind. for fucks sake, take a look at the scale of the universe, http://htwins.net/scale2/

imagine the pure power and intelligence it would take to create something so vast and intricate, with such incredible detail. and people like to pretend they know what type of being God is or what it desires for mankind. smh

in my opinion, it is of the utmost arrogance to either, a) claim with any certainty that there is no God or b) claim with any certainty to know there is a god and what that god is, what it wants(if it has any desires), whom it cares about(if it has any feeling), or what it's purpose for us is.

when i look up into the stars at night, the only thing i know for certain about God, the afterlife, or the universe itself, is that i know absolutely nothing.

that being said, to answer the OP, i do choose to believe in God. but I'll make no claims about it.


----------



## Not Lying (Sep 9, 2013)

DaRealNugget said:


> do i believe in a bearded man in the clouds? no.
> 
> but whatever God is, he is surely too complex for anybody here to comprehend in our present state of mind. for fucks sake, take a look at the scale of the universe, http://htwins.net/scale2/
> 
> ...


My exact feelings.


----------



## I drink and I know things (Feb 7, 2010)

I consider myself agnostic, but I am extremely skeptical of religion. The idea of a personal "God" watching over us and judging what we do is nonsensical to me and has been since I was a little kid.

I was raised Catholic and my parents made me get confirmed although I didn't believe. This was because it would "break my grandparent's hearts" if I didn't get confirmed. My mom is half-ass Catholic who professes her belief but barely ever goes to church. My dad is agnostic. 

When I got married a few years back, I did a ceremony converting to Islam (Shiite). Most of my wife's family are still in Iran. We want to have kids and Iran is a very patriarchal society. Supposedly, the papers from my conversion will help us avoid issues if we want to bring any kids we may have to visit family in Iran. 

My wife is a non believer, who pretends to believe when she goes to Iran. Her dad and step mom are non believers who pretend to believe when they go to Iran. Her mom claims to be a believer but as best I can tell, she believes in a god that exists only to punish people who don't treat her well...


----------



## 256097 (Aug 11, 2013)

Stinger Fan said:


> There are predictions that Islam will equal or even overtake Christianity in the USA within I think it was 30-40 years.


Try not to think in the scope of your lifetime, how about 100 years, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 etc. Religion will die eventually, our rate of advancement will lead us to a point that every aspect of religion will likely be able to be refuted with hard fact.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Oh boy this thread again?

I believe that I am god basically, so yes. 

You are all my creations, and based on some of you, I should quit drugs for a bit.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

enough to say GODDAMN


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

stevefox1200 said:


> enough to say GODDAMN


Jesus Christ, I love taking that lawdy lawds name in vein.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

*No. Believing in God defeats the purpose of all that is. We aren't the result of what we created. God exist because humans have decided that this is what they want. Humans have come up with so many God(s) and all sort of magical beings. We live, we die, we live, we die, etc. *


----------



## Mr.Amazing5441 (Jun 20, 2015)

The thing about religion, is that it is a very risky gamble. Like Russian Roulette.

Because there are two types of people, guys who dont really believe and people who, and for the people who do, they are divided into subcategories of different religions.

Now only one option is correct and there are no hard evidence of which one is most true. So the best you can do is believe (or not), and stick to it and hope that its the right one. Because if its the wrong one, you spent your life dedicating yourself to a belief that turned out wrong, making your existence completely useless and/or fucked.

But I myself am a muslim.

My question is, to all those who converted away from what they were born as, what did your parents/grandparents think when you broke the news of you leaving their religion or religio in general.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

I don't but I think it's clearly been a great for some in their personal lives. I have an uncle who's a minister and I'd be lying if isn't good for his life. As long as you decipher what's truly wrong in you're religious text (ie hating folk be it gay or off other religions) then I say believe away. I went through my religious folk are dumb atheist stage early. As long as you let me not believe in peace, and don't harm others in the name of your God, then pray away

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Fic Rlair said:


> Try not to think in the scope of your lifetime, how about 100 years, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 etc. Religion will die eventually, our rate of advancement will lead us to a point that every aspect of religion will likely be able to be refuted with hard fact.


Religion will never die, and it is all but impossible to refute anything with hard fact.


----------



## rennlc (Feb 22, 2011)

I don't care enough to pick an answer to the question of whether or not God exists. Rather than waste a single moment of my time, I'm instead simply going to continue to be an increasingly good person. If there is a God and He has a problem with that, then he's not God.


----------



## JafarMustDie (Dec 18, 2014)

Of course I do. I love God & my religion.

You can believe in whatever you want tho, it'll decide your afterlife.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

I don't really care enough if a deity exists or not. I don't concern myself with one's existence as it ultimately doesn't matter to anything I do in life, anything I accomplish, the people I love, etc. It's immaterial. If one exists, they don't care enough either. If one doesn't, so be it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

rennlc said:


> I don't care enough to pick an answer to the question of whether or not God exists. Rather than waste a single moment of my time,* I'm instead simply going to continue to be an increasingly good person. If there is a God and He has a problem with that, then he's not God.*


False. The almighty Cthulhu's power is beyond your comprehension, his omnipotence is irrefutable. He cares not for your feeble attempts at living a moral life. You exist because he allows it, and you will end because he demands it. All will answer the call of the Great Dreamer.


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> False. The almighty Cthulhu's power is beyond your comprehension, his omnipotence is irrefutable. He cares not for your feeble attempts at living a moral life. You exist because he allows it, and you will end because he demands it. All will answer the call of the Great Dreamer.


only when the great corpse city of r'lyeh rises above the waves so the great priest Cthulhu can touch the minds of the faithful and begin the great shouting and reveling and killing and Cthulhu will teach mankind new ways to shout and revel and kill and enjoy themselves as they will become like the Great Old Ones themselves, free of laws and morals


----------



## rennlc (Feb 22, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> False. The almighty Cthulhu's power is beyond your comprehension, his omnipotence is irrefutable. He cares not for your feeble attempts at living a moral life. You exist because he allows it, and you will end because he demands it. All will answer the call of the Great Dreamer.


Have you read any Lovecraft, Camille?


----------



## Dibil13 (Apr 29, 2016)

No and I really can't recall a time that I ever did. Even as a child the whole thing was just too fanciful to me.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

I am Catholic but not crazy religious so yes


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

i believe nothing :armfold


----------



## Dibil13 (Apr 29, 2016)

Fic Rlair said:


> Try not to think in the scope of your lifetime, how about 100 years, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 etc. Religion will die eventually, our rate of advancement will lead us to a point that every aspect of religion will likely be able to be refuted with hard fact.


*42%* of Americans still believe in creationism. Not one scrap of evidence yet it has the support of nearly half of those living in the world's most advanced nation. Never underestimate people's ability to deny things they don't want to accept, even with mountains of evidence staring them in the face. Religion will diminish but it will never die.


----------



## Jam (Nov 6, 2015)

There's more proof of spiderman than there is of god


----------



## Fluffy|McDoodle|Kitten (Sep 2, 2014)

I am not religious, but I am spiritual

I do not believe in a higher being

I dislike church as an institution and I think it's phony and most people who attend are probably phonies as well.

I couldn't begin to tell what the first words are in (any) Bible.

I have my own moral compass that I live by and feel as long I do right by me and I don't bring harm to others...then I'm doing this life thing alright.

The majority of my friends are agnostic or atheist.

That pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Mr.Amazing5441 said:


> Now only one option is correct and there are no hard evidence of which one is most true. .


Thats not true is it, seeing as there are hundreds of religions, that fact everyone thinks the one they just so happened to be born in to is the correct one because they're told that from birth is obviously not a coincidence. 








VitoCorleoneX said:


> Yes i believe in God for the simple fact that the world the universe is just to damn perfect to be just a coincidence.
> There must be a higher power.


The universe is the biggest waste of space ever created and you'll die in 99.9% of it and will eventually kill all of us, it is the exact opposite of perfect. This is the same kind of nonsense religious people spout about evolution and the eye, oh how can something so perfect happen by chance...

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

A question to atheists:

Do you deny God exists?

Or do you just not believe in Him?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> A question to atheists:
> 
> Do you deny God exists?
> 
> Or do you just not believe in Him?


There is no evidence a god exists, thus there is no reason to believe in god.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> There is no evidence a god exists, thus there is no reason to believe in god.


So you think there is zero possibility God can exist? Have you based it on evidence and studies or have you based it on your own personal assumption?

That's what I always try to get to the bottom of when speaking to atheists.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> So you think there is zero possibility God can exist? Have you based it on evidence and studies or have you based it on your own personal assumption?
> 
> That's what I always try to get to the bottom of when speaking to atheists.


That is no what I said. I said there is no evidence a god exists. 

Is it possible? Sure, just like its possible unicorns exist. 

If you want to show me proof or evidence god exists, then I would believe in god. Just like I would in unicorns.

Your question have I based it on evidence and studies does not make any sense. There is no evidence god exists. how can you have evidence a god does not exist? 

I base not believing in a god on lack of any evidence a god exists.

You have to prove god exists, I dont have to prove god does not exist


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

The5star_Kid said:


> So you think there is zero possibility God can exist? Have you based it on evidence and studies or have you based it on your own personal assumption?
> 
> That's what I always try to get to the bottom of when speaking to atheists.


This is just as good an argument for a purple chimaera existing on Pluto, I hope you realize.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

So if i believe in a mythical dragon from a pc game that eats the world in the end, does that mean i would be insane? And how would people justify i'm insane if they believe in invisible man from the sky? :maisie


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

It's always amusing to me when people that believe in God start trying to give facts and evidence.

The FACT is that there is no evidence for any all-powerful being having created, or being in control in any way, of the planet, the solar system, the universe.
The whole POINT of religion is to base your belief in God on FAITH. "Faith" is the belief in something, despite the absence of evidence.

People like to say that Scientists are just as blinkered in their "faith" as Religious people are. That is demonstrably bullshit.

The practise of Religion is the IGNORING of fact in order to uphold a belief in something that has no evidence. That is the definition of "Faith".
The ever-changing beliefs of the Scientific community are based on fact and evidence. Show us new evidence and we will change our beliefs to incorporate that.

"You can't DISPROVE the existence of God" is a completely idiotic thing to say. If you believe in God because there is no evidence against the existence of God, then you may as well claim that you believe in a million other inventions of fiction. Do you believe in actual wizards, because someone wrote about them in a book and there's no "evidence" that they don't really exist? What about hobbits? Xenomorphs? Wookies?

There's no evidence that Wookies don't really exist. Sure, no one has ever seen one in real life. But no one has recorded evidence that they "saw" God either.
Maybe we should go to church every week and pray to Chewbacca.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> There is no evidence a god exists, thus there is no reason to believe in god.


Spot on as usual Mr Massacre.

you can make anything up you like and then put the onus on someone to prove that it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that it does.

just as a slight aside, when an atheist says believe and a creationist says believe it does have slightly different subtle meanings. Generally speaking


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

greasykid1 said:


> It's always amusing to me when people that believe in God start trying to give facts and evidence.
> 
> The FACT is that there is no evidence for any all-powerful being having created, or being in control in any way, of the planet, the solar system, the universe.
> The whole POINT of religion is to base your belief in God on FAITH. "Faith" is the belief in something, despite the absence of evidence.
> ...


Another thing to add that believers always try to do and it's pretty disingenuous, is when an atheist says they don't believe in god and the believer turns that into oh so you are saying god does not exist trying to trap a non believe into making a positive claim. The do this so they can shift the burden of proof to the non-believer even though they are making a positive claim god exists. So then instead of having to prove god exists they can just argue over who has the burden of proof.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I do tend to like Christians more than most Atheists, who are unrepentant big government types, though. In my country a Christian's primary religion (Christianity) doesn't really play any role in my life. The big government Atheists on the other hand, their primary religion steals half my money (and they want it to take even more), makes me jump through hoops to avoid being stolen from more or kidnapped or murdered if I resist, uses the stolen money to kill other people and make their family wanna kill me, like I had something to do with it (lol jk all that shit is funded with the stuff they printed and ruined our economy with), and just in general interferes with my most basic economic choices. Of course, the Christian follows this religion as well, usually, but they tend to practice somewhat of a less malignant strand of it, and are more sympathetic with my concerns about the whole thing.

It's true though, God doesn't exist. There is no afterlife, just the eternal void. That argument is pretty airtight. For whatever all that's worth.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I do tend to like Christians more than most Atheists, who are unrepentant big government types, though. In my country a Christian's primary religion (Christianity) doesn't really play any role in my life. The big government Atheists on the other hand, their primary religion steals half my money (and they want it to take even more), makes me jump through hoops to avoid being stolen from more or kidnapped or murdered if I resist, uses the stolen money to kill other people and make their family wanna kill me, like I had something to do with it (lol jk all that shit is funded with the stuff they printed and ruined our economy with), and just in general interferes with my most basic economic choices. Of course, the Christian follows this religion as well, usually, but they tend to practice somewhat of a less malignant strand of it, and are more sympathetic with my concerns about the whole thing.
> 
> *It's true though, God doesn't exist. There is no afterlife, just the eternal void. That argument is pretty airtight. For whatever all that's worth*.


who really wants to live forever in an afterlife though right? Wouldn't that be a special kind of hell? If anything reincarnation would be the way to go instead of an eternal afterlife.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> who really wants to live forever in an afterlife though right? Wouldn't that be a special kind of hell? If anything reincarnation would be the way to go instead of an eternal afterlife.


I want to live forever (or until I get bored) in this life, preferably in a perfect android body with my consciousness near perfectly preserved. Space travel, possible alien contact, witnessing the death of our star, and possibly the universe, if I make it that far. I'm quite irritated with the knowledge I'll never get to see how far the human race goes, unless of course we destroy ourselves in my lifetime, which is possible. At least then I'd get some damn closure before I go.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

*Yes and I love Him(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) *


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I want to live forever (or until I get bored) in this life, preferably in a perfect android body with my consciousness near perfectly preserved. Space travel, possible alien contact, witnessing the death of our star, and possibly the universe, if I make it that far. I'm quite irritated with the knowledge I'll never get to see how far the human race goes, unless of course we destroy ourselves in my lifetime, which is possible. At least then I'd get some damn closure before I go.


Well that is just it until you get bored. Because once you get bored and you cant die then what? it would be a living hell you cant end.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> Well that is just it until you get bored. Because once you get bored and you cant die then what? it would be a living hell you cant end.


In my scenario it wouldn't be an afterlife and I could just shut down for good whenever I wanted.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

The5star_Kid said:


> A question to atheists:
> 
> Do you deny God exists?
> 
> Or do you just not believe in Him?


You would have to define your standard of god in order to answer this without misunderstanding.

But in general, I deny gods exist.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

Goku said:


> You would have to define your standard of god in order to answer this without misunderstanding.
> 
> But in general, I deny gods exist.


*What observable physical proof/evidence is there that God doesn't exist?

By all means Physically show it to me.
*


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> That is no what I said. I said there is no evidence a god exists.
> 
> Is it possible? Sure, just like its possible unicorns exist.
> 
> ...


What would your criteria be to make you believe in God? What type of evidence would you need or at least want to see/read/hear?


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Goku said:


> You would have to define your standard of god in order to answer this without misunderstanding.
> 
> But in general, I deny gods exist.


You know what God is. So the question still stands. 

Maybe I should say, do you deny God could exist or do you believe he does not exist because it is more convenient to you? 

Or have you found evidence that God doesn ot exist?


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

The5star_Kid said:


> A question to atheists:
> 
> Do you deny God exists?
> 
> Or do you just not believe in Him?


*God exists to billions of people. I can't deny that. I just don't believe that a God created everything and set the laws of nature in motion.*


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

The5star_Kid said:


> You know what God is.


Imagine I don't and try to define it.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> A question to atheists:
> 
> Do you deny God exists?
> 
> Or do you just not believe in Him?


As I said in my first post on the thread I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence for the existence of God or anything supernatural and this lack of evidence leads me to think it's existence is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists.


----------



## SMetalWorld (May 7, 2006)

Despite my nickname, I'm big time believer in God. I had never doubt God's existence because I always think and believe that there's something beyond this World and existence and something or someone made things happen. For me, it didn't come out of nowhere.

It's like a scientist or an inventor that created the light-bulb. Someone had made that light-bulb happen and exist. So, that kind of my theory on believing in God.

I never shove my belief on anyone and if I have to explain my theories, that is one of them. God, to me and many, does exist.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Dolorian said:


> As I said in my first post on the thread I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence for the existence of God or anything supernatural and this lack of evidence leads me to think it's existence is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists.


Then you must have a criteria as to what you would need to see, hear or read to believe that God does exist. What is that criteria?


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

blackholeson said:


> *God exists to billions of people. I can't deny that. I just don't believe that a God created everything and set the laws of nature in motion.*


Do you believe it is logical and rational to have something as complex as the entire universe and everything in it, with all the correct measurements down to the smallest decimal point, be a result of...well an accident. That's essentially what science claims. 

One can not enter a city without traffic laws set in place by the governing powers yet somehow the laws of nature can just appear? 

WOuld that be logical and rational to your mind?


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

I believe in God. I'm not as religious as my family who are stronger in their faith but I believe. 

I have my doubts, frustrations and if he's forgotten me at times but I ultimately believe in him and his power.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I want to live forever (or until I get bored) in this life, preferably in a perfect android body with my consciousness near perfectly preserved. Space travel, possible alien contact, witnessing the death of our star, and possibly the universe, if I make it that far. I'm quite irritated with the knowledge I'll never get to see how far the human race goes, unless of course we destroy ourselves in my lifetime, which is possible. At least then I'd get some damn closure before I go.


This reminded me of the TNG episode:


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> Then you must have a criteria as to what you would need to see, hear or read to believe that God does exist. What is that criteria?


I do and that would be demonstrable evidence of God and the supernatural by means of reason, science and/or my own personal experience which in that order I consider the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge about anything.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

As an aside, I stopped listening to Atheists bask in the glory of their self-proclaimed (and actually very narcissistic) right to proclaim themselves rational when the majority of atheists I've come across are some combination of feminists (who believe in the patriarchy in much the same way as theists believe in god) and socialists (who couldn't do math if their life depended on it). 

If you are an atheist, then there is really no rational explanation for being a feminist since the same rules that go into deconstructing the existence of god deconstruct the patriarchy.






Fucking great destruction of how atheists lost their intellectual ground after adopting intersectionality and feminism. Best part starts around 16-17 minutes.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *What observable physical proof/evidence is there that God doesn't exist?
> 
> By all means Physically show it to me.
> *


You dont have to prove god does not exist you need to prove god does exist.




The5star_Kid said:


> What would your criteria be to make you believe in God? What type of evidence would you need or at least want to see/read/hear?


You are the one who is making the claim god exists, so you set the criteria and we can agree or disagree if that is god. Then go from there.

This is what is funny about people that claim there is a god, if you think there is a god then just prove it. You always try to set it on the non-believers. 


And again you dont need to prove god does not exist. Once you have to jump to that you know you lost your argument of god existing






The5star_Kid said:


> Do you believe it is logical and rational to have something as complex as the entire universe and everything in it, with all the correct measurements down to the smallest decimal point, be a result of...well an accident. That's essentially what science claims.
> 
> One can not enter a city without traffic laws set in place by the governing powers yet somehow the laws of nature can just appear?
> 
> WOuld that be logical and rational to your mind?


The answer to that is YES of course its logical and believable it happened by chance

And what correct measurements down to the smallest decimal point? Earth is the only planet that we know of in our known universe with intelligent life. Sounds like to me that is by chance.

If there was an intelligent designer you don't know the universe would be full of life? 

Also you want to go with this whole thing oh god created the universe , then who or what created god? And dont give me that bullshit oh god always existed or is outside of time if you are going to claim that the show your evidence that is even possible.

Its way more logical to believe the universe and life in earth is by chance than a god did it.

Because if a god made the universe with all the lack of life and it taking billions of years for life to evolve in earth then that god is pretty incompetent

Anyways this video is for you


----------



## Lockard The GOAT (May 30, 2007)

All religions are antiquated and Gods/spirits/angels/demons/end times/etc. are the main form of superstitions of modern times.


----------



## Bearodactyl (Apr 2, 2012)

The5star_Kid said:


> Do you believe it is logical and rational to have something as complex as the entire universe and everything in it, with all the correct measurements down to the smallest decimal point, be a result of...well an accident. That's essentially what science claims.
> 
> One can not enter a city without traffic laws set in place by the governing powers yet somehow the laws of nature can just appear?
> 
> WOuld that be logical and rational to your mind?


The problem with the "it's too complex" theorum is that if you follow that thought to its logical conclusion then who or what created god? If something as complex as the universe HAD to be created for things to make sense, that would entail God itself would have to be a highly complex being for him to be able to do that, on purpose and planned to the minutest detail even. So how did it come to be? Seems to me that as fervent as you might stack creator upon creator to explain things at some point someone, something or someplace (talking about the universe here) would have to come from nothing. At which point I'd claim it'd be the most likely to think simple. Ockham's razor, in a sense. A creator SEEMS a more simple answer at first glance but as shown above it just raises a ton more questions, and the concept in and of itself is easily explained away by man projecting a wordly concept on existence in its entirety. And then profiting from said concept. Looking at you here, religion! :LIGHTS

As for the "prove he doesn't exist" stuff, as has already been said numerous times, that question makes no sense as it is impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. If that is the burden of proof you require (or don't, depending on how you look at it) then you have to believe in ALL gods, as none of their existences can be disproven. And there's a LOT of gods:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

Fact is, all of us don't believe in a ton of gods. The difference is I don't see the point in making a single seemingly arbitrary exception based on the family and culture I was born into :bearo

Oh and by the by, if there were a version of the judeo christian god out there for instance, most of the people I know will burn in a fiery pit for the rest of eternity, as will all babies that died during their birth and never got baptized, all the billions of people who just happened to be born in a different part of our single planet in a ginormous universe, and so on and so forth, sent there by a JUST and LOVING God. How does any of that make any sense? How does a slighly less evolved people making something like this up to give them some security in a harsh and often shortlived world, something that binds them together, and seeing that pattern repeated thoughout history and time as "humans gonna human" make less sense?

Just seems to me like we should be about ready to let go of this stuff by now. But it's totally cool that some aren't. I'm not the one to judge, I just wish some of them wouldn't try to force me to live my life according to their beliefs, is all. If that didn't happen at all I probably wouldn't even bother debating these topics. 

If it isn't obvious by now, I don't believe in a god, let alone the traditional one I was brought up with. I'm not saying I know for a certainty, but I've never heard an even remotely convincing argument to support it. And as to what would make me believe? The answer to that is I don't think I know. If I suddenly heard the voice of god speaking to me I'm fairly certain I would blame a psychiatric disorder before accepting it for divine intervention. Which some might call jaded, but ask yourself: whenever someone claims to have been in contact with supernatural invisible and unprovable beings, do we blindly believe them or do we look the other way and hope they don't ask us for change? Or send them somewhere to get better?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Bearodactyl said:


> The problem with the "it's too complex" theorum is that if you follow that thought to its logical conclusion then who or what created god? If something as complex as the universe HAD to be created for things to make sense, that would entail God itself would have to be a highly complex being for him to be able to do that, on purpose and planned to the minutest detail even. So how did it come to be? Seems to me that as fervent as you might stack creator upon creator to explain things at some point someone, something or someplace (talking about the universe here) would have to come from nothing. At which point I'd claim it'd be the most likely to think simple. Ockham's razor, in a sense. A creator SEEMS a more simple answer at first glance but as shown above it just raises a ton more questions, and the concept in and of itself is easily explained away by man projecting a wordly concept on existence in its entirety. And then profiting from said concept. Looking at you here, religion! :LIGHTS
> 
> As for the "prove he doesn't exist" stuff, as has already been said numerous times, that question makes no sense as it is impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. If that is the burden of proof you require (or don't, depending on how you look at it) then you have to believe in ALL gods, as none of their existences can be disproven. And there's a LOT of gods:
> 
> ...


Exactly. Everyone is an atheist to some extiend for 99.9% of gods except for the one they believe in.

But you never hear people tellng them to prove all those other gods dont exist.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

birthday_massacre said:


> Because if a god made the universe with all the lack of life and it taking billions of years for life to evolve in earth then that god is pretty incompetent


It doesn't prove incompetence. It could be indifferent. Existence as we know it is just an experiment by some superior entity. It's the watchmaker god. It's a definite possibility. There is no evidence of this possibility so I just think it's a possibility. I don't believe a watchmaker god exists.

As for billions of years, that could be days, minutes, seconds to this superior entity. This watchmaker god would likely perceive reality differently than we do.

An imperfect incompetent god is pretty funny to think about though. Here are these other gods with these masterpiece perfect universes, and we have the very unfortunate distinction of existing in the flawed universe. All the hipster deities like us though.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

MrMister coming around on the SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS :mark:


----------



## Gift Of Jericho (May 5, 2016)

I don't follow a religion because I don't like the concept of it and don't think anyone on earth has the answers. But I do believe there is a higher power in the universe and I think it's ignorant to say otherwise.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> You dont have to prove god does not exist you need to prove god does exist.


*Any claim needs to be proven, if you say God exists you prove it, if you say God doesn't exist you have to prove it.

By all means physically show me that God doesn't exist with observable fact and I'll give up all my intellect to become an atheist.

By all means Physically show me that God doesn't exist.*


----------



## Oda Nobunaga (Jun 12, 2006)

The burden of proof is on believers since they are the ones who've been parading around for thousands of years as if deities do exist, vehemently so the world over.


----------



## BiscuitsNgravy (Apr 1, 2016)

Gift Of Jericho said:


> I don't follow a religion because I don't like the concept of it and don't think anyone on earth has the answers. But I do believe there is a higher power in the universe and I think it's ignorant to say otherwise.


I just imagined Vinces head popping out over the moon. Its me Austin!


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

Oda Nobunaga said:


> The burden of proof is on believers since they are the ones who've been parading around for thousands of years as if deities do exist, vehemently so the world over.


*So does the proof lie on the person claiming that God doesn't exist, they must give physical proof for their claim.*



Bearodactyl said:


> The problem with the "it's too complex" theorum is that if you follow that thought to its logical conclusion then who or what created god? If something as complex as the universe HAD to be created for things to make sense, that would entail God itself would have to be a highly complex being for him to be able to do that, on purpose and planned to the minutest detail even. So how did it come to be? Seems to me that as fervent as you might stack creator upon creator to explain things at some point someone, something or someplace (talking about the universe here) would have to come from nothing


*
Infinite Regression is factually impossible it has to stop somewhere, and that first cause/that which no greater can be conceived is not nothing/mindless.

Something cannot come from nothing, cause & effect, the effect is produced by the cause, the effect therefore must have it's properties from the cause. Nothing lacks any and all properties, therefore cannot cause anything, it lacks matter, it lacks consciousness therefore cannot produce anything. a Mindless entity lacks the properties of the Mind therefore it is scientifically impossible for the mind to have been produced by anything mindless.

To believe that something came from nothing, that the mind came from the mindless/nothing is equivalent to believing in invisible pink unicorns, which is what atheism would argue(that the mind came from the mindless) which is pure fairy tales.*


----------



## Dead Seabed (Jun 3, 2002)

I hail Satan


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *So does the proof lie on the person claiming that God doesn't exist, they must give physical proof for their claim.*
> 
> 
> *
> ...


You are the one making the claim god exists. The person saying god does not exist is the rejection of your claim god exists.

If someone is going to claim god always exists you can also make the claim the universe always existed in some form. so there is no need for god at all.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Dolorian said:


> I do and that would be demonstrable evidence of God and the supernatural by means of reason, science and/or my own personal experience which in that order I consider the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge about anything.


Demonstrable in what way? Provide an example of such a thing.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one making the claim god exists. The person saying god does not exist is the rejection of your claim god exists.


*
Which requires proof. you have to prove that He doesn't exist, I need to see that God doesn't exist before I accept such an unscientific idea that He doesn't exist.*



birthday_massacre said:


> If someone is going to claim god always exists you can also make the claim the universe always existed in some form. so there is no need for god at all.


*The universe hasn't always existed as that is impossible(infinite regression is impossible) and a Mindless entity cannot produce a Mind as it lacks the Properties of a Mind. to believe a Mindless Entity produced a Mind/Minds is to believe is fairy tales.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

Dolorian said:


> I do and that would be demonstrable evidence of God and the supernatural by means of reason, science and/or my own personal experience which in that order I consider the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge about anything.


*And what would be demonstrable evidence of God existing? What would show you that He exists?
*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> Which requires proof. you have to prove that He doesn't exist, I need to see that God doesn't exist before I accept such an unscientific idea that He doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> ...


No you don't, You don't have to prove god does not exist. You need to prove god does.

Do you need proof that Zeus does not exist? Do you need proof the flying spaghetti monster does not exist?


It's not impossible the universe has always existed in some form. It's way more probable than a sky god always existed.

This is the problem with believers in god. They always try to shift the burden of proof. It's because all you have is faith because you know there is no evidence a god exists.


----------



## SovereignVA (Jan 3, 2012)

RLStern said:


> *Any claim needs to be proven, if you say God exists you prove it, if you say God doesn't exist you have to prove it.
> 
> By all means physically show me that God doesn't exist with observable fact and I'll give up all my intellect to become an atheist.
> 
> By all means Physically show me that God doesn't exist.*


You're in that sweet spot where I'm not actually sure if you're trolling or not.

That's logically not true. It's literally an argument of ignorance, you can't determine a premise is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. The burden of proof is always on the person claiming his existence.

There's an invisible pink unicorn standing 10 ft away from me, can YOU prove that it doesn't exist?


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> You dont have to prove god does not exist you need to prove god does exist.
> 
> You are the one who is making the claim god exists, so you set the criteria and we can agree or disagree if that is god. Then go from there.
> 
> ...


I replied to your points within your message.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> I replied to your points within your message.


I did answer your question. I said I don't believe because there is no evidence god exists

Not sure how much more clear I can be

How exactly did I not answer your question?


Yes I am going to claim everything happened by chance. Its much more plausible than some invisible sky god did it something which you cannot prove exists.

And like I said, if there was a god why is earth the only known planet with life? Why is the universe 99.9% unable to support life? That is why its easy to see how its just chance.

And why would I assume if god created the universe it has to be full of life because that is what any creator would do. why would someone create something so big and vast and only have one planet with life on it.

Also 99.9% of all life that has ever been on earth is extinct. That is not a very good design either. Again that just shows how its chance. 

Everything you are pointing out just shows how it was chance and not some sky god.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Maybe, but I'm 100% anti-organised religion. Whilst they had their uses in our earlier ages (especially in terms of law & order and just keeping the populace alive and thriving when "everyone" was a lot more religious/god fearing) I think for the past few hundred years they've caused far too many massacres and tragedies for me to remotely support them. 

Regarding the belief in a deity I probably have a different view than most. I can't disprove it, so I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no element of the divine in the Universe. I'm almost certain that should a being/entity/force exist it's so far above and beyond our ability to comprehend that every single religion who claims to have got it right is dead wrong. Science does not disprove divinity, though it can easily disprove our organised religions, there IS a distinction. In my view if there IS an omnipresent/omniscient being or entity out there then we're talking about a being that exists at and outside of every moment in time AT the same time, infinitely. We couldn't begin to comprehend something of that magnitude/power with our primitive minds, the idea of communicating with such a being in any tangible way is actually more far fetched than having a conversation with an amoeba. So do I believe in "God?" I have no way of proving either way, so I believe in the plausibility of the concept of the divine without believing "in" any specific man-made figurehead to explain that divinity, regardless of how accurate they may be. We simply don't know enough to say any more than that.


----------



## Bearodactyl (Apr 2, 2012)

The5star_Kid said:


> And you then ask what corect measurements? Oh, how about the fact that if our orbit carried us only a fraction of a mile closer or further from the sun at various times, the hwole planet would start to freeze or boil to death. How baout the balance of the gases in the air and the fact that our lungs are perfectly suited to breath in such an environment, even though oxygen is not the dominant gas. What about the fact that we lose a tiny slither of our atmosphere globally and the planet stops supporting vegetation or the fact that the planet has enough foliage to breath out enough oxygen for us to breath...all through a process of converting CO2, which we breath out. I could go on and on. .


That's where statistics and evolution kick in. Out of a zillion planets, one having the correct conditions to support life are pretty damn good. So good infact that Earth isn't even the only planet that has those conditions. 
Then, in a terrible long space of time, Evolution does its thing. The beings best suited for the environment they find themselves in thrive. Generations upon generations, natural selection makes sure that some prosper while others fall to the wayside. And so we end up with a species that looks and seems perfectly suited for its environment, and you ask "could this be mere happenstance? I think not. Clearly this was the work of a creator". And I tell you, I'm with you on the first part. As for the latter, I think a drawn out process of natural selection, which we can prove is a thing, seems more likely than the God theory. Again, Ockham's Razor.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> To believe that something came from nothing, that the mind came from the mindless/nothing is equivalent to believing in invisible pink unicorns, which is what atheism would argue(that the mind came from the mindless) which is pure fairy tales.


So unless God is nothing, he must have come from something. So where did he come from? And what created the thing that god came from? And so on. If there was something powerful enough to create god, why was god necessary?

I have one stance on god and that's that it's a lie. Deities and afterlifes are control measures made to enforce rules. You tell someone with no understanding of the world that unless they follow your rules, they'll be condemnded to eternal punishment after their death, they do whatever you say. Religion's a social control mechanism and you'll never convince me of anything else and god's just people trying to act like life has any more meaning than living long enough to fuck something else from your species, make offspring and die. That's why we're here, life itself is the most fantastic accident in the history of the universe.

I also love this quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” 
Epicurus


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> No you don't, You don't have to prove god does not exist. You need to prove god does.


*Do you agree that a claim must be proven?

If Yes then the claim that God doesn't exist needs to be proven.

If No then the claim that God does exist doesn't need to be proven.

Choose wisely.*




birthday_massacre said:


> It's not impossible the universe has always existed in some form.


*
Infinite Regression is impossible therefore universe hasn't always existed.*



birthday_massacre said:


> This is the problem with believers in god. They always try to shift the burden of proof. It's because all you have is faith because you know* there is no evidence a god exists.*


*That right there is a claim, prove it.
*



SovereignVA said:


> There's an invisible pink unicorn standing 10 ft away from me, can YOU prove that it doesn't exist?


*
Easily, Pink is a visible property, therefore something cannot be both Pink and Visible. 

Therefore the atheist argument of Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.

See?

Simple, now your turn, show me that God doesn't exist.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

3MB4Life said:


> So unless God is nothing, he must have come from something.


*Incorrect, whatever has a beginning has a cause to it's existence, God has no beginning therefore no cause, whereas the Universe has a beginning as infinite regression is impossible, therefore the Universe has a cause.

*


----------



## SovereignVA (Jan 3, 2012)

RLStern said:


> *Do you agree that a claim must be proven?
> 
> If Yes then the claim that God doesn't exist needs to be proven.
> 
> ...


That's sad.

You have really bad deductive reasoning skills.

You're basically like "Because something invisible can't technically be pink, and invisible unicorn ALSO can't exist."

In other words, if it were just an invisible unicorn you'd believe it was in my room? You're not gonna stick with that argument, are you?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> So unless God is nothing, he must have come from something. So where did he come from? And what created the thing that god came from? And so on. If there was something powerful enough to create god, why was god necessary?


Not strictly true actually. You're trying to apply mundane rules to divinity, sadly it's really not that easy. Most "Gods" are omnipresent beings - that means they exist in all times at all times concurrently and outside of time. There is no beginning for an omnipresent being, they experience all times at all times infinitely whilst also being outside of time (and unaffected by it.) Science can not disprove divinity, just Dogma (creation of man.) I'm not even remotely religious, but you need to understand what you're trying to disprove if you're going to attempt it.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

SovereignVA said:


> In other words, if it were just an invisible unicorn you'd believe it was in my room?


*That's also impossible, a "unicorn" would be a physical description based on appearance, shape and etc, if it's invisible it lacks the properties that would make it a "unicorn".
*


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)




----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Yes, but I don't ask anyone else to. I don't have all the answers. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. In the end does it matter? One day I'll be dead and I'll either continue on or I won't.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *Incorrect, whatever has a beginning has a cause to it's existence, God has no beginning therefore no cause, whereas the Universe has a beginning as infinite regression is impossible, therefore the Universe has a cause.
> *


*

Oh, so the magical entity in his cloud fortress appeared out of nowhere and created the world? Or has he just always been there? 

Everything in the universe needs explaining but my superhero in my book doesn't because I said so, how convenient. Mind can't come from nothing but the ability to create matter and craft a whole universe apparently just exists and no one can argue that. Wow, that makes so much sense. Too much science for my brain to handle.

And I love that you think that because something can't be disproved, you can argue that it's real. Is Santa real? Is the Easter Bunny real? Is the Tooth Fairy real? Is Captain Crunch real? Is Slash real? Give me conclusive evidence that Santa's a lie, go.*


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

There's more evidence unicorns exist than God. 

I can show you a horse, which is 99% unicorn, and a narwhal which is 1% unicorn. Combined, it's not unreasonable for there to be a 100% unicorn, since all physical parts exist. 

There is nothing even remotely similar to God, that has any evidence of existing beyond imagination.


----------



## SovereignVA (Jan 3, 2012)

RLStern said:


> *That's also impossible, a "unicorn" would be a physical description based on appearance, shape and etc, if it's invisible it lacks the properties that would make it a "unicorn".
> *


Sorry, bro. I'm looking for "physical evidence". Not you talking in circles.

You make a lot of logical sense right now, but unless you can *physically show me* that this invisible unicorn doesn't exist, this bitch is 10 ft away from me.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not strictly true actually. You're trying to apply mundane rules to divinity, sadly it's really not that easy. Most "Gods" are omnipresent beings - that means they exist in all times at all times concurrently and outside of time. There is no beginning for an omnipresent being, they experience all times at all times infinitely whilst also being outside of time (and unaffected by it.) Science can not disprove divinity, just Dogma (creation of man.) I'm not even remotely religious, but you need to understand what you're trying to disprove if you're going to attempt it.


If a god is omnipresent than why does his dogma rely on beginnings (creation of life) and endings (judgement day). Why would he/she want us to perceive time when he himself does not? Though I have to admit that the omnipresent argument is a decent argument in and of itself without rationalizing it from a benefit/need perspective. 

It's not as easily dismissable as the omnipotent argument.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not strictly true actually. You're trying to apply mundane rules to divinity, sadly it's really not that easy. Most "Gods" are omnipresent beings - that means they exist in all times at all times concurrently and outside of time. There is no beginning for an omnipresent being, they experience all times at all times infinitely whilst also being outside of time (and unaffected by it.) Science can not disprove divinity, just Dogma (creation of man.) I'm not even remotely religious, but you need to understand what you're trying to disprove if you're going to attempt it.


If you have to argue that the laws of science don't apply to your argument to make it semi-plausible, your argument's shit. It's not even worth disproving.

Let's say that I claim I can teleport and move objects with my mind. You can't disprove me. You know I'm lying but you can't disprove me. Just because you can't definitively disprove an argument doesn't mean it's not complete horseshit. Anyone attempting to argue that a magical entity who exists outside of the 4th dimesnion created the world better bring some fucking glorious evidence or I'm not accepting it. Just like if I was to claim I could teleport and perform telekinesis, I would need to prove it. You don't just get to say "fuck the laws of science, my magical overlord doesn't follow them" and claim that as a strong basis for an argument. That's top-level sci-fi bullshit.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *Do you agree that a claim must be proven?
> 
> If Yes then the claim that God doesn't exist needs to be proven.
> 
> ...


You don't understand logic and reason at all.

Saying there is no evidence a god exists is not a postive claim, its the rejection of the claim god exists. The same goes for saying god does not exists. Its the null hypothesis of your claim god exists.

You are the one making a postive claim god exists, when somenoe rejects that claim you can turn that around and claim they are making a positive claim. That is not how it works.


And yes the universe could always have existed if you are going to claim that god always existed. You can't have it both ways. If the universe had to have a creator then god does as well.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

SovereignVA said:


> Sorry, bro. I'm looking for "physical evidence". Not you talking in circles.
> 
> You make a lot of logical sense right now, but unless you can *physically show me* that this invisible unicorn doesn't exist, this bitch is 10 ft away from me.


*
"Unicorns" would be classified as such, "unicorns" for their appearance, their shape, color, and etc that make up the body of a so called "unicorn". Color is property of a "unicorn", color is a scientifically visible property. Therefore there is no such thing as invisible unicorns. 

That was easily, however you being an atheist, are still going to believe that an invisible unicorn exists.*




3MB4Life said:


> Oh, so the magical entity in his cloud fortress appeared out of nowhere and created the world? Or has he just always been there?


*
I don't believe in an entity that is only in the clouds, that's what atheist may believe in, but a Christian like myself doesn't believe in that, what I do believe and know is that an Omnipresent God(YHWH) exists.*



3MB4Life said:


> Everything in the universe needs explaining but my superhero in my book doesn't because I said so, how convenient.


*
Everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore everything that has a beginning needs an explaination as to what caused it. God has always existed, therefore no cause.*



3MB4Life said:


> Mind can't come from nothing but the ability to create matter and craft a whole universe apparently just exists and no one can argue that.


*
Who said that? I don't believe the whole universe, "just exists", I know YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created it.*



3MB4Life said:


> Wow, that makes so much sense. Too much science for my brain to handle.


*
Keep studying then.*




3MB4Life said:


> Give me conclusive evidence that Santa's a lie, go.


*
There's no one at the North Pole, that was simple.
*

*Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence(as if there's an absence of evidence to begin with):*





*
"The reason adults disbelieve in santa claus is not simply that there is no good reason to think that he exists, but because we have good reasons to think that he does not exist, we have Positive Evidence against santa claus, there isn't anybody at the north pole, there is no one flying around delivering presents on Christmas eve"*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

RipNTear said:


> If a god is omnipresent than why does his dogma rely on beginnings (creation of life) and endings (judgement day). Why would he/she want us to perceive time when he himself does not? Though I have to admit that the omnipresent argument is a decent argument in and of itself without rationalizing it from a benefit/need perspective.
> 
> It's not as easily dismissable as the omnipotent argument.


Honestly, in my opinion, "it's" (I'm of the belief that were a divine being to exist it would be infinitely more alien to us as beings than we are to an amoeba) dogma relies on nothing. That's human dogma right there, written by humans, all of whom were even less informed than we ourselves are about the universe. I legitimately can't argue "for" a specific human vision of "God" but I also can't argue against divinity as a concept because there's no measurable way to disprove it with the knowledge and equipment we have. Is it plausible that a being so immense and omnipresent was directly speaking to people a couple thousand years ago? I don't personally think so. Again on benefit/need, these are mundane things applied to mundane creatures. Could an all powerful, all present being not be so far beyond the petty needs of us mortals? It can't be human so how do you even attempt to imagine the biology of such a being? (and that's if we assume a physical presence at all and not a metaphysical one.) Put aside the dogma and beliefs/notions of man (many of them greedy with a lot to gain by writing the dogma in their favour) and look at it from the perspective of simply a being of infinite presence and power, does a being like that have an emotional system like ours? You're looking at things from an incredibly terrestrial/human angle, which is where I find the biggest flaw in attempting to understand, prove or disprove the existence of divinity. Man is incredibly fallible, the science we know today makes the science of 150 years ago look like children fumbling in the dark playing "potions." Can I really assert the credibility (or lack of) of a potential divine entity based on writings hundreds-thousands or year's old by people who wouldn't count as remotely educated by modern standards? My point isn't "there is a God" as much as "how would you know?" Would a divine being need any motivation towards benevolence or malevolence? Does that remotely make sense for a being who is watching all of time at all times? How insignificant are our lives to a being that large in a universe with the potential for untold other sentient species? I think many of the arguments people make against the divine are predisposed on a conceit that humanity is in any way significant. In a universe of unknown dimension, to a being of infinite dimension, I'd hedge my bet and say that dust mites are more significant to us than we would be to the divine.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> If you have to argue that the laws of science don't apply to your argument to make it semi-plausible, your argument's shit. It's not even worth disproving.
> 
> Let's say that I claim I can teleport and move objects with my mind. You can't disprove me. You know I'm lying but you can't disprove me. Just because you can't definitively disprove an argument doesn't mean it's not complete horseshit. Anyone attempting to argue that a magical entity who exists outside of the 4th dimesnion created the world better bring some fucking glorious evidence or I'm not accepting it. Just like if I was to claim I could teleport and perform telekinesis, I would need to prove it. You don't just get to say "fuck the laws of science, my magical overlord doesn't follow them" and claim that as a strong basis for an argument. That's top-level sci-fi bullshit.


How exactly, specifically does modern science disprove God? Please give me the hypothesis, method and execution so I can try it for myself?


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't understand logic and reason at all.
> 
> Saying there is no evidence a god exists is not a postive claim, its the rejection of the claim god exists. The same goes for saying god does not exists. Its the null hypothesis of your claim god exists.
> 
> ...


*
The absurd claim that "God does not exist" Is a positive claim that requires evidence, there simply is no evidence that God doesn't exist, the idea of Him not existing is unscientific and illogical.*


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

> Originally Posted by RipNTear View Post
> If a god is omnipresent than why does his dogma rely on beginnings (creation of life) and endings (judgement day). Why would he/she want us to perceive time when he himself does not? Though I have to admit that the omnipresent argument is a decent argument in and of itself without rationalizing it from a benefit/need perspective.


But it doesn't. The dogma's strictures placed on humans have a beginning and an end (well, not really, as the soul's existence is asserted to not have an "end" once created. And then you have those that say that the soul has also always existed). Those strictures don't apply to the deity. 

And I'm pretty sure God does perceive time, God is just not limited by it the way flesh and blood is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> The absurd claim that "God does not exist" Is a positive claim that requires evidence, there simply is no evidence that God doesn't exist, the idea of Him not existing is unscientific and illogical.*


God does not exist is the null hypothesis of your positive claim god exists.

You can't even prove god exists that is why people like you work so hard to push the burden of proof to the people that reject your claim.

What is unscientific and illogical is believing or claiming something is true without any evidence to back it up

Faith is what is unscientific and illogical.


----------



## Santos L Halper (Aug 12, 2016)

Nope.

But I haven't got any problems with people who do. As far as i'm concerned, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, people can believe in whatever they like.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> How exactly, specifically does modern science disprove God? Please give me the hypothesis, method and execution so I can try it for myself?


If you want to suggest that God exists, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim a magical entity outside the 4th dimension created all time and space, bring me some concrete proof and then we'll talk. Until then, all you've done is make a ridiculous assertion and screamed "you can't prove me wrong" as an argument.

How can modern science prove I can't teleport? It can't. Does this mean I can teleport? No. If I'm gonna go round making ridiculous statements, I should be able to back them up if I want anyone to bother taking me seriously. Until you support your grandious magic claims, I'm not taking you seriously enough to bother having an actual debate with you.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

deepelemblues said:


> But it doesn't. The dogma's strictures placed on humans have a beginning and an end. Those strictures don't apply to the deity.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure God does perceive time, God is just not limited by it the way flesh and blood is.


This was always my viewpoint of an omnipresent and omniscient being. It exists outside of (and therefore unaffected by time) and within all times at all times. Time has no bearing on It, though It perceives all times than have will and do exist in the whole of infinity at all times. It would be almost certainly a metaphysical entity/being/force not one with a physical presence, prey to the mundane troubles that degenerate a mortal.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> If you want to suggest that God exists, the burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim a magical entity outside the 4th dimension created all time and space, bring me some concrete proof and then we'll talk. Until then, all you've done is make a ridiculous assertion and screamed "you can't prove me wrong" as an argument.
> 
> How can modern science prove I can't teleport? It can't. Does this mean I can teleport? No. If I'm gonna go round making ridiculous statements, I should be able to back them up if I want anyone to bother taking me seriously. Until you support your grandious magic claims, I'm not taking you seriously enough to bother having an actual debate with you.


Ok, now show me where in any of my posts I said God exists? If you need help understanding them just ask.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

deepelemblues said:


> But it doesn't. The dogma's strictures placed on humans have a beginning and an end (well, not really, as the soul is asserted to be immortal once created, it doesn't have an end. And then you have those that say that the soul has also always existed). Those strictures don't apply to the deity.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure God does perceive time, God is just not limited by it the way flesh and blood is.


If there really was a god then why are there so many gods? There would just be one that everyone believes in and agrees on. All god is is a fake deity made because people could not explain things.

Like when people though a god caused rain, thunder, earthquakes, plagues, volcanic eruptions etc etc but over time science showed what caused those things and each god started to fall by the wayside

Just because you dont know something or cannot explain it does not mean god.




RavishingRickRules said:


> This was always my viewpoint of an omnipresent and omniscient being. It exists outside of (and therefore unaffected by time) and within all times at all times. Time has no bearing on It, though It perceives all times than have will and do exist in the whole of infinity at all times. It would be almost certainly a metaphysical entity/being/force not one with a physical presence, prey to the mundane troubles that degenerate a mortal.


If you want to claim that, you need to prove that.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> God does not exist is the null hypothesis of your positive claim god exists.


*"God does not exist" is a claim, requires proof, burdens on you.

Physically show me that God "doesn't exist"
*


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *
> I don't believe in an entity that is only in the clouds, that's what atheist may believe in, but a Christian like myself doesn't believe in that, what I do believe and know is that an Omnipresent God(YHWH) exists.*


So you believe in the one true Christian god right? So in your mind, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Mesopotamians, the Vikings, the Celts, the Teutons and the Native Americans who all came to their conclusion of deities are all wrong but your similar reasoning is 100% correct and infallable? Do you not see how flawed that stance is? You can so easily shoot down those belief systems so easily yet yours is impossible to dispute. Why is yours in particular so strong where these are weak enough to be disregarded?



> *
> Who said that? I don't believe the whole universe, "just exists", I know YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created it.*


Earlier, you claimed mind couldn't come from nothing yet claim that god has no beginning. So if god is the one who created the universe, does he not have mind? How would one craft the world and the whole universe if he has no mind? Did he just do it accidentally?




> *
> There's no one at the North Pole, that was simple.*


Prove it.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Ok, now show me where in any of my posts I said God exists? If you need help understanding them just ask.


I was speaking in general terms about someone positing the existence of god, not just about what you posted. I was referring to someone hypothetically trying to argue the existence of god and why it's a flawed stance unless they provide proof. I apologise if that didn't come across in the way I wrote it.

I hope I managed to get that across without being patronising, that's the kind of thing a cunt might do.


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't believe in God but I don't hate people that do.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> Earlier, you claimed mind couldn't come from nothing yet claim that God has no beginning. So if god is the one who created the universe, does he not have mind? How would one craft the world and the whole universe if he has no mind? Did he just do it accidentally?


Define a "mind?" Are we going with the scientific explanation of brain activity in mortal creatures? Does a metaphysical being even have a nervous system or a brain? How would the internal biology (assuming there was one at all) of a being of infinite power and presence be made up? Your arguments are incredibly shallow/rudimentary, your entire perspective isn't educated enough for the things you're arguing about tbh. You can't evaluate an entirely non-human entity by human standards, it's silly.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *"God does not exist" is a claim, requires proof, burdens on you.
> 
> Physically show me that God "doesn't exist"
> *


This is exactly what I am talking about in my earlier post what believers do, they make a claim god does not exist, someone rejects it asking oh you don't believe god exists then tries to shift the burdon.

Sorry but no matter what little tricks you try to pull the burden is on you claiming god exists. Stop going in circles and proves god exists.

If you wont then there is no point in debating you.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

3MB4Life said:


> Earlier, you claimed mind couldn't come from nothing yet claim that god has no beginning. So if god is the one who created the universe, does he not have mind? How would one craft the world and the whole universe if he has no mind? Did he just do it accidentally?


*This makes absolutely no sense, God is a mind. He has no beginning, The universe does, therefore the Universe has a cause.*




3MB4Life said:


> Prove it.


*
Santa is not at the north pole. it's not that absence of evidence that proves santa doesn't exist, it's the positive evidence that he does not exist that proves it(No santa at north pole).

That was easy.*




birthday_massacre said:


> This is exactly what I am talking about in my earlier post what believers do, they make a claim god does not exist, someone rejects it asking oh you don't believe god exists then tries to shift the burdon.
> 
> Sorry but no matter what little tricks you try to pull the burden is on you claiming god exists. Stop going in circles and proves god exists.
> 
> If you wont then there is no point in debating you.


*
A claim requires proof, the claim that "God does not exist" requires proof.

By all means physically show me that God "does not exist", go ahead try to make me an atheist, make my day show me He doesn't exist, spotlights on you.*


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

Reading this thread sure feels like a trip through Hell. Someone please be my Virgil and guide me on out.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Define a "mind?" Are we going with the scientific explanation of brain activity in mortal creatures? Does a metaphysical being even have a nervous system or a brain? How would the internal biology (assuming there was one at all) of a being of infinite power and presence be made up? Your arguments are incredibly shallow/rudimentary, your entire perspective isn't educated enough for the things you're arguing about tbh. You can't evaluate an entirely non-human entity by human standards, it's silly.


I apologise for engaging my lowly intellect with your unwavering wisdom, oh great one. Please explain how the sentience to create worlds exists with no interference but the human brain must be created m'lord, my mere mortal mind can not possibly begin to fathom it for itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *This makes absolutely no sense, God is a mind. He has no beginning, The universe does, therefore the Universe has a cause.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no evidence god exists. Just like no evidence at the north poll Santa is not there. same thing

That was easy.

checkmate


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> There is no evidence god exists.


*#1, Please prove that there is no evidence God exists

#2, Absence of Evidence(which you provided no proof that there is even an absence of evidence) is not Evidence of Absence, I didn't prove that Santa doesn't exist because there's an absence of evidence for his existence but because there is Positive Proof that santa doesn't exist(No santa at north pole, no one flying around bringing presents Christmas eve)

#3 I asked for Physical proof that God doesn't exist, you provided nothing.

You have not proven that God doesn't exist and you have not proven that there is no evidence that God exists.*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> I was speaking in general terms about someone positing the existence of god, not just about what you posted. I was referring to someone hypothetically trying to argue the existence of god and why it's a flawed stance unless they provide proof. I apologise if that didn't come across in the way I wrote it.
> 
> I hope I managed to get that across without being patronising, that's the kind of thing a cunt might do.


Not patronising at all, though I think that was more a sly dig at me, pretty lame though, just come at me if you wanna throw insults, no? The point I'm making is that you're dead wrong in a lot of your assumptions. Most of your arguments do not argue against the existence of divinity, they argue against man-made dogma, those aren't remotely the same topic. It's easy to use science to disprove the writings of barely educated people centuries ago, it's another thing entirely to try and claim science disproves any notion of divinity, it simply doesn't. I have no disagreement that the entirety of religious dogma is almost certainly false, the disagreement I have is the assertion "there is no god." It really isn't as clear cut as you think. Liken it to the existence of the electron, for centuries the ability to observe the existence of the electron was so far beyond the realms of human capability it would have been deemed "non existent." And yet, here we are. You can't disprove divinity with science as it stands in the current day, we barely understand the physical planet we've lived on for the entirety of our existence as a species, never mind attempting to fully comprehend potential forces (natural ones, just beyond our realm of experience and knowledge to observe or understand) that may exist. There is no test we can make for divinity, but one day, there may be. That is why to my mind, you can assert "Christians are full of shit" or "Muslims are full of shit" and especially "Gerald Gardner was full of shit" but you can't conclusively state "there is no God/Divinity in the Universe" and you certainly can't do so by arguing against fables told centuries before we even understood the very primitive things we now know about the universe and the way things work (and if there WERE divinity, we would be so primitive in comparison that we may as well be proto-cells.)


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *#1, Please prove that there is no evidence God exists
> 
> #2, Absence of Evidence(which you provided no proof that there is even an absence of evidence) is not Evidence of Absence, I didn't prove that Santa doesn't exist because there's an absence of evidence for his existence but because there is Positive Proof that santa doesn't exist(No santa at north pole, no one flying around bringing presents Christmas eve)
> 
> ...


I just did, just like you did with Santa Claus.

And there is no physical evidence god exists. Thus he does not exist. I am using the same logic you are with Santa Claus. You cant have it both ways.

I can do this all day.

The ball is in your court to prove he does.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> I apologise for engaging my lowly intellect with your unwavering wisdom, oh great one. Please explain how the sentience to create worlds exists with no interference but the human brain must be created m'lord, my mere mortal mind can not possibly begin to fathom it for itself.


Is typing like a bad extra at a renaissance fair supposed to be an insult? kay


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *This makes absolutely no sense, God is a mind. He has no beginning, The universe does, therefore the Universe has a cause.*


*

So god is a mind yet doesn't require being created but mind has to be created and god created it. So god created himself? What? I'm literally going off of things you've posted and all we end up in is this stupid cyclical justification loop where a god is needed to explain the creation of the mind but god is a mind who didn't need creating? So if mind far greater than that of any mortal being can just exist, why does mortal mind need to be created? You constantly fail to explain this.





Santa is not at the north pole. it's not that absence of evidence that proves santa doesn't exist, it's the positive evidence that he does not exist that proves it(No santa at north pole).

That was easy.

Click to expand...

So at best, you can prove Santa isn't at the North Pole. That isn't proof that he doesn't exist.

Also, you ignored my point about how you disregard all other religion's deities with ease yet accept yours as a fact. Could you explain that to me?*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

3MB4Life said:


> So god is a mind yet doesn't require being created but mind has to be created and god created it. So god created himself? What? I'm literally going off of things you've posted and all we end up in is this stupid cyclical justification loop where a god is needed to explain the creation of the mind but god is a mind who didn't need creating? So if mind far greater than that of any mortal being can just exist, why does mortal mind need to be created? You constantly fail to explain this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


RLSTERN just talks out of his ass. I used the same logic to disprove god that he used to disprove santa and he thinks his reasoning for no Santa proves there is no Santa but using the same reasoning does not disprove god lol



It's so funny how in one of my earlier posts I said 

"Another thing to add that believers always try to do and it's pretty disingenuous, is when an atheist says they don't believe in god and the believer turns that into oh so you are saying god does not exist trying to trap a non believe into making a positive claim. The do this so they can shift the burden of proof to the non-believer even though they are making a positive claim god exists. So then instead of having to prove god exists they can just argue over who has the burden of proof."

And now RL Stern is doing exactly that


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> I just did, just like you did with Santa Claus.


*No you did not, 

#1, you claimed without any evidence that there is "no evidence that God exists", which does not prove that God doesn't exist.

#2, I didn't prove that Santa doesn't exist with "there's no proof for santa claus/lack of evidence for santa claus" I proved that santa claus doesn't exist with positive evidence, the fact that there is no santa claus at the north pole, that no one is flying around bringing presents on christmas eve.*



birthday_massacre said:


> And there is no physical evidence god exists. Thus he does not exist.


*
God is not a physical being by definition, therefore does not follow.

You have yet to prove that there's "no evidence" for God and you have yet to show that God "doesn't exist".


*


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

Atheist.

Believing in God/a religion never occurred to me. Never crossed my mind. Parents bought me up in a non religious household, with an open mind and gave me the option to investigate all of this myself. 

I don't believe any child should be indoctrinated into a religion. Belief shouldn't be taught and forced. It should be something you come to of your own accord through a personal journey of discovery.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *No you did not,
> 
> #1, you claimed without any evidence that there is "no evidence that God exists", which does not prove that God doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


You need to prove that god is not a physical being with evidence if you want someone to disprove god.

So do it.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not patronising at all, though I think that was more a sly dig at me, pretty lame though, just come at me if you wanna throw insults, no? The point I'm making is that you're dead wrong in a lot of your assumptions. Most of your arguments do not argue against the existence of divinity, they argue against man-made dogma, those aren't remotely the same topic. It's easy to use science to disprove the writings of barely educated people centuries ago, it's another thing entirely to try and claim science disproves any notion of divinity, it simply doesn't. I have no disagreement that the entirety of religious dogma is almost certainly false, the disagreement I have is the assertion "there is no god." It really isn't as clear cut as you think. Liken it to the existence of the electron, for centuries the ability to observe the existence of the electron was so far beyond the realms of human capability it would have been deemed "non existent." And yet, here we are. You can't disprove divinity with science as it stands in the current day, we barely understand the physical planet we've lived on for the entirety of our existence as a species, never mind attempting to fully comprehend potential forces (natural ones, just beyond our realm of experience and knowledge to observe or understand) that may exist. There is no test we can make for divinity, but one day, there may be. That is why to my mind, you can assert "Christians are full of shit" or "Muslims are full of shit" and especially "Gerald Gardner was full of shit" but you can't conclusively state "there is no God/Divinity in the Universe" and you certainly can't do so by arguing against fables told centuries before we even understood the very primitive things we now know about the universe and the way things work (and if there WERE divinity, we would be so primitive in comparison that we may as well be proto-cells.)


Alright, so science can't disprove the concept of divinity. I was never arguing that. If that's how it came across, that isn't what I meant. My stance is that if you want to claim that divinity exists, I can't accept that without some sort of evidence.

Also, just to be clear, are we arguing that god exists inside our Universe or outside our Universe. It's just you said in this post "no god/divinity in our universe" and I was just wanting to be clear. If god exists in our universe, is he subject to our laws of science or not? Is this hypothetical being never subject to our laws of science even in our universe or does he exist solely outside of it. I only ask for clarity.

To end, I apologise for being insulting if you weren't being patronising. I'm not good at interpreting social interations, even written ones and I get heated in debates. If I crossed the line, I'm sorry.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RLStern said:


> *No you did not,
> 
> #1, you claimed without any evidence that there is "no evidence that God exists", which does not prove that God doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Sorry to tell you this but it's impossible to prove something does NOT exist.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not patronising at all, though I think that was more a sly dig at me, pretty lame though, just come at me if you wanna throw insults, no? The point I'm making is that you're dead wrong in a lot of your assumptions. Most of your arguments do not argue against the existence of divinity, they argue against man-made dogma, those aren't remotely the same topic. It's easy to use science to disprove the writings of barely educated people centuries ago, it's another thing entirely to try and claim science disproves any notion of divinity, it simply doesn't. I have no disagreement that the entirety of religious dogma is almost certainly false, the disagreement I have is the assertion "there is no god." It really isn't as clear cut as you think. Liken it to the existence of the electron, for centuries the ability to observe the existence of the electron was so far beyond the realms of human capability it would have been deemed "non existent." And yet, here we are. You can't disprove divinity with science as it stands in the current day, we barely understand the physical planet we've lived on for the entirety of our existence as a species, never mind attempting to fully comprehend potential forces (natural ones, just beyond our realm of experience and knowledge to observe or understand) that may exist. There is no test we can make for divinity, but one day, there may be. That is why to my mind, you can assert "Christians are full of shit" or "Muslims are full of shit" and especially "Gerald Gardner was full of shit" but you can't conclusively state "there is no God/Divinity in the Universe" and you certainly can't do so by arguing against fables told centuries before we even understood the very primitive things we now know about the universe and the way things work (and if there WERE divinity, we would be so primitive in comparison that we may as well be proto-cells.)


 science does not have to disprove any notion of divinity, you need to prove divinity. It seems like a number of people in this thread don't understand how science works. Science does not have to disprove anything, science proves things.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

3MB4Life said:


> So god is a mind yet doesn't require being created but mind has to be created and god created it.


*Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The human mind began to exist therefore created, God has no beginning, therefore no cause. God therefore requires no cause.

Argument refuted.*



3MB4Life said:


> So at best, you can prove Santa isn't at the North Pole. That isn't proof that he doesn't exist.


*
Actually it is, if Santa exists he would be at the north pole, he is not, therefore santa doesn't exist. that is Positive evidence. the absence of evidence for santa's existence isn't proof that santa doesn't exist rather it is the Positive evidence that santa doesn't exist(not at north pole) that proves it*



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to prove that god is not a physical being with evidence if you want someone to disprove god.
> 
> So do it.


:ha

*By definition God is not physical, by definition He is the creator of the physical.

If it's physical then it's not God by definition.

Argument refuted.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> science does not have to disprove any notion of divinity, you need to prove divinity. It seems like a number of people in this thread don't understand how science works. Science does not have to disprove anything, science proves things.


*
Exactly, so Science would have to prove that God "doesn't exist", if not then it's unscientific for God to not exist.

I have asked you to make me an atheist time and time again, yet you've been incapable to do so by just simply giving Positive evidence that God "doesn't exist"
*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The human mind began to exist therefore created, God has no beginning, therefore no cause. God therefore requires no cause.
> 
> Argument refuted.*
> 
> ...


You need to prove god does not have a beginning. Just because you say it does not make it true. you need to PROVE IT.

As for your santa not at the north pole, did you look everywhere at the north pole? How do you know his shop is not invisible where humans can't see it? What if Santa is on a different plane of existance then you would not be able to see him. You still have not disproven santa.

You keep saying God is not physical, by definition He is the creator of the physical. but have not proven that.

You are not refuting anything, you are just digging your hole deeper.

You keep making claims you cannot prove.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RLStern said:


> *
> Exactly, so Science would have to prove that God "doesn't exist", if not then it's unscientific for God to not exist.
> 
> I have asked you to make me an atheist time and time again, yet you've been incapable to do so by just simply giving Positive evidence that God "doesn't exist"
> *


Prove to me that God is not a transgender homosexual that believes abortion is OK? 

Why do you believe in YOUR God? Why not the thousands of others? Can you prove that they don't exist?


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *
> Actually it is, if Santa exists he would be at the north pole, he is not, therefore santa doesn't exist. that is Positive evidence. the absence of evidence for santa's existence isn't proof that santa doesn't exist rather it is the Positive evidence that santa doesn't exist(not at north pole) that proves it*


Why does Santa have to live at the North Pole? Because that's what people told you? If I were to suggest that Santa Claus is an omnipresent being with no beginning, can I freely claim that he exists? I mean, you can't disprove it, right?

Also, still ignoring my point on other religions. I would really appreciate you addressing that.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> Alright, so science can't disprove the concept of divinity. I was never arguing that. If that's how it came across, that isn't what I meant. My stance is that if you want to claim that divinity exists, I can't accept that without some sort of evidence.
> 
> Also, just to be clear, are we arguing that god exists inside our Universe or outside our Universe. It's just you said in this post "no god/divinity in our universe" and I was just wanting to be clear. If god exists in our universe, is he subject to our laws of science or not? Is this hypothetical being never subject to our laws of science even in our universe or does he exist solely outside of it. I only ask for clarity.
> 
> To end, I apologise for being insulting if you weren't being patronising. I'm not good at interpreting social interations, even written ones and I get heated in debates. If I crossed the line, I'm sorry.


I apologise if I come across as patronising, this is my "specialist subject" so to speak. Again you're mistakenly looking at the idea of the devine in too mundane a way. If there is (and I'm not saying there is, just that there "might be") a divine element on the level of an "all powerful, all present overlord creator type" you have to look at what "all powerful" and "all present" really imply. If there was a God, then you have to think a little outside the box just to wrap your head around a pretty alien concept. Imagine all of the possible realities that ever existed in every time AT every time in every point of history and the future (extending to infinity or at least until all of these realities "end.") Now, a being as powerful as "God" exists outside of/independent of and within all of those realities at all of those times, at the same time, all the time, he's "omnipresent." So he's literally everywhere in this universe and all others all the time no matter what point of history or future you go to, he's there. To further confuse matters, from his own perspective he's at all of those points in time, in all of those realities at THE SAME TIME, whilst also being independent of it. Think of it less like a wizard in the clouds and more like an invisible substance like air that we have no way of measuring but is literally in and around every single thing. Omnipotent or "all powerful" is the answer to "is he subject to the laws of science" in a word, no, our laws of science aren't even "laws" they're our best explanation as flawed mortals based on the empirical evidence we've managed to record. In fact, our "Laws of Science" would be subject to HIM, it's the other way round than the way you're looking at it. Everything "works" as an extension of his omnipotence, now, that doesn't need to imply a conscious direction on behalf of a "mind" of "Him" as this is a being that I'm sure you can see is so far beyond our level of understanding and evolution that you can't apply normal "mortal" rules to. In essence, the "stuff" that makes the world work, is an extension of his power, not necessarily a manifestation of deliberate conscious thought or effort. Is it no feasible for a being of that scope, power and immensity to be the driving force behind the creation of everything as a simple by product of existing and being "all powerful?" Often we place too much weight on personification of the divine (mostly because of that very flawed dogma) when really we're talking about an "alien" being of unfathomable power and presence. Should such a being exist, the complexity required in it's design would make universes look like "kiddies first lego set."


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I apologise if I come across as patronising, this is my "specialist subject" so to speak. Again you're mistakenly looking at the idea of the devine in too mundane a way. If there is (and I'm not saying there is, just that there "might be") a divine element on the level of an "all powerful, all present overlord creator type" you have to look at what "all powerful" and "all present" really imply. If there was a God, then you have to think a little outside the box just to wrap your head around a pretty alien concept. Imagine all of the possible realities that ever existed in every time AT every time in every point of history and the future (extending to infinity or at least until all of these realities "end.") Now, a being as powerful as "God" exists outside of/independent of and within all of those realities at all of those times, at the same time, all the time, he's "omnipresent." So he's literally everywhere in this universe and all others all the time no matter what point of history or future you go to, he's there. To further confuse matters, from his own perspective he's at all of those points in time, in all of those realities at THE SAME TIME, whilst also being independent of it. Think of it less like a wizard in the clouds and more like an invisible substance like air that we have no way of measuring but is literally in and around every single thing. Omnipotent or "all powerful" is the answer to "is he subject to the laws of science" in a word, no, our laws of science aren't even "laws" they're our best explanation as flawed mortals based on the empirical evidence we've managed to record. In fact, our "Laws of Science" would be subject to HIM, it's the other way round than the way you're looking at it. Everything "works" as an extension of his omnipotence, now, that doesn't need to imply a conscious direction on behalf of a "mind" of "Him" as this is a being that I'm sure you can see is so far beyond our level of understanding and evolution that you can't apply normal "mortal" rules to. In essence, the "stuff" that makes the world work, is an extension of his power, not necessarily a manifestation of deliberate conscious thought or effort. Is it no feasible for a being of that scope, power and immensity to be the driving force behind the creation of everything as a simple by product of existing and being "all powerful?" Often we place too much weight on personification of the divine (mostly because of that very flawed dogma) when really we're talking about an "alien" being of unfathomable power and presence. Should such a being exist, the complexity required in it's design would make universes look like "kiddies first lego set."


If this is your specialist subject you are pretty bad at it.


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I apologise if I come across as patronising, this is my "specialist subject" so to speak. Again you're mistakenly looking at the idea of the devine in too mundane a way. If there is (and I'm not saying there is, just that there "might be") a divine element on the level of an "all powerful, all present overlord creator type" you have to look at what "all powerful" and "all present" really imply. If there was a God, then you have to think a little outside the box just to wrap your head around a pretty alien concept. Imagine all of the possible realities that ever existed in every time AT every time in every point of history and the future (extending to infinity or at least until all of these realities "end.") Now, a being as powerful as "God" exists outside of/independent of and within all of those realities at all of those times, at the same time, all the time, he's "omnipresent." So he's literally everywhere in this universe and all others all the time no matter what point of history or future you go to, he's there. To further confuse matters, from his own perspective he's at all of those points in time, in all of those realities at THE SAME TIME, whilst also being independent of it. Think of it less like a wizard in the clouds and more like an invisible substance like air that we have no way of measuring but is literally in and around every single thing. Omnipotent or "all powerful" is the answer to "is he subject to the laws of science" in a word, no, our laws of science aren't even "laws" they're our best explanation as flawed mortals based on the empirical evidence we've managed to record. In fact, our "Laws of Science" would be subject to HIM, it's the other way round than the way you're looking at it. Everything "works" as an extension of his omnipotence, now, that doesn't need to imply a conscious direction on behalf of a "mind" of "Him" as this is a being that I'm sure you can see is so far beyond our level of understanding and evolution that you can't apply normal "mortal" rules to. In essence, the "stuff" that makes the world work, is an extension of his power, not necessarily a manifestation of deliberate conscious thought or effort. Is it no feasible for a being of that scope, power and immensity to be the driving force behind the creation of everything as a simple by product of existing and being "all powerful?" Often we place too much weight on personification of the divine (mostly because of that very flawed dogma) when really we're talking about an "alien" being of unfathomable power and presence. Should such a being exist, the complexity required in it's design would make universes look like "kiddies first lego set."


Ah right, I get you. So we are just dealing with something so unfathomable we can't even debate it's nature, nevermind it's existence?

That weirdly makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to lay that all out for me. I think when a lot of people (including me) come into these discussions, we approach it from going after the religious dogma and I think that's where I clashed with you on this. We were both coming from two completely different perspectives. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

3MB4Life said:


> Why does Santa have to live at the North Pole? Because that's what people told you? If I were to suggest that Santa Claus is an omnipresent being with no beginning, can I freely claim that he exists? I mean, you can't disprove it, right?


*
Then what you call "santa claus" is not the santa claus of the stories. what you call "santa" therefore is rendered not santa. and whatever is omnipresent is God, so you would be implying santa as a god, and not the one of the story*



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to prove god does not have a beginning. Just because you say it does not make it true. you need to PROVE IT.


*God by definition is the Creator of everything, by definition the uncaused cause, if it is caused then it is not God via very definition. anything uncaused has no beginning, therefore God has no beginning.

That was easy.*



birthday_massacre said:


> As for your santa not at the north pole, did you look everywhere at the north pole?


*The North Pole has been observed by many, santa claus a finite being is not there, if he was he would have been found, he would be a finite body(atoms).*



birthday_massacre said:


> How do you know his shop is not invisible where humans can't see it? What if Santa is on a different plane of existance then you would not be able to see him. You still have not disproven santa.


:ha
*
According to the story it wouldn't be invisible and would be at the north pole, if we're going off the story. you can't make stuff up or add stuff up because it disproves your claims.*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep saying God is not physical, by definition He is the creator of the physical. but have not proven that.


*He is by very definition, if it's not the creator of the physical/the universe then it's not God we are talking about.

You cannot change the definition just because it's not convenient for you*



themuel1 said:


> Sorry to tell you this but it's impossible to prove something does NOT exist.


*Then it is impossible to accept that God "doesn't exist" as you by your words it's impossible to prove.*




themuel1 said:


> Prove to me that God is not a transgender homosexual that believes abortion is OK?


*1, Transgender would mean involving a body(male/female), God is not a body by definition is non-physical and the creator of body

2, Homosexual would entail sexuality, which is something God created, just like food, etc, He isn't bound by food or sex or etc, He's the creator of it.

3, Abortion would entail the death of one who committed no sin, which is against the logic of God(Creating beings out of love, and His rules(Matthew 7:12)

Therefore God is not a transgender homosexual who believes abortion is ok.*


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I apologise if I come across as patronising, this is my "specialist subject" so to speak. Again you're mistakenly looking at the idea of the devine in too mundane a way. If there is (and I'm not saying there is, just that there "might be") a divine element on the level of an "all powerful, all present overlord creator type" you have to look at what "all powerful" and "all present" really imply. If there was a God, then you have to think a little outside the box just to wrap your head around a pretty alien concept. Imagine all of the possible realities that ever existed in every time AT every time in every point of history and the future (extending to infinity or at least until all of these realities "end.") Now, a being as powerful as "God" exists outside of/independent of and within all of those realities at all of those times, at the same time, all the time, he's "omnipresent." So he's literally everywhere in this universe and all others all the time no matter what point of history or future you go to, he's there. To further confuse matters, from his own perspective he's at all of those points in time, in all of those realities at THE SAME TIME, whilst also being independent of it. Think of it less like a wizard in the clouds and more like an invisible substance like air that we have no way of measuring but is literally in and around every single thing. Omnipotent or "all powerful" is the answer to "is he subject to the laws of science" in a word, no, our laws of science aren't even "laws" they're our best explanation as flawed mortals based on the empirical evidence we've managed to record. In fact, our "Laws of Science" would be subject to HIM, it's the other way round than the way you're looking at it. Everything "works" as an extension of his omnipotence, now, that doesn't need to imply a conscious direction on behalf of a "mind" of "Him" as this is a being that I'm sure you can see is so far beyond our level of understanding and evolution that you can't apply normal "mortal" rules to. In essence, the "stuff" that makes the world work, is an extension of his power, not necessarily a manifestation of deliberate conscious thought or effort. Is it no feasible for a being of that scope, power and immensity to be the driving force behind the creation of everything as a simple by product of existing and being "all powerful?" Often we place too much weight on personification of the divine (mostly because of that very flawed dogma) when really we're talking about an "alien" being of unfathomable power and presence. Should such a being exist, the complexity required in it's design would make universes look like "kiddies first lego set."


How do you know it's a "he" ?

The concept that if there is an omnipotent 'creator/s', be it a single entity or multiple entities, they would be so beyond our levels of understanding is something I agree with. It/they would live on an entirely different plain of existence to us and IMO if that were the case (we will never prove one way or the other) there's zero point in speculating.

One thing that's for sure. If the above is the case, then there is no way it/they would care about being praised or give a rats arse about anyone's daily lives.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> Then what you call "santa claus" is not the santa claus of the stories. what you call "santa" therefore is rendered not santa. and whatever is omnipresent is God, so you would be implying santa as a god, and not the one of the story*
> 
> 
> ...


You keep saying god is an uncaused cause but have yet to prove that. 

You are not proving anything just by restating your claim. 

People that believe in god ar ethe ones who keep making up new things about god. Also which god are we talking about. You have not disproved all the other gods in history.

So before you can claim your god is real you need to disprove all the other gods.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

themuel1 said:


> How do you know it's a "he" ?


*Now I know your level of intellect when it comes to this subject.

The reason He is used is because the word translated into He from the hebrew is to denote the Masculine.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> You keep saying god is an uncaused cause but have yet to prove that.


*By definition God is uncaused, by definition has no creator and is the greatest possible being if not then it wouldn't be God by very definition.

Argument refuted.*


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *
> Then what you call "santa claus" is not the santa claus of the stories. what you call "santa" therefore is rendered not santa. and whatever is omnipresent is God, so you would be implying santa as a god, and not the one of the story*


Alright, can you address my point on why you so easily dismiss other deities as false but accept your god as entirely real? I'm really interested to see your logic on it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

3MB4Life said:


> Ah right, I get you. So we are just dealing with something so unfathomable we can't even debate it's nature, nevermind it's existence?
> 
> That weirdly makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to lay that all out for me. I think when a lot of people (including me) come into these discussions, we approach it from going after the religious dogma and I think that's where I clashed with you on this. We were both coming from two completely different perspectives. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.


Yes and no. I'm a firm believer in the power of human progression and evolution. As it stand right now we have no way of attempting to measure or comprehend something of that magnitude. In the future? Maybe we can. Maybe at some point in our history we find a legitimate way to look into higher dimensions, hyperdrive models already exist somewhat with things like the Alcubierre Drive, they're not at current time something we have the technology to test but the theories are there and backed by scientific heavyweights. Never forget, at one point we were certain the earth was flat and sacrificing animals would lead to better crops. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that some people HAVE "communicated" with "God." Is it likely a being like that could/would "talk" to us? Those "conversations" could very well be the mortal mind's way of rationalising even the most minute contact from a being so immense. Of course, they could also be bullshit, maybe one day someone will be able to record it. If you're going to argue against religion, you have weapons aplenty to choose from. If you're arguing against the existence of God, I think first understanding the scope of what "God" can mean is a very good step to take. Arguments like "why does god allow this?" never hold up because it's applying human sentimentality (not even shared by most of the animals we share our planet with) to a non-human being. Similarly how do you attempt to record something that's in everything, around everything and yet also exist outside of reality as we know it? Attack the dogma and keep an open mind about the rest, if nothing else you can at least look at the idea of divinity as a potential maybe and less like magic wizards in the clouds 



themuel1 said:


> How do you know it's a "he" ?
> 
> The concept that if there is an omnipotent 'creator/s', be it a single entity or multiple entities, they would be so beyond our levels of understanding is something I agree with. It/they would live on an entirely different plain of existence to us and IMO if that were the case (we will never prove one way or the other) there's zero point in speculating.
> 
> One thing that's for sure. If the above is the case, then there is no way it/they would care about being praised or give a rats arse about anyone's daily lives.


I was just using "He" to reference the more commonly used terminology. I'm firmly of the belief that were such a being to exist, it probably wouldn't ascribe to our however many the fuck genders we have now or even have reproductive organs at all (surplus to requirement surely?) I guess we could say It's "omnigendered" so nobody gets triggered? (lol) But yeah you pretty much get my point though I disagree on the "zero point in speculating." Theology combined with Philosophy can be a great source ofstimulation for the mind, awesome for discussions and speculative debates, and sometimes give us ways to rationalise those things we don't at this time have the ability to observe and test in physical means.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *By definition God is uncaused, by definition has no creator and is the greatest possible being if not then it wouldn't be God by very definition.
> 
> Argument refuted.*


the argument is not refuted lol. You can't give the definition of your claim as evidence . You are a joke dude.

And I love how you keep ignoring you not disproving all the other gods.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

3MB4Life said:


> Alright,


:applause



3MB4Life said:


> can you address my point on why you so easily dismiss other deities as false but accept your god as entirely real? I'm really interested to see your logic on it.


*Simple, not for lack of evidence but for the evidence that they don't exist(such as the fact that YHWH exists)*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> :applause
> 
> 
> 
> *Simple, not for lack of evidence but for the evidence that they don't exist(such as the fact that YHWH exists)*


What is the evidence they don't exist? You have not shown that. You have not eevn show evidence that YHWH exists.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> the argument is not refuted lol. You can't give the definition of your claim as evidence . You are a joke dude.
> 
> And I love how you keep ignoring you not disproving all the other gods.


*
God is not a claim, it's a word to describe an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Non-Physical, Omniscient, creator of everything, of which no greater can be conceived.

God exists, is the claim.

You're the easiest atheist I have ever debated, how new to this are you?*


----------



## 3MB4Life (Apr 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> :applause
> 
> 
> 
> *Simple, not for lack of evidence but for the evidence that they don't exist(such as the fact that YHWH exists)*


So every other deity except the one you believe in is wrong even though they originate from the same branch of reasoning? You do realise you either have to accept all other deities as at least valid or admit your stance on god is as weak as all the others that you disregard with such ease? Either of those two or you're just being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> God is not a claim, it's a word to describe an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Non-Physical, Omniscient, creator of everything, of which no greater can be conceived.
> 
> God exists, is the claim.
> ...



You have not proven god exists lol. You just keep giving a definition as proof and it's not.

You have not proven an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Non-Physical, Omniscient, creator of everything, of which no greater can be conceived exists. 

You are embarrassing yourself at this point.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yes and no. I'm a firm believer in the power of human progression and evolution. As it stand right now we have no way of attempting to measure or comprehend something of that magnitude. In the future? Maybe we can. Maybe at some point in our history we find a legitimate way to look into higher dimensions, hyperdrive models already exist somewhat with things like the Alcubierre Drive, they're not at current time something we have the technology to test but the theories are there and backed by scientific heavyweights. Never forget, at one point we were certain the earth was flat and sacrificing animals would lead to better crops. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that some people HAVE "communicated" with "God." Is it likely a being like that could/would "talk" to us? Those "conversations" could very well be the mortal mind's way of rationalising even the most minute contact from a being so immense. Of course, they could also be bullshit, maybe one day someone will be able to record it. If you're going to argue against religion, you have weapons aplenty to choose from. If you're arguing against the existence of God, I think first understanding the scope of what "God" can mean is a very good step to take. Arguments like "why does god allow this?" never hold up because it's applying human sentimentality (not even shared by most of the animals we share our planet with) to a non-human being. Similarly how do you attempt to record something that's in everything, around everything and yet also exist outside of reality as we know it? Attack the dogma and keep an open mind about the rest, if nothing else you can at least look at the idea of divinity as a potential maybe and less like magic wizards in the clouds
> 
> 
> 
> I was just using "He" to reference the more commonly used terminology. I'm firmly of the belief that were such a being to exist, it probably wouldn't ascribe to our however many the fuck genders we have now or even have reproductive organs at all (surplus to requirement surely?) I guess we could say It's "omnigendered" so nobody gets triggered? (lol) But yeah you pretty much get my point though I disagree on the "zero point in speculating." Theology combined with Philosophy can be a great source ofstimulation for the mind, awesome for discussions and speculative debates, and sometimes give us ways to rationalise those things we don't at this time have the ability to observe and test in physical means.


What I meant in terms of speculating and I should have been more specific was a back and forth on whether 'they' exist or not. A black and white exchange rather than a thoughtful discussion. In speculating on the possibility I agree with you. The problem, as were seeing is often one side demand proof of a lack of existence which is impossible and ruins any debate.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Jesus Christ why is anyone still debating RL Stern at this point?

When he refuses to accept you don't need to / can't prove a negative what's the point of continuing?



The way I see it - the people who say they know / can prove God exists are the ones who get everyone else's panties in twist and basically are coming from it the wrong way.

God/Gods are such fantastical creations by nature that they can't be proven. That's why they are Gods and are supposedly 'higher' beings. We can't prove their existence because we don't have the tools to. That's why the magical term faith exists. You 'believe' in God - you can't prove he exists but if your faith is strong enough you shouldn't need to.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RLStern said:


> *Now I know your level of intellect when it comes to this subject.
> 
> The reason He is used is because the word translated into He from the hebrew is to denote the Masculine.*


Clearly not knowing that shows my complete lack of intellect. 

'the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively' - I however knew and understand you cannot prove something does not exist so I think in the context of this discussion, I'm doing OK. But thanks.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

themuel1 said:


> What I meant in terms of speculating and I should have been more specific was a back and forth on whether 'they' exist or not. A black and white exchange rather than a thoughtful discussion. In speculating on the possibility I agree with you. The problem, as were seeing is often one side demand proof of a lack of existence which is impossible and ruins any debate.


The discussion when it comes to god should be, what is god and go from there. instead of the BS RLSTERN does and says prove god does not exist.

Like someone asked what would it take for an atheist believe in god, which is a good question but the person making the claim of a god first needs to say what exactly is their definition of god then go from there.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *By definition God is uncaused, by definition has no creator and is the greatest possible being if not then it wouldn't be God by very definition.
> 
> Argument refuted.*


*I shouldn't waste my time, but whatever. As an Atheist I say that the Universe by definition has no creator. Like God is to you and billions of others. God just is. Well, all of the Universe just is. People like you keeping saying that people like myself don't have proof and yet we do, and tons of it. Here is an example of the truth. The Sun will cease to be, not in our lifetime, but it will cease to be. Why? It was placed there so that life could exists, right? God did create the Sun, right? How is this possible that the sun will eventually die? Because we have brilliant men and women who have dedicated their lives to space. They understand it and can explain it very, very, well to others interested. What they came to find was this. Stars, or our Sun eventually "super nova" and that's it. Even a star dies just like you and I and no they don't go to star heaven.

The facts are there you just refuse to accept them and that's totally fine. Just remember that you are wrong and what you know about what you believe in regarding God is not fact. God is a man made ideology which helped shape society. Religion has done much more positive than negative and if it were the other way around we'd all be dead. I have nothing against people believing in God, or Gods. However, I have a problem when those same people begin to think that their God, or Gods are actually real. The Sun will eventually die and there is no part of any religious text that says this. You and others should really take some time and think about what I have just said because it's fact. Actually most of you should go back to worshiping the Sun, it's the closest thing to God around.*


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

birthday_massacre said:


> The discussion when it comes to god should be, what is god and go from there. instead of the BS RLSTERN does and says prove god does not exist.
> 
> Like someone asked what would it take for an atheist believe in god, which is a good question but the person making the claim of a god first needs to say what exactly is their definition of god then go from there.


Best I've seen it put by "Mad Dog" on another Forum.

"However, I also maintain, as do most atheists, that my position is a rational one based on evidence or the lack of it. Thus my beliefs are hostage to the data and, at least in principle, there is the possibility that they will be falsified by some new evidence."


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

blackholeson said:


> *I shouldn't waste my time, but whatever. As an Atheist I say that the Universe by definition has no creator.*


*

Infinite Regression is impossible, Scientifically the Universe began to exist, it therefore has a cause(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)



blackholeson said:



Even a star dies just like you and I and no they don't go to star heaven.

Click to expand...

:ha*


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *
> Infinite Regression is impossible, Scientifically the Universe began to exist, it therefore has a cause(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)*
> 
> 
> ...


*It began to exist? There was a big bang. Many in the field suggest that the Universe as we know it began there. Unless you think The Big Bang is God. I said that the Universe doesn't have a creator. I don't consider a "big bang" the creator. That would be silly. You're laughing at my point about Stars dying. That's actually hilarious because you're making fun of a fact that I presented. I'd ask you to come up with something better, but you're clearly delusional. You've never argued with someone like me about this topic. Be careful you'll end up rejecting God and worshiping Satan.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

blackholeson said:


> *It began to exist? There was a big bang. Many in the field suggest that the Universe as we know it began there.*


*


#1 You admit that the universe began to exist.

#2 The Big Bang theory is one of the ways used to prove God exists. 








blackholeson said:



I said that the Universe doesn't have a creator.

Click to expand...

Which is impossible. We already agree that the universe began to exist, now the cause.

The Cause is Timeless and Spaceless as it caused Time and Space.

The Cause has no cause as it's timeless and therefore never began to exist, only whatever begins to exist has a cause

The Cause is Immaterial as it created matter, it put the physical into existence.

Only two things are immaterial, A Mind(Thoughts, Person, Consciousness, etc) and an Abstract object(numbers for example)

Abstract objects cannot cause anything, therefore it is a Mind. A Mind created the universe.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> 
> #1 You admit that the universe began to exist.
> 
> ...


We did not agree the universe began to exist.

Like I said if you are going to claim god always existed, you can say the same for the universe.

OH and look at this paper.




RLStern said:


> *
> Infinite Regression is impossible, Scientifically the Universe began to exist, it therefore has a cause(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)*
> 
> 
> ...


https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

No Big Bang? *Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning*

(Phys.org) —T*he universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.*
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

*Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.*

Old ideas revisited

The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.
Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.
No singularities nor dark stuff

In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.
Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> We did not agree the universe began to exist.


*That was to blackholeson,

Are you blackholeson or did you misread?*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH and look at this paper.



http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-quantum-mechanics-indicate-an-eternal-universe

*Refuted, An Infinite Regression is factually impossible, you cannot get to the present with an infinite past, it is illogical and impossible.
*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *That was to blackholeson,
> 
> Are you blackholeson or did you misread?*
> 
> ...


Oh I misread my mistake on that one. I was quoting multiple posts.

Its not been refuted lol Craig gets beaten in all is debates its funny you keep using him as a source.

carol embarrassed Craig in their debate. He used science to tear Craig apart.

Let me guess you will use Ken Ham next as a source


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh I misread my mistake on that one. I was quoting multiple posts.
> 
> Its not been refuted lol Craig gets beaten in all is debates its funny you keep using him as a source.


*
William Lane Craig has defeated all atheist he has debated, Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate him, lets not forget how he destroyed Christopher Hitchens career:*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *
> William Lane Craig has defeated all atheist he has debated, Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate him, lets not forget how he destroyed Christopher Hitchens career:*


No he hasn't LOL Hitchens beat him all the time they debated. you are so delusional.


----------



## NotGuilty (Apr 6, 2015)

I used to not believe in him, then I saw him in a tag team match. 










:woah


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

RLStern said:


> *
> 
> #1 You admit that the universe began to exist.
> 
> ...


*I never said we agreed on it having a beginning. You're taking what I said out of context. Many in the field have said that the Universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. I'm only going with what modern science has stated. I don't necessarily think it matters. There have been plenty of theories as to when the start of all that is was. The Big Bang is technically considered a theory by others who have other scientific conclusions. You asked for facts and I was just responding. 

What are you talking about? The Big Bang is one of the ways to prove that God exist? Lol. I'm sorry for laughing, but that's just silly. You can't be serious. The Big Bang has not been mentioned in the New, or Old Testament. It specifically states that God is the almighty creator of all that is. Nothing on Earth, or in the known Universe has a clear beginning. What came first the chicken, or the egg? My parents had sex and I was born 9 months later. Would I have been born had my parents not ever met? What if my father met another women and my mother met another man? 

That's an important question to ask because it begs the question of who are "you", not you literally. I don't care to know who you actually are. When does your life actually begin (again not literally you). My father and mother met, dated, got married and I was eventually born. The fact that they met, stayed together, and then had me says so many things. Did my life actually start the moment my father and mother decided to get serious? After all, if they don't settle down I don't exist. They are two people who could have met two other people and gone their separate ways. Again, where does life begin? This is not an abortion, or pro life topic, please don't turn it into one.*


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)




----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

blackholeson said:


> *
> That's an important question to ask because it begs the question of who are "you", not you literally. I don't care to know who you actually are. When does your life actually begin (again not literally you). My father and mother met, dated, got married and I was eventually born. The fact that they met, stayed together, and then had me says so many things. Did my life actually start the moment my father and mother decided to get serious? After all, if they don't settle down I don't exist. They are two people who could have met two other people and gone their separate ways. Again, where does life begin? This is not an abortion, or pro life topic, please don't turn it into one.*


----------



## Stephen90 (Mar 31, 2015)

NotGuilty said:


> I used to not believe in him, then I saw him in a tag team match.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

RLStern said:


>


Have you actually watched these videos or are you just going on the titles of them? I've watched a load of them and the guys he is debating are so ill informed they can't even get their head around what atheism is.....

Hitchens and Dawkins are streets ahead of these guys both in reasoning, knowledge of history, study of a range of religions (unlike the others who 'study' one) and overall intelligence.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

themuel1 said:


> Have you actually watched these videos or are you just going on the titles of them? I've watched a load of them and the guys he is debating are so ill informed they can't even get their head around what atheism is.....
> 
> Hitchens and Dawkins are streets ahead of these guys both in reasoning, knowledge of history, study of a range of religions (unlike the others who 'study' one) and overall intelligence.


He just picks the titles that fits what he wants even though if you watch the debates, you see Hitchen clearly wins. It's only delusional creationist that think Hitchen loses.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)




----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

I think all you need to do is read the bible cover to cover to disprove God exists. It's so clearly a work of fantasy and contains so many things that were 'truths' at the time that we've simply proven wrong since. 

We know the earth is much older than the bible says
We know Adam and Eve was bullshit
No mention of dinosaurs lol
No evidence of Moses parting the seas and all the other wacky tales
No recorded evidence of any miracles at all since we had the means to record them - what a coincidence
When the fuck is the rapture going to happen I mean come on - if WW1 and 2 didn't didn't signal we need help then WTF

Oh, but the parts of the bible that are so clearly disproven now are not meant to be taken literally - how convenient.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

yeahbaby! said:


> I think all you need to do is read the bible cover to cover to disprove God exists. It's so clearly a work of fantasy and contains so many things that were 'truths' at the time that we've simply proven wrong since.
> 
> We know the earth is much older than the bible says
> We know Adam and Eve was bullshit
> ...


None of that disproves God though. It disproves a bunch of religious scholars a couple millennia ago. You're disproving Christianity, not the existence of "God."


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)




----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> None of that disproves God though. It disproves a bunch of religious scholars a couple millennia ago. You're disproving Christianity, not the existence of "God."


Sure I get that - but arent' the majority of believers here talking about Christian god? It's the most popular in the west isn't it?


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

*
It wasn't until I became a Christian that I got into Science and Critical Thinking before then as a teen I would just curse God and be too lazy to even read a paragraph of anything quite frankly. I love how YHWH(God:The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) opened my mind and expanded my intellect on history, philosophy, science and logic.*


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

yeahbaby! said:


> Sure I get that - but arent' the majority of believers here talking about Christian god? It's the most popular in the west isn't it?


RLStern definitely, not sure it's a majority though that are clean cut Christians. I think people focus way too much on the Bible which is the beginning point of the "documented" ideology, not the end. Have a look at church reforms over the past 2 millennia and you'll see how silly it is to aim your argument at an ancient bit of text. The equivalent would be saying "all science is crap, they believed the Earth was flat 2 millennia ago and that's nonsense." You're trying to argue a modern religion that's evolved beyond the original teachings, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists or believe the earth was 6,000 years old. Does it not seem a little silly to focus your attack on a book that's fairly widely accepted as mostly filled with stories to teach morality over historical fact? I'm not even a Christian or religious in the slightest but it has to be said, you're all so focused on "the Bible says, the Bible says, the Bible says." Would it be a fair argument to detract from modern theatre by criticising the works of Sophocles? How about arguing against the current political system in the UK by criticising medieval feudalism? That's actually what you're doing here.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RavishingRickRules said:


> RLStern definitely, not sure it's a majority though that are clean cut Christians. I think people focus way too much on the Bible which is the beginning point of the "documented" ideology, not the end. Have a look at church reforms over the past 2 millennia and you'll see how silly it is to aim your argument at an ancient bit of text. The equivalent would be saying "all science is crap, they believed the Earth was flat 2 millennia ago and that's nonsense." You're trying to argue a modern religion that's evolved beyond the original teachings, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists or believe the earth was 6,000 years old. Does it not seem a little silly to focus your attack on a book that's fairly widely accepted as mostly filled with stories to teach morality over historical fact?* I'm not even a Christian or religious in the slightest but it has to be said, you're all so focused on "the Bible says, the Bible says, the Bible says*." Would it be a fair argument to detract from modern theatre by criticising the works of Sophocles? How about arguing against the current political system in the UK by criticising medieval feudalism? That's actually what you're doing here.


That is because most creationists use the bible as proof of the existence of god. That is the god most of them are talking about the god of the bible. That is why if you are debating about god, the person making the claim of god needs to say what is god not the person who is rejecting the claim of god.

Because they can just do what you are doing right now.





RLStern said:


> *
> It wasn't until I became a Christian that I got into Science and Critical Thinking before then as a teen I would just curse God and be too lazy to even read a paragraph of anything quite frankly. I love how YHWH(God:The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) opened my mind and expanded my intellect on history, philosophy, science and logic.*


Nothing he said in that video were facts. lol


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

*William Lane Craig was pure ether to Christopher Hitchens career:*








birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing he said in that video were facts. lol


*Demonstrate.*


----------



## Lm2 (Feb 18, 2008)

Yes I do. But I also believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> RLStern definitely, not sure it's a majority though that are clean cut Christians. I think people focus way too much on the Bible which is the beginning point of the "documented" ideology, not the end. Have a look at church reforms over the past 2 millennia and you'll see how silly it is to aim your argument at an ancient bit of text. The equivalent would be saying "all science is crap, they believed the Earth was flat 2 millennia ago and that's nonsense." You're trying to argue a modern religion that's evolved beyond the original teachings, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists or believe the earth was 6,000 years old. Does it not seem a little silly to focus your attack on a book that's fairly widely accepted as mostly filled with stories to teach morality over historical fact? I'm not even a Christian or religious in the slightest but it has to be said, you're all so focused on "the Bible says, the Bible says, the Bible says." Would it be a fair argument to detract from modern theatre by criticising the works of Sophocles? How about arguing against the current political system in the UK by criticising medieval feudalism? That's actually what you're doing here.


The bible is the foundation isn't it? Without it, you don't have anything else to develop into, no? What's wrong with criticising that?

I mean let's say Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement has progressed into something more complex and useful and positive. Does that mean we cannot review and critique the weirdness of The book of Mormon and the character of Joseph Smith?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *William Lane Craig was pure ether to Christoper Hitchens career:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its easy to tear him apart










1. There is no evidence outside the bible this is true.

2. See #1

3. See #1

Also people claim to have seen Elvis after his death does that mean that Elvis rose from the dead?


Nowhere in history books does it show Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

Also please don't tell me you think Jesus was white if he was real


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

yeahbaby! said:


> The bible is the foundation isn't it? Without it, you don't have anything else to develop into, no? What's wrong with criticising that?
> 
> I mean let's say Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement has progressed into something more complex and useful and positive. Does that mean we cannot review and critique the weirdness of The book of Mormon and the character of Joseph Smith?


Sure you can, but attacking the foundation whilst ignoring modern representations of the religion itself is a very weak argument. It's like arguing against the scientific community with Flat Earth Theory as your target, or medicine for believing for a long time that bloodletting and leeches sucking your blood daily was a positive health benefit. Or sanitation with the idea that the smell of faeces was what caused diseases (which actually did help somewhat as armies would bury their business downwind to avoid the smell and avoided air-born bacteria as a result.) These are early versions or "foundations" of things we know today, does that make them a decent attack point to refute the validity of science? I'm not convinced. Reading the bible to affirm long known assertions that it's historically inaccurate don't remotely disprove God or even the validity of religion. You're just repeating yourself over and over again that people 2 millennia ago were thick as pig shit (it's not a secret btw.)


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> 1. There is no evidence outside the bible this is true.


*Incorrect, those 3 facts are accepted by Scholars as historical facts whether you believe Jesus Christ as God or not,*








birthday_massacre said:


> 2. See #1
> 
> 3. See #1


:ha


----------



## Yeah1993 (Nov 20, 2008)

Proving God doesn't exist makes almost no sense at all. If you don't believe in the Lochness Monster, Big Foot, Mothman, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, El Chupacabra, and aliens, you do not have to prove they don't exist. How would you even do that? Scour every last bit of planet Earth (and the universe in the case of aliens)? The very virtue of those things never having been proven to be real is enough reason to think they don't exist.

The platypus was once thought to be a cryptid, a la Big Foot. People heard rumours and didn't believe it existed. Others went out and caught one, proving it did. That is how proof works. How can you prove there's no evidence of something? THE LACK OF EVIDENCE IS THE PROOF OF LACKING EVIDENCE.


It's pretty fucking simple. Person A tells Persona B God exists, and Person B says "never seen a God, I don't think there is one." How can Persona A say "prove it" when they themselves have proven dead nothing? They made the claim, Person B has just said they don't believe them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *Incorrect, those 3 facts are accepted by Scholars as historical facts whether you believe Jesus Christ as God or not,*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Show me evidence in history books.

And again people claimed to have see Elvis after his dead, it does not make it a fact they saw him and that Elvis was alive.

Anyone can say oh I see Jesus or Elvis , it does not make it a fact you saw them alive.

You dont seem to understand what a fact is


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sure you can, but attacking the foundation whilst ignoring modern representations of the religion itself is a very weak argument. *It's like arguing against the scientific community with Flat Earth Theory as your target, or medicine for believing for a long time that bloodletting and leeches sucking your blood daily was a positive health benefit. Or sanitation with the idea that the smell of faeces was what caused diseases (which actually did help somewhat as armies would bury their business downwind to avoid the smell and avoided air-born bacteria as a result.) These are early versions or "foundations" of things we know today, does that make them a decent attack point to refute the validity of science?* I'm not convinced. Reading the bible to affirm long known assertions that it's historically inaccurate don't remotely disprove God or even the validity of religion. You're just repeating yourself over and over again that people 2 millennia ago were thick as pig shit (it's not a secret btw.)


The difference is scientific advancement involves empirical testing that produces actual evidence - theories tested and re-tested x 10 to become scientific laws. Advancements in medicine came through actual physical experiments and testing. There are scientists and experiments and theories you can point to to see how those beliefs changed - because of physical evidence.

That does not relate to how Religion has developed. It's apples and oranges sorry.

Also "people 2 millennia ago were thick as pig shit" is a point but it's also that religion was enforced on the people in a lot of cases. 'Oh you don't believe in my religion? We'll I'm sorry I'll have to cut off your head and burn your village down'.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

yeahbaby! said:


> The difference is scientific advancement involves empirical testing that produces actual evidence - theories tested and re-tested x 10 to become scientific laws. Advancements in medicine came through actual physical experiments and testing. There are scientists and experiments and theories you can point to to see how those beliefs changed - because of physical evidence.
> 
> That does not relate to how Religion has developed. It's apples and oranges sorry.
> 
> Also "people 2 millennia ago were thick as pig shit" is a point but it's also that religion was enforced on the people in a lot of cases. 'Oh you don't believe in my religion? We'll I'm sorry I'll have to cut off your head and burn your village down'.


Oh I cosign 100% that organised religion is a plague upon the earth, I just don't think that's a valid argument to disprove the existence of divinity. It's evaluating the actions and words of often corrupt, powerful people in a time when religion held a lot more weight. I just don't see that as proof of anything beyond the evil and stupidity of humanity, traits we've displayed in abundance throughout our history.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh I cosign 100% that organised religion is a plague upon the earth, I just don't think that's a valid argument to disprove the existence of divinity. It's evaluating the actions and words of often corrupt, powerful people in a time when religion held a lot more weight. I just don't see that as proof of anything beyond the evil and stupidity of humanity, traits we've displayed in abundance throughout our history.


Agree to disagree and praise Jeebus.


----------



## Dead Seabed (Jun 3, 2002)

RLStern said:


> *
> The absurd claim that "God does not exist" Is a positive claim that requires evidence, there simply is no evidence that God doesn't exist, the idea of Him not existing is unscientific and illogical.*


Wow what a density. You're the one claiming there's an invisible sky wizard, not the atheists. The burden of proof is on you. 

Also, calling the common sense notion that something doesn't exist since there's not a single shred of evidence in favor of it as "unscientific and illogical" is just backwards ass downright fucking retarded.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

Yes. Not necessarily as defined by any religious institutions though.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Limb Harvest said:


> Wow what a density. You're the one claiming there's an invisible sky wizard, not the atheists. The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Also, calling the common sense notion that something doesn't exist since there's not a single shred of evidence in favor of it as "unscientific and illogical" is just backwards ass downright fucking retarded.


What do you expect his two hero's are Ken Ham and William Lane Craig. Two of the most intellectually dishonest people there are.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Bearodactyl said:


> That's where statistics and evolution kick in. Out of a zillion planets, one having the correct conditions to support life are pretty damn good. So good infact that Earth isn't even the only planet that has those conditions.
> Then, in a terrible long space of time, Evolution does its thing. The beings best suited for the environment they find themselves in thrive. Generations upon generations, natural selection makes sure that some prosper while others fall to the wayside. And so we end up with a species that looks and seems perfectly suited for its environment, and you ask "could this be mere happenstance? I think not. Clearly this was the work of a creator". And I tell you, I'm with you on the first part. As for the latter, I think a drawn out process of natural selection, which we can prove is a thing, seems more likely than the God theory. Again, Ockham's Razor.


Evolution is not an argument to claim God doesn ot exist. Even two of the worlds most vocal atheists have said now, namely Dawkins and Krauss. In fact, Dawkins actually said that evolution was a great tool to be used against those people unsure about God, i.e. if you're gullible enough, evolution is for you. 

Also, like I said, your human intellect would not believe that a table could come together by itself and know its purpose yet you think somethings that are infinitely more complex than a table could just happen? 

Engage your mind and stop regurgitating what so called scientists have said.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> *I did answer your question. I said I don't believe because there is no evidence god exists
> 
> Not sure how much more clear I can be*
> 
> ...


Like I said, what is your criteria for that evidence? If one claims there is not enough evidence, they must then explain what criteria they used to come to that conclusion. 

And I never said I could not prove god did not exist but before doing so, I need to know what your criteria is. What would you need to believe in God. You still have not answered that and if you have, I must have missed it or forgotten it. Just post it again.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

RLStern said:


> *
> The absurd claim that "God does not exist" Is a positive claim that requires evidence, there simply is no evidence that God doesn't exist, the idea of Him not existing is unscientific and illogical.*


You're using the burden of proof wrong. If god DOES exist and he is more powerful than humans he can hide, he can hide anywhere he wants it is an impossiblity to disprove god, the very idea of an all powerful all knowing god means he can avoid our detection. The burden is on you, you have to prove that your god exists and so far the only way its been done is by sending prophets thousands of years ago, why not send them now we have phones? Its funny how the number of Prophets seems to drop the more advanced our technology, when was the last one? That mormon guy.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> Like I said, what is your criteria for that evidence? If one claims there is not enough evidence, they must then explain what criteria they used to come to that conclusion.
> 
> And I never said I could not prove god did not exist but before doing so, I need to know what your criteria is. What would you need to believe in God. You still have not answered that and if you have, I must have missed it or forgotten it. Just post it again.


How about he sends a prophet down to walk on water live on Camera? Is it too much to ask for a prophet that didn't die a millenia ago? 

My criteria for evidence would be ANYTHING other than a book that was written decades after the events by a group of men from a load of hearasay and letters, removing the bits they don't like, then centuries later translating it, then translating it again, oh and again. Then, chucing in different versions. Other than the bible there is no evidence for a christian god, evidence of a Jesus, sure.


----------



## BlueRover (Jun 26, 2010)

Funny how this thread is basically "let's all bash religious people" and is perfectly acceptable by most, yet a thread on bashing anything else would be "hate speech." 

Without "the horrors" of religion there would be no human civilization. You would all be cavemen swamped in your own feces swinging off monkey tits.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

BlueRover said:


> Funny how this thread is basically "let's all bash religious people" and is perfectly acceptable by most, yet a thread on bashing anything else would be "hate speech."
> 
> Without "the horrors" of religion there would be no human civilization. You would all be cavemen swamped in your own feces swinging off monkey tits.


i'd like to see some evidence of that.

more of the same 'good things can only come from religion' nonsense.

no one is being 'bashed' either, to be honest its turned into a circular argument based around, prove god exists! ah, you prove that he doesn't

as neither can be proved or disproved, its pointless


----------



## Marco Metelo (Sep 13, 2016)

I think maybe there is a superior entity but we don´t owe them for nothing.


----------



## Klotty23 (Feb 14, 2017)

There is a creator, u can call it what u want. I've been researching the subject of a god/creator for about 9.5 years now and have interviewed 37 scientists on the matter.

As quantum computing becomes closer to a reality it is becoming increasingly more evident that the universe we live in is nothing but a simulation on a grand scale. Each individual programmed with randominity to "choose" which is our perception of "free will".

Somewhere out there an intelligent being is just playing a game of SIM Universe on a Galactic Gameboy.

Reticulating splines.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> Like I said, what is your criteria for that evidence? If one claims there is not enough evidence, they must then explain what criteria they used to come to that conclusion.
> 
> And I never said I could not prove god did not exist but before doing so, I need to know what your criteria is. What would you need to believe in God. You still have not answered that and if you have, I must have missed it or forgotten it. Just post it again.


Things happen by chance all the time, like mutations in plants and animals, that is evidence of things happening by chance. There is zero evidence a god or gods have ever existed. 


And AGAIN I don't need to give you my criteria for what god is or what it would take for me to believe. You are making the claim for a god existing, you need to say what your definition of god is. I don't understand why you can't comprehend this simple concept

You like creationist do love to play this little game. There are tons of definitions of what people think god is, you need to set the criteria of what god is before someone can say what it would take for them to believe.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

I don't believe in God, I believe in science. You know, the subject that has actual proven facts.

Funny this thread has come up, as I have just been in a religious conversation on facebook with someone, and then of course one of his friends came running in for the failed rescue.

First of all, just want to make it clear that there seems to be huge misconceptions about all Atheists. Not all of us believe that life just ends and there is nothingness afterwards. I believe we all have souls and that we can choose to be reborn again, or, we can choose to be content with being wandering spirits on earth. I believe we all see our friends and family in an afterlife. I do not believe in a heaven or hell.

Atheists don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean we don't believe human beings, and animals, have spirits. God is on a whole other level, before anyone even tries to compare the two.


I don't have a problem with anyone who is religious in general, we are all free to accept whatever religion we feel makes us happy, no matter how stupid I think it is. My problem lies with the fucking bible thumpers, which is exactly what that guy and his friend are. My problem with his post was not that he's religious, it was that it was knocking homosexuals, saying they are a mistake, their life is wrong, that if his child were gay, he would 'make them rethink it and choose the straight and narrow path'. That is where I draw the fucking line with religious people. 

After I destroy Christianity, he starts with the 'Christianity DOES teach us to love everyone, but, we cannot accept homosexual behaviour' and that 'homosexuality is a choice'. 

His dumbass lady friend interjects later on with more of the 'love is a choice, homosexuality is a choice'. By this point, I am beyond facepalming at these clowns. Anyway, I continue with telling this cunt that she needs some science in her life, she should go take a science course. She reponds with calling me an idiot because 'where does science teach about love, duhhhhhhhhhh', not getting it through her stupid fucking head that my point was that falling in love with someone involves chemicals, something the brain has, but, I guess she wouldn't know that since she clearly does not have a brain. She then deleted her comment later on, so, I guess someone told her how fucking stupid she is to have said that and not gotten the point of the response.

The guy also stated that humans are not animals. I'm just gonna leave that here.

He then doesn't see how the bible teaches hate. Well, shit for brains, the fact that you cannot accept another person's sexual orientation, for starters. This shit lies right up there for me with racism and sexism. You're being a prejudice cow towards a group of people because of how they were born. Let me say it again: HOW THEY WERE BORN. It is not a choice. You do not choose who you fall in love with. Anyone who says you do can go fuck a cactus. This bitch friend was all 'yes, it is a choice, I choose to love my husband everyday'. I mean, really, the best part of the debate was this girl responding and showing just how goddamn dumb she is.

My mom has had 3 different cancers over the years. In 2012, she had stage 4 throat cancer, and she was told she had 6 months to 2 years to live. She went to (and still goes to, as she is getting over breast cancer surgery, she had her second reconstructive surgery last month and has to go for check ups) Roswell Cancer Institute, the best cancer hospital in the country, and the GOOD DOCTORS of Roswell used their science to save my mom. It wasn't some invisible man in the sky, it was the intelligent doctors who used their practices to save her life. She has to take chemo pills for 5 years to keep any cancer cells dormant. I am grateful for the people who go to school to become doctors and save people. I saw a comment for my mom saying thanks to god as he is the true surgeon, or something like that. No, he is not, the doctors are, and don't take that away from them.

The bible is nothing more than a man made book of 'guidelines' that some ignorant person (or people) decided to write. I get it, some people feel they need something to live for, something to make them feel like we don't just 'end', that someone made us, and they will refuse to agree with science and refuse to accept that fact that the only 'proof' they have is a book that they truly have no idea who wrote. If that is the path you choose, do it, whatever makes you happy, but, don't be a bible thumping bitch, who uses every minute of your day to preach to everyone who doesn't have the same belief system you do.

If I said to you 'holy shit, just saw this guy walk on water!!!', or, 'damn, dude was dead for a few days, he just came back to life after that brutal death and now he's all clean and happy and alive', you would all look at me like I am full of fucking shit and should be in a nuthouse, yet, it's okay to read it in a book and believe it, with no actual evidence this even happened? Do you think the concept of the X-Men being real is stupid because having those abilities they have is not natural and unbelievable? Because if you do, I've got news for you.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

BlueRover said:


> Funny how this thread is basically "let's all bash religious people" and is perfectly acceptable by most, yet a thread on bashing anything else would be "hate speech."
> 
> Without "the horrors" of religion there would be no human civilization. You would all be cavemen swamped in your own feces swinging off monkey tits.


Disagree. In fact, there's evidence to suggest that the European dark ages were a direct consequence of Christianity becoming the state religion of much of Europe. Just as the middle-eastern dark ages (which they're experiencing currently) are a direct consequence of the revival of Islamist Theocracy and orthodoxy. 

Religion has given us some good things ... but human morality can and has existed and evolved with or without religion. Much of far east Asia evolved without any major religions to dictate their morality and yet they have most of the same morals as the rest of civilization.

Basically the non aggression principle can evolve and exist without any religious indoctrination.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Are you saying Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto etc. are not 'major religions' or they did not dictate the morality of their believers? :troll


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

FriedTofu said:


> Are you saying Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto etc. are not 'major religions' or they did not dictate the morality of their believers? :troll


They were hardly comparable to the theocratic control of Christianity and Islam nor were they state religions with restrictive ways of living. 

Will ever actually read one of my posts without making a follow-up post where you don't even have the guts to quote me directly.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

To touch on the subject of morals, I think that's a great point to bring up. I didn't need a book to tell me how to be a good person. I accept people of all colors, genders, and sexuality. I don't look at someone as anything more than a person, like myself. I am not better, or worse, than they are. They just want to live life like everyone else. 

This bullshit people bring up about anyone who doesn't follow is on the wrong path, will live in darkness, blah blah blah....you know you needed a book to tell you how to act, right? I learned to accept things, while you still go on feeling disgrace towards people who are 'different' than you, just because a book told you to be a cunt towards these people and look at them as 'God's mistakes'. The only mistakes here are the people who don't want to accept acceptance. I'm a brash cunt at times, which is how others see me, as I just see myself as brutally honest, but, anyway, I am a good person who will go out of my way to help people, even if I don't really like them. I don't need a book to tell me that, it's what's in my heart. I don't need a book to tell me adultery is wrong. I don't need a book to tell me not to steal. I don't need a book to essentially tell me to respect my mom and dad. I don't need a book to tell me not to murder someone. If you really need a book to tell you these things, what the fuck, man.

Lets get in to some quotes, shall we?

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be in silence"

"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God."

"You shall not lie as a male, as you do with a woman, as it is an abomination."

"Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."


I could go on, if you would like.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

RipNTear said:


> They were hardly comparable to the theocratic control of Christianity and Islam nor were they state religions with restrictive ways of living.
> 
> Will ever actually read one of my posts without making a follow-up post where you don't even have the guts to quote me directly.


Pretty sure those eastern states had historical leaders that used religion to justify a mandate to rule and dictate what is moral and what isn't. :shrug

Are you even triggered by me being lazy to not even quote you on this?


----------



## Bearodactyl (Apr 2, 2012)

The5star_Kid said:


> Evolution is not an argument to claim God doesn ot exist. Even two of the worlds most vocal atheists have said now, namely Dawkins and Krauss. In fact, Dawkins actually said that evolution was a great tool to be used against those people unsure about God, i.e. if you're gullible enough, evolution is for you.
> 
> Also, like I said, your human intellect would not believe that a table could come together by itself and know its purpose yet you think somethings that are infinitely more complex than a table could just happen?
> 
> Engage your mind and stop regurgitating what so called scientists have said.


Nor did I use it (evolution) as such (an argument against the existence of God). Nor did I claim God doesn't exist. What I said was that I have never seen any argument even remotely convincing me that God actually does exist, hence my lack of belief in that regard. AND that Evolution is a lot more complicated than "it just happened". 

I'm honestly unsure how you could've misconstrued that but here we are.. 

Question: have you ever heard of Dawkins's "Ultimate Boeing 747" gambit, and what are your thoughts on it? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

FriedTofu said:


> Pretty sure those eastern states had historical leaders that used religion to justify a mandate to rule and dictate what is moral and what isn't. :shrug
> 
> Are you even triggered by me being lazy to not even quote you on this?


I was talking about the far east. So no idea where Hinduism even entered the discussion. Buddhism while China's main religion isn't a socialistic religion and it's moral core lies in individualism and the ego as opposed to creating a system of laws that require people to live their lives a certain way unlike Christianity and Islam --- same as Taosim. Far eastern religions don't have moral codes in the same way Christianity and Islam does. They are basically about individual discipline which is explained through rationality as opposed to dogmatic order from a divine being. 

Christianity and Islam aren't. There's also nothing divine about buddhism and Taoism as they're philosophies more than they are absolute doctrines therefore far less repressive. Buddhism is about individuality, personal discipline and about principles, not about doctrine, dogma and the divine. There is a significant difference between spirituality and religiosity. 

It's a fallacious comparison. 

You really need to stop using words you don't understand. Laziness is definitely something I'l accept as an excuse, because if you're too lazy to quote me, I can't even begin to imagine how lazy you are when it comes to actually reading anything to add to your knowledge :lol


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> Demonstrable in what way? Provide an example of such a thing.





RLStern said:


> *And what would be demonstrable evidence of God existing? What would show you that He exists?
> *


I already said it would be demonstrable by means of reason, science and/or my own personal experience.

The Bible (which I assume is what you both believe in) has plenty of examples of extraordinary events and miracles that supposedly attests to the existence of God and the supernatural. Christianity also makes plenty of claims about God and his involvement in the world (answering prayers, performing miracles, etc) which lend themselves to testing and verification. Many theologians have devised plenty of arguments to seek to prove the existence of God.

So, take your pick. What showed _you_ that God exist and how may I assess this evidence by the means I outlined above?


----------



## Jam (Nov 6, 2015)

Never seen any credible argument or proof that a God does exist :shrug

"He's everywhere"


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

So the guy I was talking about earlier that I had a discussion with on facebook, it turns out he posts in a facebook group called 'White History Month 2' and an article was posted about a gang rape in Texas by 3 black men. This guy responds with '3 black males, why am I not surprised....smh'. Going with the title of that page, and his comments, I'm gonna go ahead and say that this 'Christian', who 'loves everyone', doesn't just hate gays, but, also hates black people.

What a fantastic Christian.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

MMMMD said:


> Never seen any credible argument or proof that a God does exist :shrug
> 
> "He's everywhere"


There's legit arguments against the existence of the gods that humans believe in because all of the parameters that define that kind of god or gods can be dismissed. 

However, we have to accept that human understanding and knowledge of existence and the entire gambit of physics and mathematics, linearity of time, particle theory and all this stuff we say is science cannot dismiss the idea that someone or something created the laws that govern the known universe. There could be a creator. Not the same creator that Christians, and Muslims and the religious people believe in though. 

That's why I'm only about 99% sure that there is no god. Anyone that believes that there is no god at all and it isn't even possible is wrong and that too is based on faith.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

RipNTear said:


> That's why I'm only about 99% sure that there is no god. Anyone that believes that there is no god at all and it isn't even possible is wrong and that too is based on faith.


I'm more or less on the same boat. Ultimately I think both sides must accept that _something_ has always existed and thus end up with their respective "brute" fact (God for the theist, some form of physical existence for the non-theist). While as an atheist I deem the second option the more reasonable and justifiable out of the two, I am not prepared to call the person who opts for the first option in itself irrational or anything of the sort nor do I flat out dismiss the possibility that said option may be true. I am just not convinced that it is.

That said, when the same person goes from _"it makes sense that a God created everything"_ to _"and this God is also as described by Christianity/Islam/etc"_ then that's a whole different matter altogether for which I do take a stronger stance in favor of the no-existence of such a God.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Do the people who created our simulated universe count as gods? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Of course, they are most likely simulations as well. Eh none of this really matters just live free and find a nice person to violently collide your genitals with until it's over.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

RipNTear said:


> I was talking about the far east. So no idea where Hinduism even entered the discussion. Buddhism while China's main religion isn't a socialistic religion and it's moral core lies in individualism and the ego as opposed to creating a system of laws that require people to live their lives a certain way unlike Christianity and Islam --- same as Taosim. Far eastern religions don't have moral codes in the same way Christianity and Islam does. They are basically about individual discipline which is explained through rationality as opposed to dogmatic order from a divine being.
> 
> Christianity and Islam aren't. There's also nothing divine about buddhism and Taoism as they're philosophies more than they are absolute doctrines therefore far less repressive. Buddhism is about individuality, personal discipline and about principles, not about doctrine, dogma and the divine. There is a significant difference between spirituality and religiosity.
> 
> ...


Because Hinduism has its footprint in parts of the far east too. :shrug Seems like you just want to disregard it as it doesn't fit into your narrative. All religions require people live their lives a certain way. It is up to the individual how much they want to adhere to those rules and limits. Just because you don't see it being currently in practice doesn't mean religion didn't have a huge impact in the morality of the people in those areas in their history. You were the one that made the claim that people in the far east didn't have major religions to shape their morality.

Pretty sure emperors in the past used religion to justify their divine right to rule.

So are non-church going Christians adhering to spirituality or religiosity?

You used religion to only refer to the Abrahamic religions. You seem misguided about the influence of religion in shaping the morality of the far east, probably because you are using the religiosity of the current demographic to suit your narrative that religion wasn't needed nor used to develop morality. Maybe follow your own advice eh?


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Dolorian said:


> I already said it would be demonstrable by means of reason, science and/or my own personal experience.
> 
> The Bible (which I assume is what you both believe in) has plenty of examples of extraordinary events and miracles that supposedly attests to the existence of God and the supernatural. Christianity also makes plenty of claims about God and his involvement in the world (answering prayers, performing miracles, etc) which lend themselves to testing and verification. Many theologians have devised plenty of arguments to seek to prove the existence of God.
> 
> So, take your pick. What showed _you_ that God exist and how may I assess this evidence by the means I outlined above?


I'm a Muslim so I believe in the Quran. 

Once again, you haven ot given a clear criteria because I doubt you have one but I will move on from that otherwise we just can not progress in this discussion. 

I will ask you this: if the Quran contained verses describing processes on earth and throughout the universe and certain facts that modern science has only just stratedt o prove, and yet was revealed over 1400 years ago, would you take it as evidence of the existence of God? Keeping in mind that no earthly knowledge existed of such things before the Quran.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Things happen by chance all the time, like mutations in plants and animals, that is evidence of things happening by chance. There is zero evidence a god or gods have ever existed.
> 
> *There are indeed many mutations that take place in animals and plants, humans included of course but if you claim to have studied science, you would know that many of those mutations are known as "silent mutations". I.e., they do not affect the phenotype of the biological organism. The majority of mutations that do affect an organisms phenotype are negative to that creature, leading to mutations that cause disability, impotence and/or death.
> 
> ...


I have answered within your text. 

You will not reply with your own criteria because it is seemingly too difficult for you so I have moved on and given you the definition of God (Allah is the superior word and teh correct word but I use this simply for the sake of English) which you asked for.

Can you confirm or deny, with scientific reasoning that definition?


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Bearodactyl said:


> Nor did I use it (evolution) as such (an argument against the existence of God). Nor did I claim God doesn't exist. What I said was that I have never seen any argument even remotely convincing me that God actually does exist, hence my lack of belief in that regard. AND that Evolution is a lot more complicated than "it just happened".
> 
> I'm honestly unsure how you could've misconstrued that but here we are..
> 
> Question: have you ever heard of Dawkins's "Ultimate Boeing 747" gambit, and what are your thoughts on it? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.


Your exact words: 

"That's where statistics and evolution kick in. Out of a zillion planets, one having the correct conditions to support life are pretty damn good. So good infact that Earth isn't even the only planet that has those conditions. "

You are clearly using evolution as part of your evidence and now that I have debunked that you back off. Can you explain why? 

And I'm not arguing against anything Darwin has said, I used his own words to prove his and others like him and their hypocricy.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

Bearodactyl said:


> Question: have you ever heard of Dawkins's "Ultimate Boeing 747" gambit, and what are your thoughts on it? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.


The 747 argument is an embarrassment to the entire debate, as are most of the other arguments asserted in _The God Delusion_. Swinburne has debunked it beyond any reasonable doubt.

I can't understand why atheists hold Dawkins in such high regard. At least Harris is an intellectual powerhouse and makes some interesting arguments against the existence of God. Dawkins is clearly motivated by a vitriolic hatred of Christianity and religion as a whole rather than genuine philosophical curiosity. His blinkered, often childish take on the subject of God probably hurts the atheist position more than it helps it. Watch his Oxford debate with John Lennox as an example. Dawkins is a massively accomplished biologist, but his understanding of the most fundamental philosophical principles is astonishingly bad. The same can be said for Hawking's _The Grand Design_. One of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known in one field, yet barely capable of taking even the most basic baby steps in another.

There's a reason competent theologians don't cite purely scriptural arguments. Any "theory of everything" needs to be multi-faceted, accounting not just for scientific coherency, but also for unprovable abstract and metaphysical concepts, such as mathematical truths or the awareness of minds other than your own. The atheist side of the debate doesn't seem to grasp this most basic of concepts, relying instead on scientism, strawman, hubris and assuming that flippantly repeating the theist's point is a substitution for a counter-argument.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> I will ask you this: if the Quran contained verses describing processes on earth and throughout the universe and certain facts that modern science has only just stratedt o prove, and yet was revealed over 1400 years ago, would you take it as evidence of the existence of God? Keeping in mind that no earthly knowledge existed of such things before the Quran.


That would depend on the nature of said verses (explicit and detailed as opposed to vaguely worded or so lacking in detail that they could be easily twisted one way or another by reading modern scientific knowledge _into_ them), the historical and cultural context in which they arose, the Quran being consistent throughout when describing natural processes in it's verses (not just one verse being "right" about something while others are "wrong" about other things), etc.

Which verses did you have in mind and what do they describe?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> I have answered within your text.
> 
> You will not reply with your own criteria because it is seemingly too difficult for you so I have moved on and given you the definition of God (Allah is the superior word and teh correct word but I use this simply for the sake of English) which you asked for.
> 
> Can you confirm or deny, with scientific reasoning that definition?


It does not matter if mutations don't affect, help or hurt plants/animals , mutations are still random/by chance. 

It does make sense that life on earth was by chance since no other planet in the known universe has life (or can even support it) especially intelligent life. That proves easily it was by chance

If there was some supreme creator there would not need to be evolution because they creator would have made everything perfect right when he created it especially if that being is supposed to be pefect, all-knowing, blah blah blah. 

Yeah its too difficult for me LOL You are the one who is finding it too difficult to prove a god exists, so you keep trying to push it off on the non-believers.

What you gave me is not even a definition. You can't even give me a simple definition.

But if you want something here ya go. Have god show himself and say he is going to cure every medical condition / disease at the snap of his fingers (so to speak) and then at that verys econd every condition / disease would be cured at the same time.



The5star_Kid said:


> Your exact words:
> 
> "That's where statistics and evolution kick in. Out of a zillion planets, one having the correct conditions to support life are pretty damn good. So good infact that Earth isn't even the only planet that has those conditions. "
> 
> ...


You did not debunk anything LOL. Evolution could easily show why there is no need for a god. Because like I said in my other post, if there was a god there would not be a need for god, because god would just make everything perfect the first time and 99.9% of all species that has been on earth would not be instinct. 

And earth not being the only for those conditions would prove even more so its just random chance which planets have life and which don't because you need the perfect conditions for life.

If there was some god he would have the universe full of life not just one or a bunch of random planets with life.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm a muslim and.. I stay away from such threads because it messes up with my mind. Once I get into the discussion I just cant get it out of my head for a long time. As a muslim who was born into it, there are a few things I REALLY dont understand or agree with. But then, I just think maybe I will understand it with time.

That being said, however, I do strongly believe there is a God. I have experienced a few incidents in life that makes me believe. Somethings I have experienced that I never thought can happen, or feel too good to be true. Incidents where you feel like, everything that just happened was already planned out but I was not the one who planned it. 

Its hard to explain.. but when you experience something like it, you just feel that it wasn't just a co-incident.



birthday_massacre said:


> If there was some supreme creator there would not need to be evolution because they creator would have made everything perfect right when he created it especially if that being is supposed to be pefect, all-knowing, blah blah blah.
> 
> But if you want something here ya go. Have god show himself and say he is going to cure every medical condition / disease at the snap of his fingers (so to speak) and then at that verys econd every condition / disease would be cured at the same time.
> 
> ...


Now, I am no scholar but from what I understand God created the earth to punish Adam and Eve. It is not supposed to be perfect, it would not make sense if God made it perfect. The garden where they initially lived, now that was perfect but then they messed up and ended up on earth, which I repeat, was their punishment. So it only makes sense its not perfect.

Life is a test for every human. We all came from Adam and Eve, and they ended up here on earth which is why only earth is the only habitable planet in the entire universe.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

zkorejo said:


> Its hard to explain.. but when you experience something like it, you just feel that it wasn't just a co-incident.


Download and watch "The Secret life of Chaos" and then tell me if you still think that some "coincidences" simply cannot happen without the intervention of a creator.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

zkorejo said:


> Life is a test for every human. We all came from Adam and Eve, and they ended up here on earth which is why only earth is the only habitable planet in the entire universe.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

RipNTear said:


> Download and watch "The Secret life of Chaos" and then tell me if you still think that some "coincidences" simply cannot happen without the intervention of a creator.


Thanks for the share. Will watch it now.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

zkorejo said:


> I'm a muslim and.. I stay away from such threads because it messes up with my mind. Once I get into the discussion I just cant get it out of my head for a long time. As a muslim who was born into it, there are a few things I REALLY dont understand or agree with. But then, I just think maybe I will understand it with time.
> 
> That being said, however, I do strongly believe there is a God. I have experienced a few incidents in life that makes me believe. Somethings I have experienced that I never thought can happen, or feel too good to be true. Incidents where you feel like, everything that just happened was already planned out but I was not the one who planned it.
> 
> ...




That is if you believe in the Christian god. What about the intelligent design god? And the bible is full of falsehoods. The bible claims everything was created in 6 days which is just not true. The bible claims the earth if flat which is wrong.

Also which Adam and eve story are you going to believe? There are two in the bible.

Also why would god make quintillions of planets when only earth is the one with known life?


----------



## oleanderson89 (Feb 13, 2015)

The higher power's reaction to those who are on a mission to prove/deny his existence:


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

Catalanotto said:


>


Shouldn't this question be directed at the artists who made these depictions?. As far as I know, none of the Holy books have any illustrations of Adam and Eve. So I dont know why the people who drew them gave them one.



birthday_massacre said:


> That is if you believe in the Christian god. What about the intelligent design god? And the bible is full of falsehoods. The bible claims everything was created in 6 days which is just not true. The bible claims the earth if flat which is wrong.
> 
> Also which Adam and eve story are you going to believe? There are two in the bible.
> 
> Also why would god make quintillions of planets when only earth is the one with known life?


As a muslim, we believe in all 4 holy books but Quran is the final version. So the story of Adam and Eve explained in Quran (to the best of my knowledge) went like how I explained it to you. 

Why would he make quintillions of planets?.. well.. there was this big bang and other planets just came to be. They are not meant to be habitable though which makes them useless. 

There is not much explained about why exactly they were created. If I have to guess, I think God did not work on those other planets like he did on Earth. According to Islam, Earth was created in the total of 6 ayyams (Im not sure how long 1 ayyam is but its definitely longer than our earthly days). In 2 Ayyams the world was created, then in the next 4 it's sustenance. Maybe after the creation of the planets God only focused on earth because it was the only planet he needed.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

zkorejo said:


> Shouldn't this question be directed at the artists who made these depictions?. As far as I know, none of the Holy books have any illustrations of Adam and Eve. So I dont know why the people who drew them gave them one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The fact is the bible and Quran did not even know about the other quintillion of planets. People at the time also claimed the earth was at the center which was wrong as well.

why wouldnt god work on those other planets? that does not even make sense if they were all made just to do nothing with them.

If god only needed earth why create all the other ones? You are not making any sense.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> The fact is the bible and Quran did not even know about the other quintillion of planets. People at the time also claimed the earth was at the center which was wrong as well.


The Quran uses the word "Kainat" to describe the "heavens" which at that time referred to anything above and beyond the earth itself and it can even be interpreted to mean multiverse. It even talks about the expansion of the universe (but that's a later interpretation). 

Doesn't legitimize it, nor should be seen as a reason to believe because there are other frivolous and useless claims that have since been debunked - I'm just pointing out that it's just wrong to say that Quran did not know about quintillion planets.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> The Quran uses the word "Kainat" to describe the "heavens" which at that time referred to anything above and beyond the earth itself and it can even be interpreted to mean multiverse. It even talks about the expansion of the universe (but that's a later interpretation).
> 
> Doesn't legitimize it, nor should be seen as a reason to believe because there are other frivolous and useless claims that have since been debunked - I'm just pointing out that it's just wrong to say that Quran did not know about quintillion planets.


They did not know about quintillion of planets nor a possible multiverse just because they used the word heavens just to mean things beyond earth. but lets not go off on a tangent since this is about proving god.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

birthday_massacre said:


> The fact is the bible and Quran did not even know about the other quintillion of planets. People at the time also claimed the earth was at the center which was wrong as well.
> 
> why wouldnt god work on those other planets? that does not even make sense if they were all made just to do nothing with them.
> 
> If god only needed earth why create all the other ones? You are not making any sense.


Quran does mention other planets in our solar system but earth being the only planet that matters. I honestly have no idea why he created all the other planets if they have no use. I believe the rest of the planets are the by-products. 

That being said, many religious people believe that non-believers take the sentence "center" out of context. Its supposed to be taken figuratively not literally. Center of the universe, as in the most important planet in our universe. 

Also, Quran states that the earth is (Kura) spherical in shape. IDK about bible but Quran definitely never said it was flat.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

zkorejo said:


> Quran does mention other planets in our solar system but earth being the only planet that matters. I honestly have no idea why he created all the other planets if they have no use. I believe the rest of the planets are the by-products.
> 
> That being said, many religious people believe that non-believers take the sentence "center" out of context. Its supposed to be taken figuratively not literally. Center of the universe, as in the most important planet in our universe.
> 
> Also, Quran states that the earth is (Kura) spherical in shape. IDK about bible but Quran definitely never said it was flat.


*
Bible demonstrates a spherical earth( http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php )*
*
Also quran fairy tales teach a flat earth*, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/whale_nun.htm


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

zkorejo said:


> Quran does mention other planets in our solar system but earth being the only planet that matters. I honestly have no idea why he created all the other planets if they have no use. I believe the rest of the planets are the by-products.
> 
> That being said, many religious people believe that non-believers take the sentence "center" out of context. Its supposed to be taken figuratively not literally. Center of the universe, as in the most important planet in our universe.
> 
> Also, Quran states that the earth is (Kura) spherical in shape. IDK about bible but Quran definitely never said it was flat.


Why would the rest of the planets be by-products if god is perfect, all powerful and all knowing? He would not need by-products.

LOL at taking center out of context, dont give me that BS, center means center of everything like it claims, everyone thought the earth was at the center of the universe until Copernicus.

I always love this bulshit when it comes to religion and something that is meant to be taken literally. is disproven then people like you claim on no is supposed to be taken figuratively not literally.

that is what religion always does about the silly parts or the parts where the bible fails at science.

You cant' have it both ways, either the bible and quran is all literal or it's all figurative. 

It was never meant to be taken figuratively the earth was the center because back then that is what science also believed. So get out of here with that nonsense

Just admit those holy books are just BS stories and fables that were being passed off as real.

Its just funny the more science advanced more and more things in the holy books now are not meant to be taken literally anymore. LOL Don't make me laugh






RLStern said:


> *
> Bible demonstrates a spherical earth( http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php )*
> *
> Also quran fairy tales teach a flat earth*, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/whale_nun.htm


The bible has tons of examples claiming it's a flat earth.

Revelation 7:1 

And after these things I saw four angels standing on the* four corners of the earth,* holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Revelation 20:8
Verse Concepts
and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.

1 Chronicles 9:24
Verse Concepts
The gatekeepers were on the four sides, to the east, west, north and south.

Revelation 20:8
Verse Concepts
and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.

etc etc


Also a sphere can be flat, the bible never calls the earth a globe

Draw a circle on a piece of paper, that sphere if flat


you lose again


When will people like you two learn you are just believing in fairytales like Zeus and all those other gods.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> The bible has tons of examples claiming it's a flat earth.


*Nowhere does it says it's flat.*



birthday_massacre said:


> Revelation 7:1
> 
> And after these things I saw four angels standing on the* four corners of the earth,* holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
> 
> ...


:ha

Four Corners refers to East, North, West and South, 



birthday_massacre said:


> Also a sphere can be flat, the bible never calls the earth a globe


:ha *a Sphere isn't flat.

You've destroyed absolutely all credibility you had.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RLStern said:


> *Nowhere does it says it's flat.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already showed you how the bible is saying the earth it flat. 

No the 4 corners dont mean N S W E, its talking about actual corners. But sure this was not meant to be taken literally either right LOL

Here is another passage

Matthew 4:8 ESV / 5 helpful votes	

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

You cant see all the kingdoms of the world unless the earth if flat. 

Here is another

Deuteronomy 28:64 ESV / 4 helpful votes	

“And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

The earth would only have ends of it was flat. 

As for a sphere the bible actually uses the term circle or round not sphere. 

And yeah my comment was dumb, I misspoke I was thinking round not sphere since round and circle is what the bible uses not term sphere.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

RLStern said:


> *
> Bible demonstrates a spherical earth( http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php )*
> *
> Also quran fairy tales teach a flat earth*, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/whale_nun.htm


The link you shared is banned in my country and judging from what you told me, I'm not surprised. 

So I was looking for an open minded discussion and not an argument just to prove the other guy wrong. Just know that like I said in my very first post, I do not claim to know everything perfectly right. If you want to have a debate, find a scholar and prove them wrong. 

We study science, Islam tells us to be curious and get wise. I wish people would also do their research on Islam before sharing baseless assumptions or referencing bad sources.


----------



## Zatiel (Dec 6, 2010)

Sure.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Dolorian said:


> That would depend on the nature of said verses (explicit and detailed as opposed to vaguely worded or so lacking in detail that they could be easily twisted one way or another by reading modern scientific knowledge _into_ them), the historical and cultural context in which they arose, the Quran being consistent throughout when describing natural processes in it's verses (not just one verse being "right" about something while others are "wrong" about other things), etc.
> 
> Which verses did you have in mind and what do they describe?


There are many verses but the simplest and most easiest would be the verse regarding the shape of the world or any understanding of what Earth was and the few societies that did often thought of it as flat, Allah reveals in the Quran that not only is the Earth round, it is in fact egg shaped.

I believe it took science another 6 or 7 centuries to figure out the earth was round (spherical) but yet more centuries to figure out the earth is not fully spherical and is indeed egg shaped. 

The verse itself is Chapter 79, verse 30 I believe.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> It does not matter if mutations don't affect, help or hurt plants/animals , mutations are still random/by chance.
> 
> It does make sense that life on earth was by chance since no other planet in the known universe has life (or can even support it) especially intelligent life. That proves easily it was by chance
> 
> ...


I'll be wiating for your thesis on evolution. Should be good.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> There are many verses but the simplest and most easiest would be the verse regarding the shape of the world or any understanding of what Earth was and the few societies that did often thought of it as flat, Allah reveals in the Quran that not only is the Earth round, it is in fact egg shaped.
> 
> I believe it took science another 6 or 7 centuries to figure out the earth was round (spherical) but yet more centuries to figure out the earth is not fully spherical and is indeed egg shaped.
> 
> The verse itself is Chapter 79, verse 30 I believe.


Again when they said round they did not mean sphere so stop pretending that is what they meant. Even the flat earth idiots claim the earth is round and flat.


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Again when they said round they did not mean sphere so stop pretending that is what they meant. Even the flat earth idiots claim the earth is round and flat.


First off, this post was not in relation to you. Go back and reply to my post and actually start to make some sense.

As for they, who is this they? 

And if you think "shaped like an egg" means the earth was flat and round then you must have some very weird eggs where you're from.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> I'll be wiating for your thesis on evolution. Should be good.


*"You know in a disucssion one can not simply make a statement, say "lol" and claim theyr are right. "
*

Oh you mean like people do with god?



*"First off, creation is not perfect. Second, evolution is neither proven nor is it proof that God does not exist."*

But god is perfect thus what ever he creates would be perfect.

*"I provided you with the definition and you say it's not a definition? Can you explain why it's not a definition? Like I said, I know many like you, when they are given a criteria, they deny it, when I ask for a criteria, they deny giving one too."*

I don't have to give a criteria since I don't believe in any gods. There are thousands of gods, so if I start to disprove any god you can say well that is not my god or my definition of god. That is why I asked for your criteria/definition of god. And you could not even do that.

*"You want God to revela himself, i.e. you want to see him yet your eyes can't even look at the sun."
*

God is all powerful so he can reveal himself and not hurt anyone. Oh is god not all powerful then and god can't let us see him without blinding us? If he can't do that then he is not god.

*"Oh, evolution can say disprove God? Yet Dawkin, Krauss and many other athiests who I dare say have a better grasp of science than you do (I know you are probably a science genius) do not believe what you are stating. So please, tell me what even Dawkins does not know baout evolution. I am curious to hear this. "*

Where do I say evolution can disprove god.? Stop lying and making shit up dude. I said evolution shows there is no need for a god. And stop trying to get off track. show me how god exists. It seems like you want to talk about everything but this. So prove it.

*"Why are you putting your own stipulation of what you want God to be yet denying God's own definition of himself?"*

This is why I asked for a real definition of god because people like you do shit like this. This is why people like you are a joke

We say we don't believe in god, and ask you for a definition, you give some bullshit that is not a definition so then we ask questions about god and you come back with Why are you putting your own stipulation of what you want God to be. This is the perfect example of why what you gave is not a definition because you pull bullshit like this.

That is why I asked you do define what exactly is god.

You cant even have an honest debate about god because you just like playing games.

Its why believers always try to push the burden of proof to the non-believers.


You are the one who believes thus why you need to set the criteria for what your god is and you can't even do that.

you still have not proven god exists. so I would like to see your evidence. if you dont have proof in your next post, i am done since you are not even trying to prove god exists


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

zkorejo said:


> The link you shared is banned in my country and judging from what you told me, I'm not surprised.
> 
> So I was looking for an open minded discussion and not an argument just to prove the other guy wrong. Just know that like I said in my very first post, I do not claim to know everything perfectly right. If you want to have a debate, find a scholar and prove them wrong.
> 
> We study science, Islam tells us to be curious and get wise. I wish people would also do their research on Islam before sharing baseless assumptions or referencing bad sources.


The fact that the link is banned in your country should really set alarm bells off in your mind.

what they're really trying to do is shut off our access to information itself - Jello Biafra


----------



## Overcomer (Jan 15, 2015)

Look in the mirror and you'll see God.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

whelp said:


> The fact that the link is banned in your country should really set alarm bells off in your mind.
> 
> what they're really trying to do is shut off our access to information itself - Jello Biafra


True, but lets suppose if like 90% of the sources said that "Islam states earth is flat and not spherical" and if all of those sources were blocked in my country then the alarm bells would have definitely gone off in my mind. Its the other way around though, majority of the sources say its stated in Quran that earth is spherical in shape. I'm sure there's much more misinformation on that website which is why some Islamic states deemed it right to ban that website.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

zkorejo said:


> True, but lets suppose if like 90% of the sources said that "Islam states earth is flat and not spherical" and if all of those sources were blocked in my country then the alarm bells would have definitely gone off in my mind. Its the other way around though, majority of the sources say its stated in Quran that earth is spherical in shape. I'm sure there's much more misinformation on that website which is why some Islamic states deemed it right to ban that website.


I see your point there bud, but again an 'Islamic State' has seen fit to cut off your access to information. Regardless of whether its bollocks or not.

bad news.


----------



## zkorejo (Jul 2, 2010)

whelp said:


> I see your point there bud, but again an 'Islamic State' has seen fit to cut off your access to information. Regardless of whether its bollocks or not.
> 
> bad news.


I wholly agree with you on that.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> There are many verses but the simplest and most easiest would be the verse regarding the shape of the world or any understanding of what Earth was and the few societies that did often thought of it as flat, Allah reveals in the Quran that not only is the Earth round, it is in fact egg shaped.
> 
> I believe it took science another 6 or 7 centuries to figure out the earth was round (spherical) but yet more centuries to figure out the earth is not fully spherical and is indeed egg shaped.
> 
> The verse itself is Chapter 79, verse 30 I believe.


The idea that the earth was round (spherical) was held long before Islam came into the picture by the ancient Greeks. For instance around 350 BC Aristotle wrote in his work _De Caelo_ (Book II)...


_"All of which goes to show *not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere* of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent. [...] Also, those mathematicians who try to calculate the size of the earth's circumference arrive at the figure 400,000 stades. This indicates *not only that the earth's mass is spherical in shape*, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size."_​

And he was not the only one, this very much became common knowledge in Greek (Hellenic) culture which spread across different lands and had a huge impact on other cultures and religions like Judaism (the Jews of the Diaspora), Christianity and Islam. So the Quran, written in the 7th century saying that the earth is round (spherical) is nothing surprising.

As for the verse you cited (79:30), the copy of theQuran I own has it as: _"and the earth after that He spread it out"_. The online versions of the Quran I checked render this verse more or less the same: _"And the earth after that He spread"_ (one, two, three, four, five).

None of these translations mention the earth being egg shaped in that verse. Indeed nearly all translations render the verse this way (source) with only a couple making mention of the earth being egg shapped. From what I gather this is a later interpretation/translation of that verse which appears to be mistaken and unfounded. The claim being that the verse means to say that the earth is shaped like the egg of an ostrich due to the use of the word _"baha"_ but the word seems to actually mean to spread, to flatten or to extend as opposed to ostrich-egg shaped (this video by a Muslim goes into more detail about this). So the use of the verse to support this claim seems dubious at best.

But even granting that the Quran actually mentions the earth being egg shaped, it is hardly anything worth of note. Anania Shirakatsi an Armenian philosopher of the 7th century who had no contact with Islam described the world as _"being like an egg with a spherical yolk"_ before, as it seems, anyone had given this interpretation/translation to that verse of the Quran. And in any case, the earth is not _truly_ shaped like an egg even when compared to an ostrich egg so the comparison is inaccurate.

For a scripture supposedly being a direct revelation from God one would expect something more explicit and specific specially if this was meant to be taken as some definite evidence of it's divine origin. The claim that the people were too primitive to grasp this doesn't holds since centuries before then the ancient Greeks were already dealing with such concepts and talking about the shape and size of the earth.


----------



## wwe9391 (Aug 31, 2016)

Yes but I don't worship him, don't pray to him.


----------



## Black (Jan 20, 2012)

Thank God I'm atheist.


----------



## Reservoir Angel (Aug 7, 2010)

Nope. Not even a little. Even back in my primary school days I had no interest in believing the nonsense my headteacher would spout at us at the end of the weekly assembly and that developed into a practised loathing of the very concept when I moved into Religious Education in secondary school. Finding out I was gay and being subjected to some of the more... colourful... opinions that the religious tend to express about that particular aspect of my life certainly didn't help me view the whole enterprise any more charitably.

Way I see it faith is idiotic. Faith is admitting you're believing something you can't remotely prove. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be faith or belief in the first place. And I refuse to live my life according to the interpreted and re-interpreted and misinterpreted will of a being that probably doesn't exist because the entire idea of it sounds like the most illogical and insane thing ever expressed in any human language.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

whelp said:


> I see your point there bud, but again an 'Islamic State' has seen fit to cut off your access to information. Regardless of whether its bollocks or not.
> 
> bad news.


I'm not pointing this out as a deflection because I'm aware that that's what it usually is and while I completely disagree with website bans (obviously), I feel like I have to point out that a lot of conventional knowledge is passed around in the west as fact when in fact much of it is fake noos. Comes from the government, intelligence agencies, media, newspapers. 

Sure, state-controlled everything is bad, but it's not like access to all information means that people have access to good information being disseminated with honest intent :shrug

There are people who still believe in the west that The Crusades were an invasion by the Christians into Muslim lands while artfully eradicating the fact that it was a response in self-defense to Muslim takeover of European lands. Even though people have full access to the truth, what they're told is only half the story (at least here in America). Same with the lack of knowledge of people about the original American settlers painting them as genocidal maniacs while artfully ignoring the massive conflicts already happening here. Same within America regarding slavery where they've made people biased to the point where most believe that Slavery (a word itself that's derived from the enslavement of white Slavs) as a white european invention whereas the vast majority of slaves were bought from non-white Arabs and other Africans and not just randomly captured by whites themselves. 

Point is. You can have access information, but if you don't have complete information, you're just as ignorant as those who have had their access barred.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

RipNTear said:


> I'm not pointing this out as a deflection because I'm aware that that's what it usually is and while I completely disagree with website bans (obviously), I feel like I have to point out that a lot of conventional knowledge is passed around in the west as fact when in fact much of it is fake noos. Comes from the government, intelligence agencies, media, newspapers.
> 
> Sure, state-controlled everything is bad, but it's not like access to all information means that people have access to good information being disseminated with honest intent :shrug
> 
> ...


i'd prefer everyone has access to everything, at least then through discussion or whatever you could make your point and let people make their own minds up.

any sort of censorship doesn't allow that.

although you are correct about biased history, it is written by the winners after all


----------



## Captain Edd (Dec 14, 2011)

Nah, I read a lot about different cultures before christianity and how the current religions started and stopped believing in god(s) after that. 

I'm totally cool with people believing in God though


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> *"You know in a disucssion one can not simply make a statement, say "lol" and claim theyr are right. "
> *
> 
> Oh you mean like people do with god?
> ...


First of all, be more respectful of this discussion is over.

Second, I gave you the Quranic definition, followed by over 1.5 billion muslims world wide. I then ask you why you do not believe tha tis a definition? Do you have a hard time understanding the word "definition" or what?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> First of all, be more respectful of this discussion is over.
> 
> Second, I gave you the Quranic definition, followed by over 1.5 billion muslims world wide. I then ask you why you do not believe tha tis a definition? Do you have a hard time understanding the word "definition" or what?


LOL at evolution not being proven.

You are doing everything I said people like you and RL Stein do.


I am done, you are just a troll at this point and have no intention of proving god exists with the nonsense you are posting like *"You want God to revela himself, i.e. you want to see him yet your eyes can't even look at the sun."*


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> First of all, be more respectful of this discussion is over.


You really have no grounds to demand respect when you created a thread calling all right-wingers racists.

You deserve all the shit you get on this site because you clearly are incapable of taking it when dishing it out - and BM never even fucking disrespected you :lmao


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

Dolorian said:


> The idea that the earth was round (spherical) was held long before Islam came into the picture by the ancient Greeks. For instance around 350 BC Aristotle wrote in his work _De Caelo_ (Book II)...
> 
> 
> _"All of which goes to show *not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere* of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent. [...] Also, those mathematicians who try to calculate the size of the earth's circumference arrive at the figure 400,000 stades. This indicates *not only that the earth's mass is spherical in shape*, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size."_​
> ...


 jodfksfls


----------



## The5star_Kid (Mar 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at evolution not being proven.
> 
> You are doing everything I said people like you and RL Stein do.
> 
> ...


So, you don't know what the word definition means then? Fair enough.

Again, I never asked you to prove evolution either. I said Dawkins and Krauss, the two leading faces and voices of atheism on this planet themselves denied evolution disproves God, Dawkins even went so far as to say its simply a tool to hook those people who are confused by life and religion into disbelieving God. You then came back and said "yes evolution disproves God" and yet providedn o evidence as to how you know more than world renowned scientists on the matter. 

Plus, you keep jumping from point to point, I am starting to believe you are very young and tis discussion probably is not for you.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> So, you don't know what the word definition means then? Fair enough.
> 
> Again, I never asked you to prove evolution either. I said Dawkins and Krauss, the two leading faces and voices of atheism on this planet themselves denied evolution disproves God, Dawkins even went so far as to say its simply a tool to hook those people who are confused by life and religion into disbelieving God. You then came back and said "yes evolution disproves God" and yet providedn o evidence as to how you know more than world renowned scientists on the matter.
> 
> Plus, you keep jumping from point to point, I am starting to believe you are very young and tis discussion probably is not for you.


Last time I am replying to you. You can't even be honest in what I said. I never said evolution disproves god. I said with evolution there is no need for a god.

There is a huge difference between the two. So stop making things up that I am not saying. It just proves you are being disingenuous. 


As for jumping from point to point, you mean replying to your point by points LOL

So I am not supposed to do this? You are the one that keeps trying to take this off topic by not just trying to prove god.

So again prove there is a god, you are making the positive claim there is a god so prove it or this conversion is over.

You have yet to prove god, so its you who is not cut out for this.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

The5star_Kid said:


> So, you don't know what the word definition means then? Fair enough.
> 
> Again, I never asked you to prove evolution either. I said Dawkins and Krauss, the two leading faces and voices of atheism on this planet themselves denied evolution disproves God, Dawkins even went so far as to say its simply a tool to hook those people who are confused by life and religion into disbelieving God. You then came back and said "yes evolution disproves God" and yet providedn o evidence as to how you know more than world renowned scientists on the matter.
> 
> Plus, you keep jumping from point to point, I am starting to believe you are very young and tis discussion probably is not for you.


Lol. No one can fully deny the possible existence of a deity that might have created the universe. 

However, all evidence of evolution and the origins of life on earth disprove almost all of humanity's creationist theories minus the hypothesis that claims that a diety set the laws of physics in motion. The way the conventional, interfering god is disproved through all the BS that that god said about various things as each of its claims were determined to be wrong. And creationists have had to reduce the literal meanings of what was literal and true to metaphor in order to keep up with their delusions. 

First they said god lived in the cave. Then they said that god lived on the mountain. Then they said there were a pantheon of gods that control but also interfere in human lives. Then they claimed god was invisible and hid in him the clouds (heavens), then they claimed that god was on the moon and now they claim that god is everywhere and can't be seen. The god theory has expanded with the expansion of human knowledge. But at the same time his own proofs of his existence have been nullified through the expansion of the same knowledge. 

Every single human claim about the existence of his personal god has been systematically destroyed as the base of human knowledge and understanding of the universe evolves. 

It's only a matter of time that the deity hypothesis is also deconstructed. The fact that it hasn't been disproven doesn't mean that it won't be in the future or that any of it is evidence for any of the current human gods.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Religion is such a joke.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Lol. No one can fully deny the possible existence of a deity that might have created the universe.
> 
> However, all evidence of evolution and the origins of life on earth disprove almost all of humanity's creationist theories minus the hypothesis that claims that a diety set the laws of physics in motion. The way the conventional, interfering god is disproved through all the BS that that god said about various things as each of its claims were determined to be wrong. And creationists have had to reduce the literal meanings of what was literal and true to metaphor in order to keep up with their delusions.
> 
> ...


The problem with 5 star kid is he does not understand the difference between something not being needed vs being disproven. He keeps pretending they are the same thing.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

The5star_Kid said:


> You are not being quite honest here are you? Or you do not fully know the information you are citing and I believe it is the latter. As I said, most societies at the time of the Prophet PBUH and many before him did not know the earth was round. That fact holds true, regardless of what Aristotle may or may not have said/written. First off, the earliest examples of translations of Aristotles work in the "modern" world is the Muslim work on it many centuries aftert he libraries of Alexander were burned, likely by Caesar and the Romans. These translations themselves came about many, ,many years after the revelation of the Quran in the 7th century AD. So, for at least 900+ years, no one had access to this information. Not the Byzantines nor the Persians (the two dominant civilisations during the rise of Islam).
> 
> On top of all that, Aristotle is simply theorising the earth may be round, he also explains how the planets are living beings and how the erath is the center of the universe, or at the very least, the solar system. He goes on to state, much like Ptolemy I believe, that the moon and the sun and the other planets circle the earth. Is that true? Of course it is not. to compound metters even more, Aristotle theorised the wrong shape of the earth. Like I said before and it was an important point I did not highlight as much as I should have done: the earth is NOT spherical. The earth and its orbit are not complete, perfect spheres. The earth is egg shaped or I believe the proper word is geospherical but I may be wrong with that term as I'm not a physicist. Aristotle talks of it being spherical as far as I can tell and again, like I said, he theorises it, in a book which by modern standards contains absurd "scientific notions" i.e. the planets being alive and orbiting the earth etc.


It doesn’t matters what Aristotle said about other things or that he may have been mistaken about said things. He is not the one supposedly receiving direct revelation from God and claiming to be his final prophet so him being mistaken about something does not take away from the fact that he said the earth was spherical in form long before Islam came into the picture.

And as I said, he was not the only one and in trying to focus on specific translations and their availability you are missing the forest for the trees so to speak. As I said in my previous post, there was a widespread of Hellenic culture at the time which had an impact across the different lands. This culture continued even after the fall of the Roman Empire, an extension of which was the Byzantine Empire which survived the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire in the 5th century.

About which, it is worth quoting St. Augustine writing at the time in response to the Pagans who blamed the fall of the empire on the Christians. He states in his work _The City of God_ (Book XVI, Chapter 9)…


_“But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that *the world is of a round and spherical form*, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.”_​

This line of thinking is continuous with what Aristotle had said previously and it is also reiterated by many after him such as Cicero in his work _On the Nature of The Gods_ (Chapter XXXIX) in 45 BC…


_“And in the first place let us note the earth as a whole, which is situated in the central quarter of the universe, and is solid, *spherical*, gathered at every point into that shape by its own gravity”_​

The point here is that there is clear evidence of Greco-Roman culture and thinking long before Islam of people referring to earth being spherical. This thinking spread across the Roman Empire an extension of which was the Byzantine Empire whose _“science was in every period closely connected with ancient-pagan philosophy, and metaphysics”_ (source) and which as you yourself said was a dominant civilization during the rise of Islam.

So again, no surprise at all if the Quran which was written in the 7th century claims the earth is spherical.




> The Quran makes no thesis, it states, unequivocally, without any hesitation, the EXACT shape of the planet.


You are really overstating things here since the Quran says nothing of the sort in that verse and even granting the egg-snapped interpretation/translation of that verse, the shape of the earth is not _exactly_ like the shape of an an egg so if the Quran was trying to tell us the EXACT shape of the earth in that verse then it missed the mark. It is more accurate to say that the earth is actually a sphere even if not perfect than it is to say that it is shaped like an egg. It is a spheroid as in sphere-like but not perfectly spherical which is rather different from the shape of an egg.

In short…
- If the Quran claims that the earth is the shape of a sphere, then this is nothing surprising given what I said above.
- If on the other hand it doesn’t says this but rather says that it is the shape of an egg, then this is inaccurate since the earth is actually closer to the shape of a sphere.

Either way it really does not serves as proof of divine inspiration and honestly you’d think that the Quran coming directly from God would give more explicit and specific information about the shape of the earth than simply putting a word in a verse that _could_ be interpreted as “egg shaped”.

I believe that what I’ve said above is sufficient to respond to the rest of your post as I would just be repeating the same points by answering to the rest.


----------



## Oxidamus (Jan 30, 2012)

Man, the fact people on an internet forum still argue for pages upon pages about religion and God really makes me feel bad and worry.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Oxi X.O. said:


> Man, the fact people on an internet forum still argue for pages upon pages about religion and God really makes me feel bad and worry.


The only thing that can end this argument is the apocalypse.

Both atheists and religious people believe that humanity will end one day.


----------



## Punkhead (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't believe in god, but I'm not saying that he doesn't exist. His existence can't be disproven, just as it can't be proven. And I doubt that we will ever find out the truth, so what's all the fuss about?

Why do people still feel the need to argue on an internet forum about something so meaningless? Every few months someone creates a thread about religion and every single time it stretches out for dozens of pages of meaningless baiting, flaming. insults, personal attacks, which make both sides look bad and in the end nobody wins and nobody gains anything. So can we please stop?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Hey @Oda Nobunaga why are there two current threads for the same topic? Having both a "Do you believe in magic?" thread at the same time as this one is a bit redundant.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

Tater said:


> Hey @Oda Nobunaga why are there two current threads for the same topic? Having both a "Do you believe in magic?" thread at the same time as this one is a bit redundant.


Indeed.

so what you're saying is God is Harry Potter?

Mind. Blown.


----------



## RLStern (Dec 27, 2014)

Tater said:


> Hey @Oda Nobunaga why are there two current threads for the same topic? Having both a "Do you believe in magic?" thread at the same time as this one is a bit redundant.


*
Don't see how a Mind producing a mind/minds is magic, that's as natural as one could get.

What is magic is the idea that a Mindless entity can produce a Mind, that nothing can cause something, because in reality the cause has the properties of the effect, it produced all it's properties, if a cause lacks those properties, it is impossible for it to produce the effect. seeing as a Mindless cause cannot scientifically produce a Mind/Minds, 

Asking one if they're an atheist is therefore the same as asking them if they believe in magic.*


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Punkhead said:


> I don't believe in god, but I'm not saying that he doesn't exist. His existence can't be disproven, just as it can't be proven. And I doubt that we will ever find out the truth, so what's all the fuss about?
> 
> Why do people still feel the need to argue on an internet forum about something so meaningless? Every few months someone creates a thread about religion and every single time it stretches out for dozens of pages of meaningless baiting, flaming. insults, personal attacks, which make both sides look bad and in the end nobody wins and nobody gains anything. So can we please stop?


You have more of a deist than a flat-out atheistic view. Deists don't necessarily believe in God per se but don't rule out the possibility that there is a higher power/intelligent design that created everything that is out there. 

As someone who does believe in God and makes no apologies for it, that's the one argument I make to people that don't believe. I tell them to think about it the next time they look out on a beautiful sunrise overlooking a meadow, etc. Is all this random happenstance...the possibility is there but to me with all that is out in this world and beyond I believe this was created by design. 

Unfortunately, there are ignorant people on both sides of the argument, just like anywhere else. I can't stand those Bible-thumpers who say that everyone who doesn't believe them or in their specific brand is going to hell, and I have found in life there are atheists who are the most intolerant of all as they openly insult anyone who does believe in God. I don't care what someone believes (or not believe) but don't mock me and I will leave you be.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> As someone who does believe in God and makes no apologies for it, that's the one argument I make to people that don't believe. I tell them to think about it the next time they look out on a beautiful sunrise overlooking a meadow, etc. Is all this random happenstance...the possibility is there but to me with all that is out in this world and beyond I believe this was created by design.


I just don't understand why a lot of believers always thank god for good things that happen to them, but never seem to blame god for the bad things.

That's a nice idea that God is responsible a nice sunrise. Is he/she also responsible for natural disasters that wipe out millions of people and make life a misery for others by wiping out crops and homes etc?

It just seems all to convenient to me that God seems to take credit for the good stuff but none of the bad.

Lots of UFC fighters and athletes I've noticed thank god when they win, but the losers never say 'I don't know why God wasn't there for me tonight, he let me down'.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

yeahbaby! said:


> I just don't understand why a lot of believers always thank god for good things that happen to them, but never seem to blame god for the bad things.
> 
> That's a nice idea that God is responsible a nice sunrise. Is he/she also responsible for natural disasters that wipe out millions of people and make life a misery for others by wiping out crops and homes etc?
> 
> ...


George Carlin thought along those lines also. I think that this is all to test our resolve in the long run. Not every prayer is answered because they aren't in our best interests. That's why we have the idea of free will to follow Him and accept that He has a plan for us but in the long run we decide how to do things. 

As Garth Brooks once sang, "Some of Gods greatest gifts are unanswered prayers." 

Simple answer I know but I prefer to keep things sweet and simple.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> George Carlin thought along those lines also. I think that this is all to test our resolve in the long run. Not every prayer is answered because they aren't in our best interests. That's why we have the idea of free will to follow Him and accept that He has a plan for us but in the long run we decide how to do things.
> 
> As Garth Brooks once sang, "Some of Gods greatest gifts are unanswered prayers."
> 
> Simple answer I know but I prefer to keep things sweet and simple.


I'm sorry man, I really like you as a poster on here, but that's just too damn convenient.

There's a big difference between not answering all your prayers, and God sending monsoons every year in the pacific to destroy where you live and injure or kill you or your countrymen.

The whole thing is an obvious human construct. Half to control the masses and half to help them sleep better at night.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry man, I really like you as a poster on here, but that's just too damn convenient.
> 
> There's a big difference between not answering all your prayers, and God sending monsoons every year in the pacific to destroy where you live and injure or kill you or your countrymen.
> 
> The whole thing is an obvious human construct. Half to control the masses and half to help them sleep better at night.


I believe of my own free accord. No one controls me and I am OK with that. Besides God is more about the big picture and doesn't care which MMa fighter or soccer team wins. 

We can agree to believe or not believe. All I ask is for my choice to be respected


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Tater said:


> Hey @Oda Nobunaga why are there two current threads for the same topic? Having both a "Do you believe in magic?" thread at the same time as this one is a bit redundant.


i was about to ask the same thing. Why do we need a god thread and trump thread simultaneously?

:Trump


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Well..if everything is the will of God...


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

There are several logical arguments for the existence of God.
There are zero logical arguments for the validity of atheism.

So, yes, I believe in God. I will continue to believe in God until I hear a superior argument for atheism.

Anyone have any to offer?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

BruiserKC said:


> I believe of my own free accord.


My father says the same thing and I always ask him if he would have willingly believed in a god if he was never even introduced to the concept and at least he admits that he would not have, but then adds that his life would have been miserable. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

IDidPaige said:


> There are several logical arguments for the existence of God.
> There are zero logical arguments for the validity of atheism.
> 
> So, yes, I believe in God. I will continue to believe in God until I hear a superior argument for atheism.
> ...


id love to hear a logical argument for the existence of God, with facts and such.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> As someone who does believe in God and makes no apologies for it, that's the one argument I make to people that don't believe. I tell them to think about it the next time they look out on *a beautiful sunrise overlooking a meadow*, etc.


:red




I really don't particularly give a shit what anyone believes. Where I have a major fucking problem is when they try to force those beliefs on others. Countless billions of people have been killed throughout the history of mankind for reasons that basically boil down to an argument over my god has a bigger dick than your god. We'd all be a lot better off if people would simply learn how to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and respect the rights of others to hold their own beliefs.


----------



## Cashmere (Apr 9, 2014)

@Tater why are you tating. You're one of the bigger believers of the supernatural :mj


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Cashmere said:


> @Tater why are you tating. You're one of the bigger believers of the supernatural :mj


:lol Because taters gonna tate. (Y)


----------



## Cashmere (Apr 9, 2014)

Tater said:


> :lol Because taters gonna tate. (Y)


It's been awhile man. How you've been?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> There are several logical arguments for the existence of God.
> There are zero logical arguments for the validity of atheism.
> 
> So, yes, I believe in God. I will continue to believe in God until I hear a superior argument for atheism.
> ...


what are the logical arguments for the existence of God with evidence and facts?

Atheism is not a belief, it's a non-belief.

You need to prove god exits not god doesn't


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> what are the logical arguments for the existence of God with evidence and facts?
> 
> Atheism is not a belief, it's a non-belief.
> 
> You need to prove god exits not god doesn't


I thought everyone had a right to believe whatever they want. Now suddenly believers need to prove you their belief is right one? Does it even matter? And if it does... why?

I dont personally believe, but i dont tell others to believe or not to believe. They are free to do what they want.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Banez said:


> I thought everyone had a right to believe whatever they want. Now suddenly believers need to prove you their belief is right one? Does it even matter? And if it does... why?
> 
> I dont personally believe, but i dont tell others to believe or not to believe. They are free to do what they want.


If believers are claiming their god is the right one then yes they need to prove that.

Why wouldn't they? They are the ones making that claim.

Who is telling others what to believe? Asking for evidence for something is not telling them what to believe. Its saying prove to me god is real or your god is the real one or right one.

The other poster said there logical arguments for the existence of God. What is wrong with asking for those logical arguments?


----------



## phyfts (Jul 26, 2015)

Nope. Living in a muslim-majority country helps with it.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> If believers are claiming their god is the right one then yes they need to prove that.
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Who is telling others what to believe? Asking for evidence for something is not telling them to believe. Its saying prove to me god is real.


Why wouldn't they? That could be said as "why should they" which you already countered on your first response. This just is endless debate that leads nowhere.

As for my last line, i was merely making a statement, not claiming you or anyone else is telling others to believe or not to believe.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Banez said:


> Why wouldn't they? That could be said as "why should they" which you already countered on your first response. This just is endless debate that leads nowhere.
> 
> As for my last line, i was merely making a statement, not claiming you or anyone else is telling others to believe or not to believe.


They should because they are making the claim they have logical arguments for the existence of god. If its so easy to prove god then they should just do it.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> what are the logical arguments for the existence of God with evidence and facts?
> 
> Atheism is not a belief, it's a non-belief.
> 
> You need to prove god exits not god doesn't


Sorry, birthday_massacre, but this sort of pseudo-argument isn't going to work with me.

The theist claim isn't that we have concrete proof that God exists, but that God is the _best explanation for existence_, hence why we believe.

In order to refute this claim, atheists (deniers of the existence of God), must present a superior, God-free explanation for existence.

This is the atheist's burden of proof, one which they cannot meet, hence why they avoid it.


That "atheism is just a lack of belief" nonsense? That's the atheist's way of avoiding their burden of proof. Everyone knows damn well that atheism is the denial of the existence of God, and is entirely distinct from agnosticism (lack of belief, but also a lack of denial), yet because atheists have absolutely zero good arguments, they must pretend otherwise. It's just one more way in which atheism is a dishonest delusion.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

IDidPaige said:


> The theist claim isn't that we have concrete proof that God exists


Admits existence of god isn't proven...



IDidPaige said:


> but that God is the _best explanation for existence_, hence why we believe.


Admits belief without proof...



IDidPaige said:


> In order to refute this claim, atheists (deniers of the existence of God), must present a superior, God-free explanation for existence.


Shifts burden of proof.

And they wonder why we think they are knuckle dragging troglodytes. :ha


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

Your burden isn't to present proof of something other than God giving rise to existence, but to present a superior argument than the arguments for the existence of God.

Remember: This debate isn't about conclusively proving one position over the other--that's a burden no one can meet. It's about presenting the best arguments for each position, and then deciding which is superior.

As long as atheists continue to run and hide when asked to present arguments for atheism, atheism will continue to be viewed as a blind faith rooted in emotions by all right-minded individuals.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> Sorry, birthday_massacre, but this sort of pseudo-argument isn't going to work with me.
> 
> The theist claim isn't that we have concrete proof that God exists, but that God is the _best explanation for existence_, hence why we believe.
> 
> ...









IDidPaige said:


> Your burden isn't to present proof of something other than God giving rise to existence, but to present a superior argument than the arguments for the existence of God.
> 
> Remember: This debate isn't about conclusively proving one position over the other--that's a burden no one can meet. It's about presenting the best arguments for each position, and then deciding which is superior.
> 
> As long as atheists continue to run and hide when asked to present arguments for atheism, atheism will continue to be viewed as a blind faith rooted in emotions by all right-minded individuals.


Not believing something has no burden of proof. It's the person making the claim god exists or god is the best explanation that has the claim.

You have not given any evidence that god is the best explanation. You are using the god of the gaps fallacy. You don't know the answer so you claim god is the best explanation

How is god the best explanation? you are doing what people have done for thousands of years when they can't explain something and just say GOD.

Thousands of years ago, people claimed rain, earthquakes, floods, tornados, volcano eruptions, plagues etc etc were all caused by god or gods. But over time science explained the cause of all of those things and it was not god or gods doing them.


Then it was oh god created the universe but science showed it was the big bang, and now people like you say well god is the one who caused the big bang go happen with no evidence.

All you are doing is saying well science cant explain this yet, so the best explanation is god when there is no evidence or reason to believe god or gods had anything to do with it.

So what is your reasoning god is the best explanation?

And again you don't need to present an argument for the lack of belief in god. Just like no one needs to show an argument for leprechauns, fairies, or unicorns.

If you are making a claim of god, the burden is on you, not the person saying I dont believe your claim.

That is not how science and logic works


----------



## Cashmere (Apr 9, 2014)

Human being are severely flawed. 

God made mistakes. If he was still around, he'll openly admit to that :draper2


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

IDidPaige said:


> Your burden isn't to present proof of something other than God giving rise to existence, but to present a superior argument than the arguments for the existence of God.
> 
> Remember: This debate isn't about conclusively proving one position over the other--that's a burden no one can meet. It's about presenting the best arguments for each position, and then deciding which is superior.
> 
> As long as atheists continue to run and hide when asked to present arguments for atheism, atheism will continue to be viewed as a blind faith rooted in emotions by all right-minded individuals.


:HA Take a science class for fuck's sake if you want to know how things work.

There's no "argument" for atheism. Atheism makes no claims. Atheists reject the claims of theists because theists offer no proof. It's theists who put forward the claims then say that they cannot be disproven. Well, no shit, Sherlock. You cannot disprove a negative. Look up Russell's teapot and get back to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Tater said:


> :HA Take a science class for fuck's sake if you want to know how things work.
> 
> There's no "argument" for atheism. Atheism makes no claims. Atheists reject the claims of theists because theists offer no proof. It's theists who put forward the claims then say that they cannot be disproven. Well, no shit, Sherlock. You cannot disprove a negative. Look up Russell's teapot and get back to me.


Exactly, atheism is the null hypothesis / default position to the claim god exists


----------



## Desecrated (Feb 4, 2009)

Apophis is the one true God. Or was. Rip big guy. Since his death on the television series Stargate, I have no longer found the existence of any other deity to be as comforting as he was to me. He allowed an Egyptian man to live for over 3,000 years. If that isn't the work of a God, then I do not know what is.

Then again, Anubis was more bad-ass and managed to become a spirit. Or something like that. My memory isn't so great on season 6-7. But both are dead.


----------



## Alex DeLarge (Nov 4, 2004)

No, and I find no reason for me to believe in any form of god or gods.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

RipNTear said:


> My father says the same thing and I always ask him if he would have willingly believed in a god if he was never even introduced to the concept and at least he admits that he would not have, but then adds that his life would have been miserable. What are your thoughts on this?


I grew up in such a household. My parents were fairly active in the church growing up, and we were exposed to it. Mom would volunteer for dinners and fund-raisers, my dad would do readings during Mass. When I went to college, I drifted away and wasn't as active as this was my first time out on my own. That changed after I returned from Kosovo and I got involved again. The difference being...this time it was my own choice and not at the persuasion of my parents. For me, it means that much more now then it did when I was a kid.


----------



## BigDaveBatista (Aug 23, 2015)

i believe the fact that belief in false idols and gods has caused more damage to this planet than any disease or natural disaster 
the holy books are fictional, might as well follow the word of harry potter or sherlock holmes they hold the exact same amount of credence


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

For the record: Atheism, and the absence of religion, has caused far more death and destruction than has belief in God and religion. This, despite atheism being but a fringe minority position throughout history.

It's not surprising, really. God and religion are the foundation for our ultimate purpose and moral values. Without them, existence is meaningless, and morality becomes subjective nonsense.

Long story, short: Atheists are animals, whose level of stupidity is dangerous.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> For the record: Atheism, and the absence of religion, has caused far more death and destruction than has belief in God and religion. This, despite atheism being but a fringe minority position throughout history.
> 
> It's not surprising, really. God and religion are the foundation for our ultimate purpose and moral values. Without them, existence is meaningless, and morality becomes subjective nonsense.
> 
> Long story, short: Atheists are animals, whose level of stupidity is dangerous.


You are just trolling at this point. No way you can be serious.

You see idiot Christians all the time praying for their kids to be better instead of going to a DR and that child dying. Not to mention there are religious was all the time over the course of history.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> You see idiot Christians all the time praying for their kids to be better instead of going to a DR and that child dying.


No, you don't. Besides, nearly every branch of medical science was founded by, and advanced by, a theist. We own it.



birthday_massacre said:


> Not to mention there are religious was all the time over the course of history.


Religious wars make up just 7.5% of history's wars, with more than half of those being Islamic wars. Christianity is a religion of peace and intellectualism, which is why Western civilization has flourished under its rule. Science, medicine, technology . . . all have flourished under Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, areas where atheism has ruled haven't done so well . . .


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> I believe of my own free accord. No one controls me and I am OK with that. Besides God is more about the big picture and doesn't care which MMa fighter or soccer team wins.
> 
> We can agree to believe or not believe. All I ask is for my choice to be respected


I do respect your choice. 

I also remember however you stated something like 'How can a beautiful sunset be by accident'. Inferring God created them to be beautiful for our enjoyment or whatever.

I also wanted you to account for terrible natural disasters - the opposite pretty much of beautiful sunsets - using the same logic. But you seem to have avoided that.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

yeahbaby! said:


> I do respect your choice.
> 
> I also remember however you stated something like 'How can a beautiful sunset be by accident'. Inferring God created them to be beautiful for our enjoyment or whatever.
> 
> I also wanted you to account for terrible natural disasters - the opposite pretty much of beautiful sunsets - using the same logic. But you seem to have avoided that.


Then take into account the millions that were slaughtered by atheistic/socialist regimes in the 20th century. Over 150 million slaughtered in Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot and Cambodia, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. I haven't even taken into consideration the millions of Jews and Christians that were killed in Hitler's Nazi Germany. There are also other instances in past history...such as the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror. There was an anti-Catholic bent to the Revolution with how Roman Catholicism was hand-in-hand with the French monarchy. 

Militant atheists are among the most intolerant of all in our world today. You have a growing number of people who want to basically wipe out ALL discussion of religion in the public market for discussion. There are legitimate gripes and concerns regarding all religions, I have no issue with that. However, I have a problem with people who want to say, "You can't talk about God anywhere, period." 

Plus...I refer to the book "Encyclopedia of Wars"...as of its printing in 2004...there had been 1,763 wars throughout recorded human history. Only 123 of them...7 percent...involved religious conflict.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

BruiserKC said:


> Then take into account the millions that were slaughtered by atheistic/socialist regimes in the 20th century. Over 150 million slaughtered in Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot and Cambodia, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. I haven't even taken into consideration the millions of Jews and Christians that were killed in Hitler's Nazi Germany. There are also other instances in past history...such as the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror. There was an anti-Catholic bent to the Revolution with how Roman Catholicism was hand-in-hand with the French monarchy.
> 
> Militant atheists are among the most intolerant of all in our world today. You have a growing number of people who want to basically wipe out ALL discussion of religion in the public market for discussion. There are legitimate gripes and concerns regarding all religions, I have no issue with that. However, I have a problem with people who want to say, "You can't talk about God anywhere, period."
> 
> Plus...I refer to the book "Encyclopedia of Wars"...as of its printing in 2004...there had been 1,763 wars throughout recorded human history. Only 123 of them...7 percent...involved religious conflict.


There is so much in this post that is factually incorrect and based on religious propaganda, if you were a random internet person, I'd call it flat out retarded and rip you to shreds. But, since you're such a great guy and someone I consider a friend, I'm going to let it slide.

ositivity


----------



## Desecrated (Feb 4, 2009)

I wonder what that guy thinks the reformation was. Or the crusades.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Tater said:


> There is so much in this post that is factually incorrect and based on religious propaganda, if you were a random internet person, I'd call it flat out retarded and rip you to shreds. But, since you're such a great guy and someone I consider a friend, I'm going to let it slide.
> 
> ositivity





Desecrated said:


> I wonder what that guy thinks the reformation was. Or the crusades.


Not arguing the Crusades weren't religious in nature but just pointing out of all the wars in history only a fraction of those were specifically religious wars. 

As for the first part...part of these regimes role was to squash the churches as the only worship was to the state. That meant many religious leaders were killed for their faith. That led to the Muslim genocide in Bosnia and we still see faith in China under assault such as Falun Gong.


----------



## DerekVinyard (Mar 25, 2017)

There are over 3,000 gods in the world but don't worry only YOURS is the real one.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

BruiserKC said:


> Then take into account the millions that were slaughtered by atheistic/socialist regimes in the 20th century. Over 150 million slaughtered in Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot and Cambodia, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. I haven't even taken into consideration the millions of Jews and Christians that were killed in Hitler's Nazi Germany. There are also other instances in past history...such as the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror. There was an anti-Catholic bent to the Revolution with how Roman Catholicism was hand-in-hand with the French monarchy.
> 
> Militant atheists are among the most intolerant of all in our world today. You have a growing number of people who want to basically wipe out ALL discussion of religion in the public market for discussion. There are legitimate gripes and concerns regarding all religions, I have no issue with that. However, I have a problem with people who want to say, "You can't talk about God anywhere, period."
> 
> Plus...I refer to the book "Encyclopedia of Wars"...as of its printing in 2004...there had been 1,763 wars throughout recorded human history. Only 123 of them...7 percent...involved religious conflict.


I'm not really sure why you brought this up at all in response to what I said to you. Can you explain? What does this have to do with debating the existence of God?

We could go on all day about whether a lack of belief in God had anything to do with those wars or not, but what does this have to do with anything to do in this thread?

Your original point was about amazing sunsets or sunrises, and the beauty of them being so apparent that it had to be by design of a god. I brought up another weather related thing that wasn't so nice and asked you to account for them using the same logic.

Maybe I'm dense but I have absolutely no idea how we got from there to talking about terrible wars. People and certainly big mobs of people can be absolutely horrible and cause mass violence and genocide and death death death all day long and it has absolutely nothing to do with belief in God or lack thereof (IMO). I say it's more about power and maniacal leaders who are able to control masses. (But this has no relation to what we were talking about).


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Not believing something has no burden of proof. It's the person making the claim god exists or god is the best explanation that has the claim.


Denying the existence of one proposed explanation for existence, as atheists do with God, logically entails that some other explanation must be true. Atheists have the burden of demonstrating this.


_Something_ is at the root of existence.
If it's not God, it's _something other than God_ (perhaps even the universe, itself).
If you deny it's God, then you must accept that it's _something other than God_.
If you have no argument for this _something other than God_, than you have no more evidence for atheism than what you claim theists have for God. To be logically consistent, you should reject atheism, just as you reject theism, and declare yourself agnostic.
Really, I can't dumb it down any further than that. If you still don't get it, you're a lost cause.

Here's question: Are you, or any other atheist in this thread, willing to admit that there's no POSITIVE reason to accept atheism, and that atheism is entirely a NEGATIVE argument against the existence God?



birthday_massacre said:


> You have not given any evidence that god is the best explanation. You are using the god of the gaps fallacy. You don't know the answer so you claim god is the best explanation


Actually, my poorly-educated friend, I'm using what's known as an inference to the best explanation.

*Encyclopedia.com - Inference to the Best Explanation**INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION*

_In an inductive inference, we acquire a belief on the basis of evidence that is less than conclusive. The new belief is compatible with the evidence, but so are (possibly many) competing hypotheses that we are unwilling to infer. Such is the situation for a great number of the inferences we make, and this raises a question of description and a question of justification. What principles lead us to infer one hypothesis rather than another? And do we have any reason to believe that these principles are good ones, leading us to accept hypotheses that are true and to reject those that are false? Inference to the Best Explanation offers partial answers to both questions._​With what we currently know, namely that the universe is a rational, ordered structure which had a beginning, I believe that God is _by far_ the best explanation.

You reject this claim, but offer nothing in support of this rejection, thus, your rejection is dismissed. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

See, here's the thing . . .

The atheist incorrectly believes that the theist must conclusively prove God, and if not, atheism wins.

In reality, theism and atheism are competing world views; they are opposing ends of the same spectrum. Each has the burden of proving they're superior to the other.

Theists accept this, and proudly defend their views. It's only atheists who refuse to offer anything of substance by which their 




birthday_massacre said:


> How is god the best explanation? you are doing what people have done for thousands of years when they can't explain something and just say GOD.
> 
> Thousands of years ago, people claimed rain, earthquakes, floods, tornados, volcano eruptions, plagues etc etc were all caused by god or gods. But over time science explained the cause of all of those things and it was not god or gods doing them.


What was said and done thousands of years ago has zero bearing on modern thought.



birthday_massacre said:


> Then it was oh god created the universe but science showed it was the big bang, and now people like you say well god is the one who caused the big bang go happen with no evidence.


Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance.

Big bang cosmology was founded by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître. It was, and still is, used to defend theism.

Remember: theists said the universe had a beginning, whereas, atheists said it was infinite. Big bang cosmology proved the theists correct, and the atheists wrong. This is why the big bang is embraced by theists, while it's routinely denied by atheists.

You would know this if you had any idea what you're talking about.



birthday_massacre said:


> All you are doing is saying well science cant explain this yet, so the best explanation is god when there is no evidence or reason to believe god or gods had anything to do with it.


When an atheist uses the line "science can't explain this yet" what they actually mean is "we can't explain this yet from an atheistic perspective."

In that regard, yes, you are correct. A part of belief in God is that alternative explanations (read: atheism) are vapid and empty. That's how inference to the best explanation works. You weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all competing hypotheses to determine which is best.

This isn't limited to the God debate. A part of accepting ANY explanation is knowing that alternative explanations are inferior.

Of course, it's not based solely on the vapidness of atheism, but also on the strength of arguments for God: the argument from design, the Kalaam cosmological argument, the argument from beauty, etc.

In short:



Arguments for God are strong.
Arguments for atheism are weak.
Thus, God is the best explanation.
Therefor, I am a theist.
Makes sense, huh?

If atheists want to show the world that atheism is the most rational position, they need to present arguments. Shrieking out, _"there is no evidence for God!"_ and _"atheism doesn't need any arguments!"_ just won't cut it, kids.



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not how science and logic works


Lol.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

Tater said:


> :HA Take a science class for fuck's sake if you want to know how things work.


Oh, I have.

We theists have built science with our blood, sweat, and tears, remember, all while atheists were busy committing atrocity after atrocity. 

Never forget this fact.

What your ilk doesn't seem to grasp, is that "how things work" doesn't answer the deeper question of "how it is they came to work."

If you can't understand this distinction (spoiler: you can't), let me make it a little clearer with an analogy.

An engineer can look inside a computer, study it for a while, and figure out how it functions. He can figure out what each part does, and why it does it. He can then piece it all together to get a full understanding of what a computer does, and how it does it.

However, understanding precisely how it is that a computer functions is a different question than the question of _how that computer, and its many parts, came to function_.

Understanding the _functions of its engineering_ does not answer the question of the _origin of its engineering_.

This is a dead-on analogy for science and the universe.

Scientists can figure out the universe, force by force, reaction by reaction, law by law. However, figuring out how the universe functions is not the same as figuring out the origin of the universe's functions.

Saying that because scientists can figure out how the universe functions disproves the existence of God, is like saying because an engineer can figure out how my computer functions disproves the existence of Hewlett-Packard.

What theists say is that the source of the huge degree of intelligence and orderliness in the universe points towards an intelligent, purposeful source, which strongly implies God. Science is nothing more than the reverse engineering of God's engineering, which is why the theistic framework has proven so much more fruitful than an atheistic framework.

*Theistic Framework*
-The universe is designed.
-Like all designs, it can be reverse engineered.
-Design principles and patterns will create an orderliness helping us to understand the universe.
-We can use this knowledge to not only fulfill our curiosity, but to advance society.


*Atheistic Framework*
-Shit just happens for no reason.
-Its all chaos; no patterns, no order, just chaos.
-There's no purpose; Earth is an accident, and humans are purposeless.

Science fits perfectly into the theistic framework, yet could never exist in the atheistic framework.

Believing in science logically entails believing in God. That so many of today's scientists don't is evidence of how illogical much of today's science is.




Tater said:


> There's no "argument" for atheism.


I know there's not. That's the problem: there needs to be. Until then, atheism will remain a blind faith.

"There absolutely is no God, and I have absolutely nothing to back that claim up, nor any alternative explanations" might be good enough for the emotionally-driven neckbeards of society, but it will never take hold among normal people, nor critical thinkers. This is why atheism remains on the fringe, and atheists are viewed as weird, untrustworthy outcasts.




Tater said:


> Atheism makes no claims. Atheists reject the claims of theists because theists offer no proof. It's theists who put forward the claims then say that they cannot be disproven. Well, no shit, Sherlock.


Yeah . . . no. I've already addressed this in sufficient detail in my evisceration of the troll calling itself birthday_massacre, so I won't bother addressing it again in any detail. Instead, I'll post two images and a link.

Atheist hero Carl Sagan, correctly recognizing that atheism is the denial of God, and is, thus, _a positive statement about the nature of reality requiring a positive supporting argument_:










The definition of atheism, taken from nine different dictionaries and encyclopedias:










And if that's not enough, here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy addressing the distinction between atheism (the denial of God's existence) and agnosticism (neutrality of God's existence):

You cannot disprove a negative. Look up Russell's teapot and get back to me.[/quote]

This is a claim only amateurs make. Those of us properly educated in philosophy and logic know that most negative claims can be proven as conclusively as positive claims. For example, I can prove there's not a regulation-sized tank in the room I'm in right now just as easily as I could prove there was.

That you don't understand introductory-level logic suggests to me that you have a lot -- *A LOT* -- of learning to do before you're to be taken serious in this centuries-old debate.

To put it as bluntly as possible: You're neither smart enough, nor educated enough, to have a valid opinion on a debate in which millions of hours worth of thought from brilliant minds have been unable to reach a conclusive settlement. Stick to video games and comic books.


----------



## DerekVinyard (Mar 25, 2017)

IDidPaige said:


> Oh, I have.
> 
> We theists have built science with our blood, sweat, and tears, remember, all while atheists were busy committing atrocity after atrocity.
> 
> ...



God isn't real by the btw.


----------



## glenwo2 (May 9, 2011)

I believe in God and in Jesus.

But I don't go to Church on Sundays.

So basically, my attitude is "Yeah...God and Jesus existed but they're not helping me pay my fucking bills. shit."


----------



## Superkick (Mar 19, 2017)

I do believe that there is a higher power. Maybe not god, but Tony Atlas is pretty powerful.



NoodFactor said:


> I believe in Satan.


In that case you believe in God too.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

The truth is, none of us really know. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc.


----------



## Yeah1993 (Nov 20, 2008)

Why do some people call atheism "denying" God exists? If they were just "in denial" they would still be thiests wouldn't they?


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

To answer the OP's question...yes I am a Christian.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

IDidPaige said:


> Denying the existence of one proposed explanation for existence, as atheists do with God, logically entails that some other explanation must be true. Atheists have the burden of demonstrating this.
> 
> 
> _Something_ is at the root of existence.
> ...


No you're the lost cause - because you can't or won't accept you can't disprove a negative, end of story. I don't need evidence to claim there is no God, just like I don't need evidence to say there is no invisible ghost next to me right now. If God was apparent then I could accept I need evidence for her, but she is not apparent therefore I wouldn't waste my time.

A lot of atheists don't care about know knowing about the origin of things, because most likely it's beyond our understanding. Considering we're only a couple of hundred years into the industrial revolution for example and we've used it to basically fuck up the planet for our future generations, I don't give us much chance of ever knowing such a huge thing.

Even the act of assuming the origin of the universe is in a 'language' or holds a definition that we humans can understand is pretty arrogant and well, stupid.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

IDidPaige said:


> Oh, I have.
> 
> We theists have built science with our blood, sweat, and tears, remember, all while atheists were busy committing atrocity after atrocity.
> 
> ...


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Tater said:


>


Dude none of those things could exist without God, there is no better explanation for their existence. Stop running from the truth and God Bless You.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> Denying the existence of one proposed explanation for existence, as atheists do with God, logically entails that some other explanation must be true. Atheists have the burden of demonstrating this.
> Something is at the root of existence.
> If it's not God, it's something other than God (perhaps even the universe, itself).
> If you deny it's God, then you must accept that it's something other than God.
> ...



No it does not. You don't even understand how logic and reason works, let alone science. You have proven that over and over again.

You make a hypothesis god exists or god created the universe, someone rejects that claim, you need to prove what you claimed is true.
No one has to give you an alternative explanation. 

You are not even making sense when you say things like If you have no argument for this something other than God, than you have no more evidence for atheism than what you claim theists have for God. 

You dont need evidence to not believe in something. I dont believe in unicorns but I dont need evidence they dont exist. Not sure why you dont understand this simple concept.

All atheism is is the disbelief in gods, nothing else.




IDidPaige said:


> Here's question: Are you, or any other atheist in this thread, willing to admit that there's no POSITIVE reason to accept atheism, and that atheism is entirely a NEGATIVE argument against the existence God?



Like I just said, atheism is the disbelief that god or gods exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis or default position to the claim a god exists.





IDidPaige said:


> Actually, my poorly-educated friend, I'm using what's known as an inference to the best explanation.
> 
> Encyclopedia.com - Inference to the Best Explanation
> INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION
> ...




You are the one who is poorly educated, you don't even understand how science, logic, and reason work.

You don't even understand inference, you dont even have any evidence for god. You just say I dont know therefore god, that is not even inference. that is god of the gaps fallacy.

I can reject any claim, that is how science works. I dont need to offer up an explanation for your claim, you are the one who needs to show evidence your claim of a god exists is true or that god created the universe. But you have not done that.

As for the atheist rejection being dismissed because they dont have an alternative explaination to your claim you can't prove, again you prove you dont know how science works.

When you make a claim, and its rejected in science, if you cant prove your claim then its your claim that is dismissed. that is how it works. 

it is correct that someone that claims god exists must conclusively prove God that is how science works. Not sure why you don't get this. 





IDidPaige said:


> What was said and done thousands of years ago has zero bearing on modern thought.


Because what you are doing right now is what those people were doing thousands of years ago, attributing things to god they did not have an answer for. But now we know god did not cause those things. Just because we did not know the cause of those things back then did not mean god did it. 




IDidPaige said:


> Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance.
> 
> Big bang cosmology was founded by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître. It was, and still is, used to defend theism.
> 
> ...



it does not matter who came up with the big bang theory, that has no bearing no if god is real or not LOL
Your logic on all of this is serously flawed



IDidPaige said:


> When an atheist uses the line "science can't explain this yet" what they actually mean is "we can't explain this yet from an atheistic perspective."
> 
> In that regard, yes, you are correct. A part of belief in God is that alternative explanations (read: atheism) are vapid and empty. That's how inference to the best explanation works. You weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all competing hypotheses to determine which is best.
> 
> ...


No it means we cant explain it yet for a scientific perspective.

You keep proving you dont understand what atheism is. 

And you are right this is not limited to the god debate, its science.

The way science works is, you make a claim, the claim is rejected, then you need to prove the claim is true. Until you can do so, the claim stays rejected.





IDidPaige said:


> Arguments for God are strong.
> Arguments for atheism are weak.
> Thus, God is the best explanation.
> Therefor, I am a theist.
> ...


There is no strength of arguments for god, if there was you would be giving that proof or evidence but all you do is fight to shift the burden of proof instead to the non-belever and that is why you are a giant failure at proving god.

There is no argument for atheism, atheim is a non-belief. Seriously, get a clue what atheism is.

What you are sayign makes no sense it goes against science, logic and reason.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Yeah1993 said:


> Why do some people call atheism "denying" God exists? If they were just "in denial" they would still be thiests wouldn't they?


I think you mean anti-theist. Anti-theist is the opposite of a theist.


----------



## Piper's Pit (May 1, 2016)

Delete.


----------



## Philip McFillup (Mar 27, 2017)

Yes, I due.

-Phyllis


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)

It's a subject I've spent a great deal of time and effort grappling with.
Many hours reading and studying multiple texts spanning several different religions and mythologies.

There's ultimately nothing concrete to point to. I may not be able to disprove the existence of a 'god', but I can disprove any factual accuracy in any of the holy books. That's not to say that the concepts are without any merit particularly as pertains to human behavior, but that's not the same as genuine truth.

I also find the notion of an afterlife infinitely more terrifying than actual death.


----------



## Reservoir Angel (Aug 7, 2010)

IDidPaige makes my brain hurt. Also is almost the exact kind of douchebag that makes me feel so ill-disposed towards Christianity, or indeed religion at all. All they'd need to do is throw in a bit of Bible-justified homophobia and they'd be the perfect horrible stereotype of a Christian that I have in my head.

Really the only piece of logic I need to justify to myself why 'God' as he is understood in Christianity or other Abrahamic faiths today is not real is the fact that humanity has worshipped thousands upon thousands of different Gods both before and alongside 'the' God so what basis of logic does anyone have for claiming that all of those Gods, who their believers would have claimed are totally real with 100% as much conviction as Christians show, were just made-up bullshit but this particular God is totally obviously the real deal?

It's nonsense. God is nothing more than an idea invented by primitive humanity to explain away the vast number of things about the world they were not intelligent enough to understand properly. The Abrahamic God is just the one that happens to currently be the more widely acknowledged, it is no more real than any of the others from our species' distant past.


----------



## ecclesiastes10 (Aug 2, 2016)

yep, read the bible


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Reservoir Angel said:


> IDidPaige makes my brain hurt. Also is almost the exact kind of douchebag that makes me feel so ill-disposed towards Christianity, or indeed religion at all. All they'd need to do is throw in a bit of Bible-justified homophobia and they'd be the perfect horrible stereotype of a Christian that I have in my head.
> 
> Really the only piece of logic I need to justify to myself why 'God' as he is understood in Christianity or other Abrahamic faiths today is not real is the fact that humanity has worshipped thousands upon thousands of different Gods both before and alongside 'the' God so what basis of logic does anyone have for claiming that all of those Gods, who their believers would have claimed are totally real with 100% as much conviction as Christians show, were just made-up bullshit but this particular God is totally obviously the real deal?
> 
> It's nonsense. God is nothing more than an idea invented by primitive humanity to explain away the vast number of things about the world they were not intelligent enough to understand properly. The Abrahamic God is just the one that happens to currently be the more widely acknowledged, it is no more real than any of the others from our species' distant past.


this video explains it best


----------



## The Game (Oct 7, 2015)

Nah, after we die I think that's just it. We enter a state of nothingness. Because 'not existing' scares people, they believe in religion to bring hope that their life is eternal.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

yeahbaby! said:


> No you're the lost cause - because you can't or won't accept you can't disprove a negative, end of story.


You realize that disproving a negative is logically equivalent to proving a positive, correct?

For example: A woman can disprove that she's not pregnant by proving that she's pregnant; disproving non-pregnancy = proving pregnancy.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Holy hell . . . you really didn't give this much thought, did you? Atheists . . . 

I'm a gentleman, so I'll assume you meant *you can't prove a negative* (a common atheist claim), but that, too, would be incorrect. For example:


The actual Statue of Liberty is not located inside the room in which I am currently sitting.
The continent of Europe is not located anywhere on the continent of North America.
I am not currently writing this sentence with my penis.

These are just a few of many negative statements which can be easily proven.

Rule of thumb when it comes to proving negatives: if you can thoroughly search the space in which the negative statement entails, you can prove a negative.

So, for example, I can prove that an elephant isn't located inside of the room I'm currently in because I can thoroughly search the room I'm in, but I can't prove that an elephant isn't located on another planet in another galaxy.

What's true is that we can't prove a universal negative, because doing such a thing would require the ability to search the entire universe. Even then, not proving a universal negative is a matter of current _physical impossibility_, not _logical impossibility_.

Conclusion: You know not what the hell what you're talking about.



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't need evidence to claim there is no God, just like I don't need evidence to say there is no invisible ghost next to me right now. If God was apparent then I could accept I need evidence for her, but she is not apparent therefore I wouldn't waste my time.


Actually, you do. The claim that there is no God is a positive claim about reality, and requires a positive supporting argument.

Conclusion: You know not what the hell what you're talking about.



yeahbaby! said:


> A lot of atheists don't care about know knowing about the origin of things, because most likely it's beyond our understanding. Considering we're only a couple of hundred years into the industrial revolution for example and we've used it to basically fuck up the planet for our future generations, I don't give us much chance of ever knowing such a huge thing.


If you believe the origin of existence is unknowable, then you should identify as an agnostic, not an atheist.

Agnostic = "I neither believe in, nor deny, the existence of God. God may be the answer to the question of existence, or He may not be."

Atheism = "I deny the existence of God. God is not the answer to the question of existence, a non-God explanation is."

See the difference?

Conclusion: You know not what the hell what you're talking about.



yeahbaby! said:


> Even the act of assuming the origin of the universe is in a 'language' or holds a definition that we humans can understand is pretty arrogant and well, stupid.


The universe is comprehensible. If it weren't, science, philosophy, and rational thought would be impossible. That's not an assumption, it's an observable fact.

Conclusion: You know not what the hell what you're talking about.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> You realize that disproving a negative is logically equivalent to proving a positive, correct?
> 
> For example: A woman can disprove that she's not pregnant by proving that she's pregnant; disproving non-pregnancy = proving pregnancy.
> 
> ...



Your whole logic is defeated when you said, *Rule of thumb when it comes to proving negatives: if you can thoroughly search the space in which the negative statement entails, you can prove a negative.
*

You cannot search the space in which god exists. god is not tangible like an elephant or a women being pregnant.

You just proved yeahbaby is right when he said in the case of god you can't prove a negative.

You keep proving you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to atheism and how science works

All you do is fight so hard to pass on the burden to the person that does not believe your claim because you know there is zero evidence to back up god exists. If there was you would just give the evidence

So unless you have some proof god exists, you have lost this argument.


You are the only person talking who does not know what they are talking about

stop claiming that atheism makes a claim on origin of existence. It does not. All atheism is is the rejection of the claim a god or gods exist. It's the disbelief in god. that is all it speaks to nothing else.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

It sure does.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

Catalanotto said:


> It sure does.


Bill Nye's a failed engineer, turned failed comedian, turned successful pretend-scientist guy.

I guess that impresses some people. It certainly doesn't impress me.

Do you know what does impress me? This:










Theists built science, medicine, technology, morality, and pretty much all of Western civilization.

In the meantime, atheists built . . . well, nothing, really. Although, they did manage to kill a whole lot of people, so there's that.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige;66519089[B said:


> ]Bill Nye's a failed engineer, turned failed comedian, turned successful pretend-scientist guy.
> 
> I guess that impresses some people. It certainly doesn't impress me.
> 
> ...


he still kicked Ken Hams ass in a debate.

Nothing you said still proved god exists. Just because a scientist or doctor is religious does not mean god exists. 

Still waiting for your evidence.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> he still kicked Ken Hams ass in a debate.
> 
> Nothing you said still proved god exists. Just because a scientist or doctor is religious does not mean god exists.
> And it will
> Still waiting for your evidence.


So where is your evidence that something suddenly came from nothing? The answer, it does not exist

Sometime tomorrow BM will have some internet defined explanation, he looked up on what to say as an "atheist.com". But it still won't answer the question. Because the bottom line is that none of us know what happened. But as far as every explanation I have seen, Christianity makes the most sense, like it or not. That's my opinion, to each his own.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> So where is your evidence that something suddenly came from nothing? The answer, it does not exist
> 
> Sometime tomorrow BM will have some internet defined explanation, he looked up, that still does not answer the question. Because the bottom line is that none of us know what happened . But as far as every explanation I have seen Christianity makes the most sense, like it or not. That's my opinion, to each his own.



Where did god come from? And dont give me that bullshit god always existed without evidence. If you are going to claim god always exists, you can also say the universe always existed in some form.

Stop using the god of the gaps argument Just because we dont know does not mean god did it.

You still need to prove god exists which you can't do.

And no Christianity does not make the most sense. You could easily say Zeus made the universe. 

Also the bible gets simple science wrong, so how can you even say it makes sense? The world was not made in six days and the universe is not 10,000 years old.

So how exactly does Christianity make the most sense when it got everything wrong.


You really think women came from Adam's rib?


That makes the most sense to you LOL

Or what about how the bible says god created light on the first day but did not make the sun or the stars which are what produces light until the 4th day?

Again how does that make the most sense? How was there light on the first day with no sun or stars?

None of those things make any sense


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Lol Branches of Science FOUNDED BY BELIEVERS!
Does that mean that basically God founded science? IT MUST!!

Guess what? A whole lot of believers - quite high up ones called Priests - spent years upon years raping young children all across the world. And then, their atrocities were covered up by a whole lot of other believers so they could continue living cosy lives. What connection do those atrocities have to God then using your logic? What does that say about 'Believers'.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

LOL so nothing produces nothing. 

Funny that you presume to believe what I believe. 

Why do I have to produce an an absolute truth when you cannot?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> LOL so nothing produces nothing.
> 
> Funny that you presume to believe what I believe.
> 
> Why do I have to produce an an absolute truth when you cannot.


Why are you stuck on this something coming from nothing? I made no such claim. I dont know how the universe began. 

I don't have to produce anything for not believing in a god. You claim god exists you need to prove god exists.

If someone claims they have an invisible magical unicorn in their closet, I don't need to prove it does not exist, you need to prove it does exist

You have given zero evidence for a god existing, and I tore to shreds your claim how christianity makes the most sense.

The universe origin story in the bible makes zero sense like I pointed out.

So where is your evidence god exists?

You cant even back up your claims.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Greenlawler said:


> LOL so nothing produces nothing.
> 
> Funny that you presume to believe what I believe.
> 
> Why do I have to produce an an absolute truth when you cannot?


To be fair I don't think many Atheists believe nothing produces nothing. More a case of they're happy with a 'I don't Know, because I don't have any reasonable evidence' position. I'm certainly happy with not knowing to be honest.


I think it depends on what your position is as a religious person or otherwise. Is it a belief, an idea, or an absolute truth? 

If your going to go around and talk in absolutes on a certain position, make big decisions based on that position and make choices or change other's lives based on that position - then you should probably be prepared to prove it's real.



Edit: My favourite 'Ideas' have always been the Sun God Ra and the cultures that have had a system of gods like the Roman gods, Norse Gods etc.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Why are you stuck on this something coming from nothing? I made no such claim. I dont know how the universe began.
> 
> I don't have to produce anything for not believing in a god. You claim god exists you need to prove god exists.
> 
> ...


So you freely admit that you do not know how the Universe came to be? 

and done, evidence is a two way street. I simply said Christianity makes the most sense to me. 

The key words being "to me" 

Where is your evidence God does not exist?

You did not tear to shreds anything that I believed you simply made a statement to make you sound right.


----------



## Dolorian (Oct 5, 2015)

yeahbaby! said:


> To be fair I don't think many Atheists believe nothing produces nothing.


Very much, creation _ex-nihilo_ (out of absolutely nothing) is a theistic doctrine and a Christian dogma, it is not really something atheists tend to uphold. Rather it is affirmed that there has always been _something_ and that said something (a physical entity of sorts) is eternal and a brute fact. In the end both the theist and the atheist end up with their respective brute fact that has always been and which admits no further explanation, God for the theist and the universe for the atheist.

Cosmologist Sean Carroll does a very good job explaining a naturalistic view in light of this question...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> So you freely admit that you do not know how the Universe came to be?
> 
> and done, evidence is a two way street. I simply said Christianity makes the most sense to me.
> 
> ...


I admit I dont know how the universe came to be. I have said that over and over again. You dont need evidence for saying I dont know. 

Why do you keep asking the same questions when I just answered it. The answer is in my post you just quoted

AGAIN
*
I don't have to produce anything for not believing in a god. You claim god exists you need to prove god exists.

If someone claims they have an invisible magical unicorn in their closet, I don't need to prove it does not exist, you need to prove it does exist*

You are just trolling at this point.


I asked you how does Christianity make the most sense to you. I then pointed out a few things Christianity claims that does not make sense and asked you to show how they make sense to you.

I will ask you again. 

How do these make sense to you?

How does it make sense Eve came from Adams rib?

How does it make sense the universe is just 10,000 years old.

How does it make sense god created light on the first day but did not make the sun or the stars which are what produces light until the 4th day?

Tell me how any of those makes sense. Those things alone show Christianity is wrong about the origin of the universe


----------



## Ygor (Jul 19, 2013)

I was born a Christian. I used to believe in God. I don't believe in God anymore.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> I admit I dont know how the universe came to be. I have said that over and over again. You dont need evidence for saying I dont know.
> 
> Why do you keep asking the same questions when I just answered it. The answer is in my post you just quoted
> 
> ...


Well nothing you said here proves anything, I answered your questions in the quotes

I can just as easily say you are trolling because you cannot give me any answers either

So why if the Bible is so inaccurate did it correctly inform history about things like the Hittite empire? Is there anything historically inaccurate about the Bible? You can give me some perspective differences about the gospels, that Biblical scholars would tear apart....but again it's perspective. 

You don't believe that's fine, I am not trying to convert you. 

I know that would be folly. But trying to tell believers that they are wrong is also unprovable. 

There is no science out there that creationist cannot discount and vice versa. It all comes down to an individuals POV.

but as for me I believe there is an afterlife, you don't that's fine.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> Well nothing you said here proves anything, I answered your questions in the quotes
> 
> I can just as easily say you are trolling because you cannot give me any answers either


I have answered your questions over and over again. 

What question have I not answered? 



We do know how old the universe is, its over 13 billion years old, its not 10,000 like Christianity claims. Christianity does not even come close. But 10,000 makes more sense to you than 13 billion. 

Oh the good old BS answer we don't know if the Bible is talking about literal 24 hour periods or longer time spans, the bible is talking about literal day spans. If the bible was talking about longer periods of time it would have said so. And even if the periods were longer it still makes zero sense how there was light on the first day with no sun or stars. If it was longer time spans it would make even less sense.

So how does it make sense there was light with no sun or stars?

Everything I posted shows how Christianity's explanations don't make any sense what so ever.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

You can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, therefore it must be there - Christian logic.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Last questions to the believers.


If god was real and there was really just one god, then why wouldn't everyone believe in the same god? It should not matter where on earth you lived or what time period, if god was real everyone would have the same concept for god.

Why wouldn't god make sure everyone believes in the same god and show evidence that he is real

And finally. what would it take for you to not believe in a god


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> I have answered your questions over and over again.
> 
> What question have I not answered?
> 
> ...


Okay we will have to disagree tonight because I have to go to bed. I would like to continue this later. But I do think it really wont matter because nothing you have typed I have not heard before and I suspect you feel the same way.


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Last questions to the believers.
> 
> 
> If god was real and there was really just one god, then why wouldn't everyone believe in the same god? It should not matter where on earth you lived or what time period, if god was real everyone would have the same concept for god.
> ...


Now that is a good question I will sleep on.


----------



## Jobbers wanted (Apr 9, 2015)

The God idea like some other posters have mentioned goes back thousands of years, Ancient Egypt had Gods for all sorts of things the sun god the nile god the fertility god etc. The Greek god mythology has me fascinated like Zeus an all his demi gods who he controls, personally like some other posters have said I just don't want to know any more, the idea of an afterlife is actually not very comforting.


----------



## whelp (Jun 8, 2015)

Tater said:


> You can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, therefore it must be there - Christian logic.


Just, Beautiful!


----------



## 777 (Feb 24, 2011)




----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> If god was real and there was really just one god, then why wouldn't everyone believe in the same god? It should not matter where on earth you lived or what time period, if god was real everyone would have the same concept for god.


The most precious gift God gave to humans, besides Life, was Free Will. Why would God stifle that by denouncing artistic interpretation in various religions?

Other than having different names, are there any religions still active that do not believe in one Great Creator or God? So its not like everyone is worshipping different gods...just worshipping in different ways.

(Jesus, Moses, Allah, Buddah, etc were teachers and profits...not gods)



> Why wouldn't god make sure everyone believes in the same god and show evidence that he is real?


If God is truly infinite...how could something that exists outside of time make any real contact with any physical creature bound by the limits of time?



> And finally. what would it take for you to not believe in a god?


I am not a religious person at all and I am rather appalled by that question. How do you even answer that as a Believer?


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Miss June said:


> Other than having different names, are there any religions still active that do not believe in one Great Creator or God? So its not like everyone is worshipping different gods...just worshipping in different ways.


Buddhism, if I'm not mistaken, is essentially atheist in that they don't think deities are relevant to one's path toward enlightenment.


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

MrMister said:


> Buddhism, if I'm not mistaken, is essentially atheist in that they don't think deities are relevant to one's path toward enlightenment.


Good point. Buddhism probably is the biggest departure from most modern religions by acknowledging that the universe is infinite making the idea of one Creator irrelevant.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It is kind of the exception though so your point is valid as I see it.

The Creator is definitely a common thing among the world's religions, existent and dead.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> The most precious gift God gave to humans, besides Life, was Free Will. Why would God stifle that by denouncing artistic interpretation in various religions?
> 
> Other than having different names, are there any religions still active that do not believe in one Great Creator or God? So its not like everyone is worshipping different gods...just worshipping in different ways.
> 
> ...


If you believe in god there is no free will since god knows everything from the beginning of time to the end. He already knows everything that is going to happen which means we cannot deviate from that track, which means there is no free will.

Even without god there is still no free will, its determinism. But that is a whole another can of worms.

If you believe in the bible. God so called created the universe and he had contact with adam and eve so he has had contact with physical creature bound by the limits of time. There are tons of other stories of god in the bible interacting with people on earth.

How can you even ask that question when the bible is full of examples of god doing exactly that?

Why would you be appalled by that question? Its a legit question, just like someone asking a non-believer what would it take for us to believe.

The answer for us is easy, evidence.

Believers become atheist all the time because of one reason or another. Not sure why you are so offended by the question.


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> If you believe in god there is no free will since god knows everything from the beginning of time to the end. He already knows everything that is going to happen which means we cannot deviate from that track, which means there is no free will.
> 
> Even without god there is still no free will, its determinism. But that is a whole another can of worms.
> 
> ...


1.) The belief in God is not an automatic belief in Pre-Destination. If that is your belief, fine, but don't push it on others.

2.) People believe in God...they read the Bible. Which was written by humans. Don't take a bunch of stories so literally or assume most religious people do.

3.) Asking someone what it would take to lose their faith is brutal. What would it take for you to stop believing that your parents are good people?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> 1.) The belief in God is not an automatic belief in Pre-Destination. If that is your belief, fine, but don't push it on others.
> 
> 2.) People believe in God...they read the Bible. Which was written by humans. Don't take a bunch of stories so literally or assume most religious people do.
> 
> 3.) Asking someone what it would take to lose their faith is brutal. What would it take for you to stop believing that your parents are good people?


1. I disagree 

2. You are right the bible was written by humans, its just a bunch of stories, and I don't take god literally, god is just a made up story and is not meant to be taken literally. 

3. Faith is believing in something without evidence, how is asking someone to stop believing in things without evidence brutal? 

As for what would it take for me to stop believing that my parents are good people, that is simple, if they did something bad like murder or abuse or anything of that nature.

Was that question supposed to be difficult?


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Was that question supposed to be difficult?


Nope...just a loaded one. As in, there was no good answer.

Just trying to help you ask better questions.

#moreyouknow


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> Nope...just a loaded one. As in, there was no good answer.
> 
> Just trying to help you ask better questions.
> 
> #moreyouknow


Its not a loaded question and I gave a good answer. It was a simple answer.

And asking a believer what it would take to not believe in something that is not proven to be real is a perfectly good question.


that is like saying, its not a good question to ask someone would it would take to stop believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or Zeus


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

Yeah because billions of people worship Santa Claus.

You don't have to believe in God, but don't belittle it like that. 

What kind of answer were you looking for anyhow?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> Yeah because billions of people worship Santa Claus.
> 
> You don't have to believe in God, but don't belittle it like that.
> 
> What kind of answer were you looking for anyhow?


Santa Claus is a perfect analogy to god.

As for what kind of answers, proof that god exists would be nice something no believer has even given.


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Santa Claus is a perfect analogy to god.
> 
> As for what kind of answers, proof that god exists would be nice something no believer has even given.


I meant what kind of answer were you looking for to the question, "What would it take to make [a believer] no longer believe in God?"

Some great travesty to make them question God?

Some mile long equation to disprove God?

???


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> I meant what kind of answer were you looking for to the question, "What would it take to make [a believer] no longer believe in God?"
> 
> Some great travesty to make them question God?
> 
> ...


Any kind of answer. More and more people every day stop believing in god, so there has to be something that would get believers to stop believing.

I am curious what that something would be.

Its a pretty simple question. I find it odd you have such a problem with the question.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Miss June said:


> I meant what kind of answer were you looking for to the question, "What would it take to make [a believer] no longer believe in God?"


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Tater said:


>


This comes from a guy that believes that ALL of climate change is driven by human activity tho :mj


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

Miss June said:


> *Other than having different names, are there any religions still active that do not believe in one Great Creator or God?* So its not like everyone is worshipping different gods...just worshipping in different ways.


Yes. Many pagans, like myself, have very different interpretations of 'god', often including polytheism and/or goddess(es) along with, or instead of, god(s). I can't speak for all pagans but I certainly don't worship a creator; the concept of worship, in the Christian sense, is odd to me. 

However, the majority of the _not-part-of-the-Christianity/Islam/Judaism-trio_ may be polytheistic while also having a cosmic _something _that all the various incarnations are part of/representations of/stem from as 'children of', which is not too different from the One God concept. Hinduism is a bit along those lines, as are (usually) Wicca and many aboriginal belief systems.


----------



## TheMenace (May 26, 2013)

I don't believe in any supernatural fairy-tale nonsense. So no I don't believe in Frod.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

IDidPaige said:


> Bill Nye's a failed engineer, turned failed comedian, turned successful pretend-scientist guy.
> 
> I guess that impresses some people. It certainly doesn't impress me.
> 
> ...



:lmao


I don't give a fuck about Bill Nye.

I didn't post it because Bill Nye is on it, I posted it for the science part. I couldn't care less who is on it, I just liked the way it looked, with the saying.

I obviously got under your skin with it because you think I am 'slutty' lmao) and 'very stupid' because I enjoy science over an invisible man in the sky.

Keep being mad, rejoiner.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

Are we really crediting religion with the development of medicine. Upsetting was a large part of the reason that Galen's incorrect ideas went unchallenged and were accepted as the norm for so long.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> This comes from a guy that believes that ALL of climate change is driven by human activity tho :mj


Once again lying about something.

He does not say all climate change is driven by human activity. he says the recent abrupt increase in climate change, like how the last 10 of 13 years have been the hottest on record is due to humans. He admits there is slight changes due to the earths orbital variation. He is talking about the new tendencies of climate change is caused by humans.

He even has a video on it







You can't even be honest about this stuff. And do you really not think humans have an effect on climate change? 

And even so, what he said about what it would get for him to believe in god. Evidence? Do you think that is wrong or a bad way of thinking?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Once again lying about something.
> 
> He does not say all climate change is driven by human activity. he says the recent abrupt increase in climate change, like how the last 10 of 13 years have been the hottest on record is due to humans. He admits there is slight changes due to the earths orbital variation. He is talking about the new tendencies of climate change is caused by humans.
> 
> ...


Watch what he said on Fox. You have no clue what I'm talking about but of course you're going to defend someone because his political views align with yours without doing the necessary research.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Watch what he said on Fox. You have no clue what I'm talking about but of course you're going to defend someone because his political views align with yours without doing the necessary research.


Once agaIn you are not being truthful but this is always a trend with you. You are talking about the Tucker Carlson interview on Fox , you know the one where Tucker cut cutting hiim off and not letting him finish his thoughts.

Even during that interview on fox Nye said, * “The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of happening on timescales of millions of years or, let’s say, 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades,” 
*

So once again you are misrepresenting what Nye said.

Nye says in interview internet humans are making climate change worse and happen more. He does not state they are the only cause of it.

This is thread is about god, so time to get back on topic


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Once agaIn you are not being truthful but this is always a trend with you. You are talking about the Tucker Carlson interview on Fox , you know the one where Tucker cut cutting hiim off and not letting him finish his thoughts.
> 
> Even during that interview on fox Nye said, * “The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of happening on timescales of millions of years or, let’s say, 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades,”
> *
> ...


When pressed to answer the question about what degree of it is being caused by humans Nye didn't have an answer and eventually blurted out 100% instead of simply saying he doesn't know. 

An advocate of something should be armed with answers to even the most stupid questions and that question wasn't even outlandish. 

Watch the whole thing.

Don't place your faith in Nye any more than you would in Ken Ham. He's uneducated and pretends to know more than he does. There are good sources on the subject but Nye isn't one. He's a political activist. There's a difference.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> When pressed to answer the question about what degree of it is being caused by humans Nye didn't have an answer and eventually blurted out 100% instead of simply saying he doesn't know.
> 
> An advocate of something should be armed with answers to even the most stupid questions and that question wasn't even outlandish.
> 
> ...


I watched the whole interview. Nye says over and over its the rate climate change is happening is humans fault. But you keep ignoring that part and taking what he is saying out of context. The quote you are talking about is Nye said the *rate *at which climate change has been *SPED UP* is 100% caused by humans. He did not say climate change is 100% caused by humans, he is talking about the rate at which its increasing. 



The point is not even about Nye and climate change, it was you dissing him on his quote what would it take for you to believe in god, and he said evidence.

So how is that answer not a good one?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> I watched the whole interview. Nye says over and over its the rate climate change is happening is humans fault. But you keep ignoring that part and taking what he is saying out of context. The quote you are talking about is Nye said the *rate *at which cimate change has been *SPED UP* is 100% caused by humans. He did not say climate change is 100% caused by humans, he is talking about the rating its increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even if he said that the rate that it sped up is 100% humans fault then that is a completely scientifically inaccurate statement because that makes it an absolute. And that's not what he was saying. 

The reason why I responded with what I responded with is that Nye has only examined pro climate change evidence (if that) and has demonized the skeptics without giving them the respect he should. Human driven Climate change alarmism is what he subscribes to and not science or reason on that particular subject hence him saying that evidence will change his mind is whole meme able but also plain wrong coming from him since it's obvious that he doesn't hold himself up to his own standards. 

Anyways. Let's get this back on track. No point dragging this further because we won't agree. I used to listen to Nye as well but his research and knowledge is lacking.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Even if he said that the rate that it sped up is 100% humans fault then that is a completely scientifically inaccurate statement because that makes it an absolute. And that's not what he was saying.
> 
> The reason why I responded with what I responded with is that Nye has only examined pro climate change evidence (if that) and has demonized the skeptics without giving them the respect he should. Human driven Climate change alarmism is what he subscribes to and not science or reason on that particular subject hence him saying that evidence will change his mind is whole meme able but also plain wrong coming from him since it's obvious that he doesn't hold himself up to his own standards.
> 
> Anyways. Let's get this back on track. No point dragging this further because we won't agree. I used to listen to Nye as well but his research and knowledge is lacking.


Yeah if people still want to debate climate change, we can just open a new thread about it. But if there was a god why wouldn't god just stop climate change?

There we are back on track lol


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

*giggle, snort*


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

Rugrat said:


> Are we really crediting religion with the development of medicine.


Yes, we are. Not only because the great men and women who progressed science and medicine where overwhelmingly theists, but because most explicitly credited God with their accomplishments. Theism provided the heuristics behind their science, and their belief that science was honoring God's brilliance was the motivator.

While the dishonest and ignorant atheist claims that belief in God is a science stopper, history shows the exact opposite to be true: Belief in God has been *THE* science starter.


----------



## sharkboy22 (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't identify with any religion but I do believe in God.


----------



## Rugrat (Jun 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> Yes, we are. Not only because the great men and women who progressed science and medicine where overwhelmingly theists, but because most explicitly credited God with their accomplishments. Theism provided the heuristics behind their science, and their belief that science was honoring God's brilliance was the motivator.
> 
> While the dishonest and ignorant atheist claims that belief in God is a science stopper, history shows the exact opposite to be true: Belief in God has been *THE* science starter.


You haven't disproved my point regarding Galen, which was when religion was massively detrimental to medicine.

Atheism has only become popular in recent times, so a lot of the early physicists would have been religious. It doesn't prove anything, a lot of the early pioneers will have believed that Earth was flat, for example.


----------



## Doc (Oct 4, 2010)

God doesn't exist when children die from cancer.


FACT.


----------



## JokersLastLaugh (Jan 25, 2016)

Religion is without a doubt the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to man.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

JokersLastLaugh said:


> Religion is without a doubt the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to man.


Given how awful man has been in the absence of religion, I'd lean more towards it being the absolutely best thing that has ever happened to man. If atheism were to ever take hold (and it won't, thank God), humanity wouldn't last a single century.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> Given how awful man has been in the absence of religion, I'd lean more towards it being the absolutely best thing that has ever happened to man. If atheism were to ever take hold (and it won't, thank God), humanity wouldn't last a single century.


Atheism is taking hold sorry to tell you. More and more people are turning away from religion.

The fastest growing "religion" is non-religion.

Over 23% of the US population now identifies as atheist which is up from 7% in 2007.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Atheism is taking hold sorry to tell you. More and more people are turning away from religion.


Don't feed the trolls. Atheism is the fastest growing and the 2nd largest 'religion' in the world. So yeah it is taking hold.

Sad thing is Islam is also rising.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Don't feed the trolls. Atheism is the fastest growing and the 2nd largest 'religion' in the world. So yeah it is taking hold.
> 
> Sad thing is Islam is also rising.


LOL I just added that stat to my post at the same time you posted it.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

draykorinee said:


> Don't feed the trolls. Atheism is the fastest growing and the 2nd largest 'religion' in the world. So yeah it is taking hold.
> 
> Sad thing is Islam is also rising.


Terribly stupid article which conflates areligiosity with atheism. I, myself, am areligious, which would make me an atheist according to the "reasoning" of said article, yet I view atheism as a depraved joke for simple minds.

Terrible. Just . . . terrible. You can do better than this dishonesty, draykorinee.


----------



## JokersLastLaugh (Jan 25, 2016)

IDidPaige said:


> Given how awful man has been in the absence of religion, I'd lean more towards it being the absolutely best thing that has ever happened to man. If atheism were to ever take hold (and it won't, thank God), humanity wouldn't last a single century.


That statement literally has no substance to it, or anything concrete holding it together. Atheism produces more moral people, along with huge advances in technology. Religion, just to use one ONLY ONE example, is the reason for homophobia.

Nothing has held this world back in terms of developing culture and technology more than religion. Every natural disaster that has ever happened in this world doesn't hold a candle to the destructive flame of religion. Funny though, if you are religious, specifically to one of the 3 abrahamic religions, you would count natural disasters are works of gods, thus giving religion even more evil and trauma to the world.

One of my favourite quotes of all time:

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."
-Steven Jay Gold

This quote is not directed at religion, but at the depressing fact that so many people have wasted their lives and gifts. I truly believe the same goes to religion. Imagine the things men and women could have thought of and accomplished if they didn't spend their lives on their knees in churches, crucifying (literally) the people who were trying to actually do something productive.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

JokersLastLaugh said:


> That statement literally has no substance to it, or anything concrete holding it together. Atheism produces more moral people, along with huge advances in technology. Religion, just to use one ONLY ONE example, is the reason for homophobia.
> 
> Nothing has held this world back in terms of developing culture and technology more than religion. Every natural disaster that has ever happened in this world doesn't hold a candle to the destructive flame of religion. Funny though, if you are religious, specifically to one of the 3 abrahamic religions, you would count natural disasters are works of gods, thus giving religion even more evil and trauma to the world.
> 
> ...


There are no historical facts to back up any of your claims. Your post is yet another example of how atheists ignore reality in favor of their fact-free fantasy world.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Your whole logic is defeated when you said, *Rule of thumb when it comes to proving negatives: if you can thoroughly search the space in which the negative statement entails, you can prove a negative.
> *
> 
> You cannot search the space in which god exists. god is not tangible like an elephant or a women being pregnant.
> ...


In my second post in this topic, which was a reply to you, I made it clear that the burden of proof of both theists and atheists isn't conclusive proof of the existence/nonexistence of God, but in presenting the most reasonable explanation for existence.

Let me refresh your memory:



IDidPaige said:


> The theist claim isn't that we have concrete proof that God exists, but that God is the _best explanation for existence_, hence why we believe.
> 
> In order to refute this claim, atheists (deniers of the existence of God), must present a superior, God-free explanation for existence.
> 
> This is the atheist's burden of proof, one which they cannot meet, hence why they avoid it.


Theists have arguments for God.

Atheists pride themselves on the fact that they have no arguments for atheism ("we're the only position in history that doesn't need no stinkin' arguments," they say).

Thus, theism is the superior explanation by default, since _any explanation_ is superior to _no explanation_.

If the atheist can't or won't present any argument for atheism (note that I use argument/explanation synonymously), then the atheist position is intellectually bankrupt, and should only be accepted by those with intellectual deficiencies and/or severe psychological issues.



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep proving you dont know what you are talking about when it comes to atheism and how science works


Yes, of course.



birthday_massacre said:


> All you do is fight so hard to pass on the burden to the person that does not believe your claim because you know there is zero evidence to back up god exists. If there was you would just give the evidence


Incorrect. At no point have I said that theists don't have the burden of proving their worldview superior, only that atheists share this burden.

I submit that if atheism was truly a compelling worldview, atheists would be more than happy to share their compelling arguments, rather than running and hiding, as they do now.

Let's face it: You've got nothing, and I'm calling you all out on it. That pisses you off, doesn't it?



birthday_massacre said:


> So unless you have some proof god exists, you have lost this argument.


I don't have conclusive proof God exists, but I do have better arguments that God exists than atheists have that God does not exist. I win.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> stop claiming that atheism makes a claim on origin of existence. It does not. All atheism is is the rejection of the claim a god or gods exist. It's the disbelief in god. that is all it speaks to nothing else.


For anyone who thinks birthday_massacre cares about facts or truth, take a look at the above. This claim was made after I:



Presented a well-reasoned argument for why atheism is not merely a lack of belief, and logically entails belief in _something other than God_.
Presented a quote from atheist hero Carl Sagan explicitly claiming that atheism is the outright denial of God (translation: belief of absence, not absence of belief).
Presented 10 definitions from 10 different dictionaries showing atheism is the denial of God.
Presented an in-depth article from one of the world's most authoritative sources on philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, explaining the distinction between atheism (belief of absence) and agnosticism (absence of belief).

birthday_massacre ignored all of this, and continued on with his assertion that atheism is just a lack of belief in God, with zero justification.

If he's unwilling to accept evidence that challenges his deeply-held beliefs, even when it's literally staring him right in the face, then he's an unreasonable (irrational) dogmatist. There is literally no argument that could convince him of God's existence; he's emotionally/psychologically closed off to the idea.

Beliefs which are rooted in emotion, as birthday_massacre's are, can't be altered by reason. Whatever the psychological issue causing birthday_massacre to feel such deep fear and hostility towards God, I do hope he gets it taken care of.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

IDidPaige said:


> For anyone who thinks birthday_massacre cares about facts or truth, take a look at the above. This claim was made after I:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ghost Lantern (Apr 11, 2012)

So I get red rep for expressing my religious beliefs? Whatever Birthday Massacre..... pathetic.

I have always been gracious to you in spite of our many disagreements. In spite of all the times we have gone head to head I cannot remember anytime I gave you red rep.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Edited: Can't be fucked to argue with idiots. Atheist hero, what the fucking hell is that supposed to mean.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

All this anger from the religious and atheists tearing each other apart while people like me claim to be agnostic chilling on the fence. 

See you in hell if God really exists (unless the conversion at deathbed stuff in movies are legit), see you never after we die if God doesn't.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

FriedTofu said:


> All this anger from the religious and atheists tearing each other apart while people like me claim to be agnostic chilling on the fence.
> 
> See you in hell if God really exists (unless the conversion at deathbed stuff in movies are legit), see you never after we die if God doesn't.


Yeah, I know its a bit much, I used to be completely agnostic to the point where I put no thought to religion at all, neither good, benign or harmful, then 9/11 happened and I slowly went towards religion being a net harm, I think I was happier before..

If god sends me to hell for not believing in him then he's a egotistical sadist and I wouldn't want to worship him anyway, but we all know hell is a man-made construct to put fear in to children to not leave their man made religion.


----------



## nucklehead88 (Dec 17, 2012)

IDidPaige said:


> I don't have conclusive proof God exists, but I do have better arguments that God exists than atheists have that God does not exist. I win.


There is no argument that god exists. Zero. Faith. Thats it. You believe it. Zero actual evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that refutes every belief in the christian religion. Everything down to when earth was created and Noahs Ark. You win nothing.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Greenlawler said:


> So I get red rep for expressing my religious beliefs? Whatever Birthday Massacre..... pathetic.
> 
> I have always been gracious to you in spite of our many disagreements. In spite of all the times we have gone head to head I cannot remember anytime I gave you red rep.


Yes for trolling. You quote my post and ask a question I just answered in your reply acting like I did not answer the question in my post you were quoting.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> For anyone who thinks birthday_massacre cares about facts or truth, take a look at the above. This claim was made after I:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to stop making strawman.


Atheism does make a claim on origin of existence. All atheism is is the rejection of a claim a god or gods exist.

You keep proving over and over again you don't know how science and logic works.

The definition of atheism is *disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.*

THATS IT.

You don't even understand atheism because you keep calling it a belief. It's a lack of belief.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> In my second post in this topic, which was a reply to you, I made it clear that the burden of proof of both theists and atheists isn't conclusive proof of the existence/nonexistence of God, but in presenting the most reasonable explanation for existence.
> 
> Let me refresh your memory:



You don't need a burden of proof for atheism. It's a lack of belief. You can use the same logic for fairies, Russel's teapot, thor, Zeus, and unicorns.
If there is no evidence for something you don't need to believe its real. You don't have to prove its not real.




IDidPaige said:


> Theists have arguments for God.
> 
> Atheists pride themselves on the fact that they have no arguments for atheism ("we're the only position in history that doesn't need no stinkin' arguments," they say).
> 
> ...


Theists have real arguments for god, they mostly use god of the gaps and dont have any real scientific evidence for god. That is why god is FAITH based.
If theist had any real evidence then they would be able to prove god exists but you cant.

You keep saying atheist have no arguments for atheism, again they dont need any for lack of belief. Again just like we dont need arguments for fairies, Russel's teapot, thor, Zeus, and unicorns not existing. The people that claim those things are real need to prove they are real, disbelievers dont need to prove they don't.

When you say things like theism is the superior explanation by default, since any explanation is superior to no explanation you prove you dont have a clue about science and logic. You make so many fallacies with you go claims its quite sad.

You can say the same thing for Zeus and the greek gods that does not mean people claiming the greek gods are real are right by default. Saying that makes you sound ignornat. You really should take a science class. You need conclusive evidence to proof god exists. Not just god of the gaps arguments which are just fallacies. 



IDidPaige said:


> Incorrect. At no point have I said that theists don't have the burden of proving their worldview superior, only that atheists share this burden.
> 
> I submit that if atheism was truly a compelling worldview, atheists would be more than happy to share their compelling arguments, rather than running and hiding, as they do now.
> 
> Let's face it: You've got nothing, and I'm calling you all out on it. That pisses you off, doesn't it?



Again no atheist don't share that burden, you can say it as many times as you want but it will never make it true. That is not how science and logic work. 





IDidPaige said:


> I don't have conclusive proof God exists



This ends the thread and your argument right here, *you dont have conclusive proof God exists* thus atheist are right to not believe in god.

CHECKMATE

You lose and you just admit you lose.

There is no reason to even continue the debate when you admit you don't have any conclusive proof which is what you need to prove god is real.

By you admitting you does not have conclusive proof God exists you just admit atheist are right to not believe in god.

You totally destroyed your own argument lol


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

FriedTofu said:


> All this anger from the religious and atheists tearing each other apart while people like me claim to be agnostic chilling on the fence.
> 
> See you in hell if God really exists (unless the conversion at deathbed stuff in movies are legit), see you never after we die if God doesn't.


Agnostic is the way to go imo. 

A fool believes in something that cannot be proven.

And it's arrogant to assume something doesn't exist despite not being able to fully back up your assumption.

To me Religious people and Hardcore Atheists kind of sound alike, both overly zealous and militant certain they're right. One pulls out quotes from a holy book and the other from the book of their favorite Atheist author or Scientist. Yet neither seem to even fully understand what they're saying nor smart enough to think for themselves. It all comes down to who's words tickle their ears and make them feel right and superior to everyone else.

Even more funny is neither have any real answers for anyone. It's just all conjecture and posturing.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> Agnostic is the way to go imo.
> 
> A fool believes in something that cannot be proven.
> 
> ...


So it's arrogant to not believe in unicorns, fairies, trolls, Zeus, thor etc because we can't prove they don't exist?

You dont need to prove something does not exist to not believe in it when there is no evidence to prove said thing exists.

If someone claims there is an invisible magical troll living under their bed, you think its ignorant to tell the person I don't believe you if they can't prove to you its true?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

draykorinee said:


> Yeah, I know its a bit much, I used to be completely agnostic to the point where I put no thought to religion at all, neither good, benign or harmful, then 9/11 happened and I slowly went towards religion being a net harm, I think I was happier before..
> 
> If god sends me to hell for not believing in him then he's a egotistical sadist and I wouldn't want to worship him anyway, but we all know hell is a man-made construct to put fear in to children to not leave their man made religion.


I rather believe in a world where there is a flying spaghetti monster than a world where the flying spaghetti monster is made up. 

Religion drive people to do shitty things. But so do many other stuff not related to religion. If not religion, the same type of people will cling to other calling for their self identity, such as PETA or SJW that can allow them to be led to do shitty stuff too.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> So it's arrogant to not believe in unicorns, fairies, trolls, Zeus, thor etc because we can't prove they don't exist?
> 
> You dont need to prove something does not exist to not believe in it when there is no evidence to prove said thing exists.
> 
> If someone claims there is an invisible magical troll living under their bed, you think its ignorant to tell the person I don't believe you if they can't prove to you its true?


I don't believe there is a God, I don't see proof of it but there are some theories that would fall in line with a creator. This does not mean I take stock in them but they're not outside the realm of possibility within a hypothetical situation.

That being said I find the arrogance in assumption of absolute certainty and then trying to preach to everyone on high like you're Moses with the ten commandments. 

Nothing is ever certain. God is pretty damn improbable and probably doesn't exist but I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to realize that if anything Science has taught us is that anything is possible, but not intelligent enough to pretend I'm all knowing about a subject that cannot be proven or disproved.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> I don't believe there is a God, I don't see proof of it but there are some theories that would fall in line with a creator. This does not mean I take stock in them but they're not outside the realm of possibility within a hypothetical situation.
> 
> That being said I find the arrogance in assumption of absolute certainty and then trying to preach to everyone on high like you're Moses with the ten commandments.
> 
> Nothing is ever certain. God is pretty damn improbable and probably doesn't exist but I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to realize that if anything Science has taught us is that anything is possible but not intelligent to pretend I'm all knowing about a subject that cannot be proven or disproved.



There are no real legit theories that fall in line with a creator, it's just god of the gaps arguments.


And that is why atheist say what would it get you to believe in god, and the answer always is evidence.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Miss Sally said:


> Agnostic is the way to go imo.
> 
> A fool believes in something that cannot be proven.
> 
> ...


I can't fully back up my daughters tooth fairy story, she swears she saw one but I just don't believe her. I don't see any arrogance. 

Tbh I don't think there is such a thing as a 100% atheist because its illogical to make the absolute assumption there is no god. However its not arrogance, its logic to say the likelihood that any of the current god theories are absolute bullshit.

Absolute agnosticism where you just sit on the fence is an intellectually lazy position to take.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I can't fully back up my daughters tooth fairy story, she swears she saw one but I just don't believe her. I don't see any arrogance.
> 
> Tbh I don't think there is such a thing as a 100% atheist because its illogical to make the absolute assumption there is no god. However its not arrogance, its logic to say the likelihood that any of the current god theories are absolute bullshit.
> 
> Absolute agnosticism where you just sit on the fence is an intellectually lazy position to take.


A person who says there is 100% no god is not an atheist they are anti-theist.


----------



## Sensei Utero (May 1, 2016)

No. As an agnostic atheist, I personally think all religion is pretty much a load of crap. Hell, Northern Ireland is basically controlled by Presbyterians, and is corrupt as hell due to that - and only being 'Christian' when it suits. However, I'm not going to downplay anyone for believing in the concept or ideology of religion. As long as religious beliefs aren't being forced onto me, and nothing is being shoved down my throat, then I'm okay.

I think there *could* be a higher power though, but that's just in my mind and wishful thinking. There'll never be much evidence to prove anything right in that sense in my opinion, or if 'God' actually does exist, etc.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> So it's arrogant to not believe in unicorns, fairies, trolls, Zeus, thor etc because we can't prove they don't exist?
> 
> You dont need to prove something does not exist to not believe in it when there is no evidence to prove said thing exists.
> 
> If someone claims there is an invisible magical troll living under their bed, you think its ignorant to tell the person I don't believe you if they can't prove to you its true?


I have an invisible magic troll living under my bed. I call him Bobowumblebum and he brings me milk and cookies at bedtime. 

I'm perfectly happy to admit I don't have the answers to any of the big questions, such as _Why does life exist?_ and_ Is there any reason or direction to what we call reality?_ I'm also rather sure those answers aren't written down in books, scientific or otherwise.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> There are no real legit theories that fall in line with a creator, it's just god of the gaps arguments.


You're not getting what Sally's saying. 

This is a god of the gaps argument, but the point is that the gap currently exists that does not explain the clockwork nature of the universe. Saying that that is absolutely not the result of a creator simply because other "gaps" have been filled by science doesn't mean that this one that is still a gap can be dismissed at the moment. 

This does not prove any of the current gods organized religions believe in, but it does not disprove that a deity exists (a diety that created the laws of the universe and then nothing). For that you need to go to the who created the creator argument, but that is largely an irrelevant thought exercise and there we start moving away from science into philosophy. 

Science does not disprove the clockmaker god. All we know about matter is that it exists. We know next to nothing about its creation. So it's not out of rationality to posit that it was created.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> You're not getting what Sally's saying.
> 
> This is a god of the gaps argument, but the point is that the gap currently exists that does not explain the clockwork nature of the universe. Saying that that is absolutely not the result of a creator simply because other "gaps" have been filled by science doesn't mean that this one that is still a gap can be dismissed at the moment.
> 
> ...


Just because we don't know does not mean god did it. 

No one is saying god is not 100% in those gaps, what they are saying is there is no conclusive evidence god is in those gaps. If someone wants to claim god is in the gaps they need to prove it.
You dont need to prove god is not in those gaps. You need to prove what is in those gaps and how its wrong to just say well since we dont know then lets put god in there because that has been done before and now we know what is in those other gaps and it was not god


So lets not fill the gaps with anything until we know with certainty what is in those gaps

Once again you don't need to disprove a deity exists, you need to prove one does exist.

And yes it is irrational to claim a clockmaker made the universe with no evidence one did.

That is like saying it's not out of rationality to say god moved your keys from your dresser to the kitchen table because you don't know who moved them.

And even IF and that is a huge IF god made the universe, is still does not mean it was the Christian god of the bible or that there is a heaven or hell etc etc etc.

those people would still need evidence for that as well.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

draykorinee said:


> I can't fully back up my daughters tooth fairy story, she swears she saw one but I just don't believe her. I don't see any arrogance.
> 
> Tbh I don't think there is such a thing as a 100% atheist because its illogical to make the absolute assumption there is no god. However its not arrogance, its logic to say the likelihood that any of the current god theories are absolute bullshit.
> 
> Absolute agnosticism where you just sit on the fence is an intellectually lazy position to take.


I believe you missed the point of what I mean by arrogance. I am talking about the zealot like Atheists that act like Southern Preachers for Atheism having all the answers, news flash they don't. They're like everyone else, trying to find an explanation for life just like the rest of the world. 

I don't see a fault with sitting on the fence here, it's lazy nor a bad position. We're not talking about Abortion or anything of actual substance. An "I don't know" is a practical stance to take in regard to this whole thing. I'll keep my open mind but I won't commit to anything because I really don't know, claiming I know one way or the other is dishonest.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Just because we don't know does not mean god did it.
> 
> No one is saying god is not 100% in those gaps, what they are saying is there is no conclusive evidence god is in those gaps. If someone wants to claim god is in the gaps they need to prove it.
> You dont need to prove god is not in those gaps. You need to prove what is in those gaps and how its wrong to just say well since we dont know then lets put god in there because that has been done before and now we know what is in those other gaps and it was not god
> ...


Read what I said again. I never claimed that this is evidence or proof. I said that it's a workable/*reasonable *hypothesis. Science hasn't proven anything about the creation of matter. God did it is in the face of a lack of scientific explanation a reasonable hypothesis. 

I think you need to figure out the difference between hypothesis and proof.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss Sally said:


> I believe you missed the point of what I mean by arrogance. I am talking about the zealot like Atheists that act like Southern Preachers for Atheism having all the answers, news flash they don't. They're like everyone else, trying to find an explanation for life just like the rest of the world.
> 
> I don't see a fault with sitting on the fence here, it's lazy nor a bad position. We're not talking about Abortion or anything of actual substance. An "I don't know" is a practical stance to take in regard to this whole thing. I'll keep my open mind but I won't commit to anything because I really don't know, claiming I know one way or the other is dishonest.


Sitting on the fence saying I don't know is a perfectly fine position to take, but agnosticism states that we can't possibly ever know if god exists. They think its unknowable.

That is different from just saying I don't know.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Sitting on the fence saying I don't know is a perfectly fine position to take, but agnosticism states that we can't possibly ever know if god exists. They think its unknowable.
> 
> That is different from just saying I don't know.


I'm 99.99% atheist. Doesn't mean that I can't hypothesis or entertain theories about existence of god within that .01 as I think that that would be a more scientific position to take


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Read what I said again. I never claimed that this is evidence or proof. I said that it's a workable/*reasonable *hypothesis. Science hasn't proven anything about the creation of matter. God did it is in the face of a lack of scientific explanation a reasonable hypothesis.
> 
> I think you need to figure out the difference between hypothesis and proof.


A hypothesis does not mean anything. You can easily say the flying spaghetti monster created matter as a hypothesis and that is just as "valid' as god did it


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> A hypothesis does not mean anything. You can easily say the flying spaghetti monster created matter as a hypothesis and that is just as "valid' as god did it


Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with it. If that's what you want to call the clockmaker god, then that's fine. 

The problem is in being 100% sure about the lack of existence of god and relying on existing science as a crutch to make that argument because it assumes that science has told us everything about how matter was created when it doesn't. In the realm of creation, science only explains what exists, it cannot explain how it came to be. It can tell us that what some religions say about it is wrong and thereby disproving those claims, but it cannot disprove the idea that something created the laws and set everything in motion.

I don't have to disprove or prove something in order to _entertain _its _possibility_. That's the part that you're missing.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with it. If that's what you want to call the clockmaker god, then that's fine.
> 
> The problem is in being 100% sure about the lack of existence of god and relying on existing science as a crutch to make that argument because it assumes that science has told us everything about how matter was created when it doesn't.


What are talking about? Who is saying there is 100% no god. There is just no evidence for a god.

Also science if always evolving and we know it has not told us everything.

You are not even making any sense

who ever said science told us how matter was created? 

Stop making strawman arguments



RipNTear said:


> I don't have to disprove or prove something in order to _entertain _its _possibility_. That's the part that you're missing.


How am I missing that? Again you are making a strawman argument.

I have said a number of times, if there was evidence of a god I would believe.

So how exactly am missing the possibility of a god?


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> What are talking about? Who is saying there is 100% no god. There is just no evidence for a god.
> 
> Also science if always evolving and we know it has not told us everything.
> 
> ...


fpalm Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> fpalm Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


You are just saying things that are not even true. You even quoted a meme which said what would get me to change my mind , evidence.

You just like to play little games and you are losing. quote me where I said there is not a possibility for god.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> You are just saying things that are not even true. You even quoted a meme which said what would get me to change my mind , evidence.
> 
> You just like to play little games and you are losing.


No BM. There is no winning or losing here. You're not understanding the fact that people can entertain the possibility of a clockmaker god because when you question "whodunit", a possible deity dun it is a reasonable response. Something does not have to be right or proven right to be entertained as a possibility amongst other explanations until a better explanation makes it obsolete. 

This argument is too complex for you I guess. We'll leave it at that.


----------



## Brollins (Aug 24, 2015)

I believe in Roman Reigns.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> No BM. There is no winning or losing here. You're not understanding the fact that people can entertain the possibility of a clockmaker god because when you question "whodunit", a possible deity dun it is a reasonable response. Something does not have to be right or proven right to be entertained as a possibility amongst other explanations until a better explanation makes it obsolete.
> 
> This argument is too complex for you I guess. We'll leave it at that.


Typical reaper bullshit lol. I said saying you are wrong when you make the claim I am not leaving the possibility of a god where I have stated over and over I would believe if there was evidence.

You keep lying about my stance but you do that all the time so I am not surprised

People can claim god created the universe all they want but they need to show evidence that is true to get me to believe.

And like I said you can make any claim for the origin of the universe be God, Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, a troll or fairy etc etc. Any of those things are so called possible. But you dont have to take them seriously if there is no evidence

Not sure why you can't get this simple concept. But once again you and your projection. If its too complex for anyone its you.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Typical reaper bullshit lol. I said saying you are wrong when you make the claim I am not leaving the possibility of a god where I have stated over and over I would believe if there was evidence.
> 
> You keep lying about my stance but you do that all the time so I am not surprised
> 
> ...


Go re-read all of my posts before this. You're literally now saying all of the things I've said. You created this as a disagreement/debate in your head.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Go re-read all of my posts before this. You're literally now saying all of the things I've said. You created this as a disagreement/debate in your head.


No that is what you are doing when you claim I said there is no possibility for god which I never said nor I never said people cant entertain, I just said if they claim it they need evidence to prove its true


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> No that is what you are doing when you claim I said there is no possibility for god which I never said


Where have I said that? Respond with a direct quote please instead of your misinterpretation of something you had a knee jerk reaction to.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Where have I said that? Respond with a direct quote please instead of your misinterpretation of something you had a knee jerk reaction to.





RipNTear said:


> Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with it. If that's what you want to call the clockmaker god, then that's fine.
> 
> *The problem is in being 100% sure about the lack of existence of god and relying on existing science as a crutch to make that argument because it assumes that science has told us everything about how matter was created when it doesn't. In the realm of creation, science only explains what exists,* it cannot explain how it came to be. It can tell us that what some religions say about it is wrong and thereby disproving those claims, but it cannot disprove the idea that something created the laws and set everything in motion.
> *
> I don't have to disprove or prove something in order to entertain its possibility. That's the part that you're missing*.


In this quote you are insinuating I am claiming there is 100% no possibility of god.

If that is not what you are claiming then there is no issue.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> In this quote you are insinuating I am claiming there is 100% no possibility of god.


Just as I thought. This wasn't a claim about what you believe or claimed. This was a general statement about people who do.

You're too emotional sometimes :lol


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

If I'm being honest, I find it difficult to _not_ mock people who believe in ancient myths. Someone telling me they believe in god(s) sounds about as silly to me as someone telling me they believe Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny are real entities.

If I'm giving the kind and considerate response... 

We already know for a fact that the creation stories are nonsense. We know for a fact that the Earth is billions, not thousands, of years old. We know for a fact that there was never a flood that covered the entire planet with water. We know for a fact, because of our understanding of genetics, that it would be impossible to have the gene pool that we have today if there was a massive flood and only a handful of people a few thousand years ago were tasked with repopulating the Earth. Every single holy book in existence has things in it that can be disproven by science.

Therefore, if even one single thing in the holy book can be disproven, that eliminates any possibility of the books being some kind of perfect scripture inspired by a deity. They were all written by man. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a god and that god did inspire the writing of the holy books. They were still written by man and there are provable flaws in them. If there is even one inaccuracy in them, then you can't really call them perfect scripture. Because of this, if there is a god, we have no accurate representation of what that god is. We have no idea what that god wants. It is pointless to worship something when you don't 100% know what it is you're worshiping. Anyone worshiping that god is basically just making it up as they go along because the holy books themselves are provably inaccurate.

Now, if someone wants to admit that the holy books got it wrong and still believe in a deity, I can understand that. If it gives them comfort to believe there is some all powerful being watching over their lives, that is their own prerogative. I can even respect it to an extent if they acknowledge provable scientific fact while claiming that the deity they worship designed the world that way. We can prove the age of the world and we can prove evolution but the existence of a supernatural being can't really be proven one way or the other. If, however, you're going to make provably false claims like the planet is 6000 years old and evolution is false, that's when I'm going to call you retarded.

At the end of the day, we all have the right to believe in or not believe in anything we choose. As long as you're not forcing those beliefs on anyone else, then there is no problem. Except, that's really the problem with religion. Far too many people can't seem to grasp the concept of keeping their religion to themselves. They get these crazy fucking ideas in their heads and then go out and harm society with them. Obviously, some are worse than others but no religion is entirely innocent in this regard. That's why we'd all be a lot better off if religion were to die off entirely. Seeing as how even if there is a god judging our lives, the holy books got it wrong, which makes religion pointless. Forget all the ancient myths and traditions. Just be a good person and live a good life. The rest will take care of itself.


----------



## The Bliss Blower (Aug 30, 2016)

No never have never will


----------



## Nightmare_SE (Aug 13, 2004)

Maybe its just me but I always get kind of annoyed at how Polytheism seems to be completely ignored when it comes to these sort of God/religion questions. 

I was born and raised a devout Catholic. When I was around 14-15 I studied Norse and Greek mythology and began to question my beliefs, after reading some of the Old Testament at face value, my belief in the Christian God, and in God in general was completely destroyed. 

Nowadays I honestly don't understand how anyone can believe _every_ story that's in that particular religion since some of the stories are just ridiculous.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

RipNTear said:


> Just as I thought. This wasn't a claim about what you believe or claimed. This was a general statement about people who do.
> 
> You're too emotional sometimes :lol


No you are just disengages when you debate, you quote something I said they make a claim, and claim well I did not mean that about you. If you did not then you would not quote me and make a claim like that.

lets not forget you also said this when he came to the possibility of god existing or not.



RipNTear said:


> No BM. There is no winning or losing here. *You're not understanding the fact that people can entertain the possibility of a clockmaker *god because when you question "whodunit", a possible deity dun it is a reasonable response. Something does not have to be right or proven right to be entertained as a possibility amongst other explanations until a better explanation makes it obsolete.
> 
> *This argument is too complex for you I guess.* We'll leave it at that.


how you not claiming I am not leaving open the possibly of god existing?


But getting back to your point, just because someone has a guess at something they cant explain, does not mean its reasonable if they don't have any evidence for that reason

If someone moves your keys, its not reasonable to claim fairies, god or a troll did it just because you can't explain who moved them.

How is saying god did something reasonable when there is zero proof god even exists?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Nightmare_SE said:


> Maybe its just me but I always get kind of annoyed at how Polytheism seems to be completely ignored when it comes to these sort of God/religion questions.
> 
> I was born and raised a devout Catholic. When I was around 14-15 I studied Norse and Greek mythology and began to question my beliefs, after reading some of the Old Testament at face value, my belief in the Christian God, and in God in general was completely destroyed.
> 
> Nowadays I honestly don't understand how anyone can believe _every_ story that's in that particular religion since some of the stories are just ridiculous.


That is the ironic thing about theist, they are atheist when it comes to every god except their god, but they never think they have to disprove every other god that was ever mentioned.

Like Hitchens said one time, atheist just do one better when it comes to not believing in gods.


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

Nightmare_SE said:


> Nowadays I honestly don't understand how anyone can believe _every_ story that's in that particular religion since some of the stories are just ridiculous.


Did you ever read any of 'Aesop's Fables'???

I never believed that a mouse really freed a lion from a snare trap, but I certainly learned a lesson about not judging things at face value.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> Did you ever read any of 'Aesop's Fables'???
> 
> I never believed that a mouse really freed a lion from a snare trap, but I certainly learned a lesson about not judging things at face value.


the bible was always meant to be taken literally. All of it. Even now some people still take it all as literal. The only reason some people now change and claim well the bible is not all literal are just changing because they know the stories are laughable.

The second you claim well some stories in the bible are not meant to be taken literally defeats their argument, because that means that god should not be taken literally either since if not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally then how can you tell what to take as literal and what not to?


The bible was always said to be the perfect word of god but we know it's not perfect since there are tons of inaccuracies and contradictions

the bible is just like the odysseus and the iliad. its a bunch of made up stories


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> the bible was always meant to be taken literally. All of it.


I would recommend finding the person who told you that and slapping them in the face.

That entire post was just dumb and completely unfounded.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> I would recommend finding the person who told you that and slapping them in the face.
> 
> That entire post was just dumb and completely unfounded.


People were saying that when the bible was first around. You really should get better educated on this. You keep proving you dont have a clue .

People just claim now the bible is not meant to be taken literally is because of how laughable most of it is.

In the future, Christians will be saying none of the bible was ever meant to be take literally when we know that is simply not true.

So tell me what is literal in the bible and what isn't it?

is the flood supposed to be taken literally? 
Is Noah's ark supposed to be taken literally? 
Is Adam and Eve supposed to be taken literally? 
Is the creation story supposed to be taken literally?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> is the flood supposed to be taken literally?
> Is Noah's ark supposed to be taken literally?
> Is Adam and Eve supposed to be taken literally?
> Is the creation story supposed to be taken literally?


Are you telling me the story about Lot and him being drugged and raped by his daughters after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt aren't meant to be taken literally?
Or the story of Elisha and the two bears that maul 42 kids to death aren't true?
Talking donkies aren't literally true either?

You can't honestly believe that people cherry pick the bits they like or don't like from the bible are you? That's madness.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Are you telling me the story about Lot and him being drugged and raped by his daughters after his wife was turned to a pillar of salt aren't meant to be taken literally?
> Or the story of Elisha and the two bears that maul 42 kids to death aren't true?
> Talking donkies aren't literally true either?
> 
> You can't honestly believe that people cherry pick the bits they like or don't like from the bible are you? That's madness.


God has magical powers and can do anything. Unless believers want to say god can't do those things

And why shouldn't they believe those things when they believe in a magical sky god

The whole Adam and eve story is about original sin and that has a talking snake. Are believers really going to claim that was not meant to be taken literally too? That is the whole crux of their religion, original sin.

Are they going to claim original sin isn't real either?

If original sin isn't real either then there is no need to Jesus to come to earth to 'save us" which would also throw out the resurrection.

So is the resurrection not literal either?


----------



## TheMenace (May 26, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> There are no historical facts to back up any of your claims.


Actually, you just made the best argument for atheism. There are no historical facts to back up the purported existence of "God".


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> The whole Adam and eve story is about original sin and that has a talking snake. Are believers really going to claim that was not meant to be taken literally too? That is the whole crux of their religion, original sin.


What church did this to you???

First Pre-Destination and now Original Sin are bedrocks of Christianity???

The Adam and Eve story is a great one if you read it better. The Tree is the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Adam is warned by God if he eats it he will die.

At this point Adam and Eve are Immortal beings living in child-like ignorance...spoiled by the riches of the Garden.

It is only when they eat of the tree that they become self-aware and moral creatures armed with a conscious for the first time in existence. They also discover purpose with the knowledge of their own mortality.

Its more about growing up from the ignorant bliss of childhood to the responsibilities of adulthood. Not being born a sinner.

But that's right...I need to take the story literally and remember that snakes are jerks and ruined everything for everyone.

(Or was that women???)


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

While I myself don't believe in God, I certainly respect others right to do so.


----------



## JokersLastLaugh (Jan 25, 2016)

I just want to say that @birthday_massacre is speaking exactly what I would say, so every post he makes in this thread count it as two.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> What church did this to you???
> 
> First Pre-Destination and now Original Sin are bedrocks of Christianity???
> 
> ...



How is Original Sin not a bedrock of Christianity?

You can't be serious wth this.


You did not answer the question, is Adam and Eve meant to be taking literally or not? Its a simple yes or not question.

The Adam and Eve story show everything that is wrong with Christianity and the whole nonsense of religion.

They so called sinned because they wanted knowledge.

How exactly is wanting knowledge a bad thing?

And no Adam and Eve is not about the ignorant bliss of childhood to the responsibilities of adulthood. Not being born a sinner, where did you get that BS?

The whole reason Jesus came to earth and was crucified was to die for our sins. If you dont believe that then you are not even a Christian.

Not to mention god lied to Adam and Eve they did not die after right eating the forbidden fruit like god claimed.

The hoops you have to jump through to explain the bible are laughable.


----------



## Mister Abigail (May 22, 2014)

Why did God put the big red 'FUCK HUMANS FOR ETERNITY' button there right on the tree, disguised as delicious, delicious food, then get all pissy when they ate it?


Bible God is a frigging douche bag.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Mister Abigail said:


> Why did God put the big red 'FUCK HUMANS FOR ETERNITY' button there right on the tree, disguised as delicious, delicious food, then get all pissy when they ate it?
> 
> 
> Bible God is a frigging douche bag.


here is the real fuckery of the god of the bible.

Since god is all knowing and has fore knowledge , he put the tree in the garden where he KNEW Adam and Eve would eat from the tree. So Adam and Eve had no real choice in the matter.

God wanted the fall of man and he caused it by putting the tree in the spot in the garden where he knew adam and eve would eat it. That is what a dick god of the bible is, not to mention how he killed off the whole planet with a flood just because he got pissed off.


----------



## Overcomer (Jan 15, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> here is the real fuckery of the god of the bible.
> 
> Since god is all knowing and has fore knowledge , he put the tree in the garden where he KNEW Adam and Eve would eat from the tree. So Adam and Eve had no real choice in the matter.
> 
> God wanted the fall of man and he caused it by putting the tree in the spot in the garden where he knew adam and eve would eat it. That is what a dick god of the bible is, not to mention how he killed off the whole planet with a flood just because he got pissed off.


Yes, the bible is all symbolism and allegory. Of course there was no such thing as a talking snake that tempted and tricked man, a woman who turned into a pillar of salt for looking back, a man who got swallowed by a whale and lived in its belly for three days. When the writers of the books of the bible (we don't know who they are) put down the words to the scrolls they intentionally wrote it the way they did to obscure the truth from the uninitiated - you can think of how in Ancient times there were mystery schools in Egypt and Greece for example: they took every precaution they could to hide their knowledge so it could not fall into the hands or be understood by those unworthy. The bible contains spiritual truths but any reference to persons, places or events likely they did not take place or are exaggerated.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

Miss June said:


> What church did this to you???
> 
> First Pre-Destination and now Original Sin are bedrocks of Christianity???
> 
> ...





Overcomer said:


> Yes, the bible is all symbolism and allegory. Of course there was no such thing as a talking snake that tempted and tricked man, a woman who turned into a pillar of salt for looking back, a man who got swallowed by a whale and lived in its belly for three days. When the writers of the books of the bible (we don't know who they are) put down the words to the scrolls they intentionally wrote it the way they did to obscure the truth from the uninitiated - you can think of how in Ancient times there were mystery schools in Egypt and Greece for example: they took every precaution they could to hide their knowledge so it could not fall into the hands or be understood by those unworthy. The bible contains spiritual truths but any reference to persons, places or events likely they did not take place or are exaggerated.


The eventual conversion from literal belief to metaphor is a result of fighting the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance and to return to a state of comfortable delusion.


----------



## Nightmare_SE (Aug 13, 2004)

Miss June said:


> Did you ever read any of 'Aesop's Fables'???
> 
> I never believed that a mouse really freed a lion from a snare trap, but I certainly learned a lesson about not judging things at face value.


I understand what you're saying but it creates a cherry picking issue, and we have no way of knowing whether it was originally intended to be written as metaphorically or literally, considering what people thought about reality at the time I would definitely lean towards the latter, and correct me if I'm wrong here but interpreting the Bible metaphorically is a more recent trend as a result of conflicts with reality like Tower of Babel, Noah's Flood, or the Earth being flat.

Also one of my issues that caused me to lose my faith also had to with the fact that I couldn't justify the God character's actions, I found them to be immoral to the point even if I believed he existed I could not worship such a creature even if my life was a result of his actions, no differently then say if my parents did something like murder my children I would not be able to forgive them.


----------



## Overcomer (Jan 15, 2015)

Nightmare_SE said:


> I understand what you're saying but it creates a cherry picking issue, and we have no way of knowing whether it was originally intended to be written as metaphorically or literally, considering what people thought about reality at the time I would definitely lean towards the latter, and correct me if I'm wrong here but interpreting the Bible metaphorically is a more recent trend as a result of conflicts with reality like Tower of Babel, Noah's Flood, or the Earth being flat.
> 
> Also one of my issues that caused me to lose my faith also had to with the fact that I couldn't justify the God character's actions, I found them to be immoral to the point even if I believed he existed I could not worship such a creature even if my life was a result of his actions, no differently then say if my parents did something like murder my children I would not be able to forgive them.


Ignoring the fact the scriptures have been re-written and manipulated countless of times - do you really believe the person(s) who wrote the book of Genesis firmly believed a talking Snake that is supposedly an "adversary" of God could thwart his plan (Remember we are told God is supposed to be all powerful, omniscient, created the heavens and the earth, kills and makes alive, can transcend time and knows what has happened, what is happening and will happen) and be the driving force behind the fall of humanity? You really believe that is not only what they personally believed but wanted to get across.....you mentioned given how they thought at the time that is probably the case suggesting that they must have been very ignorant or primitive people. Yet these people were responsible for the discoveries of many of the branches of Science and Mathematics, constructed marvels such as the Pyramids (which to this very day we can't replicate on the same scale and have no idea how they managed to do it). Intelligence is not something that is linear, as in the earliest people lacked intelligence and the capacity for it increased over time. The Ancient people were just as intelligent and well equipped as people of modern times - perhaps even more so since according to the experts they were able to accomplish the above with supposedly less


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Overcomer said:


> Yes, the bible is all symbolism and allegory. Of course there was no such thing as a talking snake that tempted and tricked man, a woman who turned into a pillar of salt for looking back, a man who got swallowed by a whale and lived in its belly for three days. When the writers of the books of the bible (we don't know who they are) put down the words to the scrolls they intentionally wrote it the way they did to obscure the truth from the uninitiated - you can think of how in Ancient times there were mystery schools in Egypt and Greece for example: they took every precaution they could to hide their knowledge so it could not fall into the hands or be understood by those unworthy. The bible contains spiritual truths but any reference to persons, places or events likely they did not take place or are exaggerated.


So you admit the bible is all bullshit made up stories, including god then

good


----------



## Nightmare_SE (Aug 13, 2004)

Overcomer said:


> Ignoring the fact the scriptures have been re-written and manipulated countless of times - do you really believe the person(s) who wrote the book of Genesis firmly believed a talking Snake that is supposedly an "adversary" of God could thwart his plan (Remember we are told God is supposed to be all powerful, omniscient, created the heavens and the earth, kills and makes alive, can transcend time and knows what has happened, what is happening and will happen) and be the driving force behind the fall of humanity? You really believe that is not only what they personally believed but wanted to get across.....you mentioned given how they thought at the time that is probably the case suggesting that they must have been very ignorant or primitive people. Yet these people were responsible for the discoveries of many of the branches of Science and Mathematics, constructed marvels such as the Pyramids (which to this very day we can't replicate on the same scale and have no idea how they managed to do it). Intelligence is not something that is linear, as in the earliest people lacked intelligence and the capacity for it increased over time. The Ancient people were just as intelligent and well equipped as people of modern times - perhaps even more so since according to the experts they were able to accomplish the above with supposedly less


There are millions of people to this day that believe in a literal talking snake and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that any of the numerous writers were vastly intelligent, not to say that they were ignorant savages, but that they simply got everything wrong when it came to the Earth, or science for that matter for instance what the Bible says about Bats being Birds, or its magical cure for leprosy.

There were many great minds in ancient times such as Plato, and while there are many morons today, because of advancements in human civilizations (well in some places anyway) we are more intelligent now as whole than in ancient times were the general consensus was that the Earth was flat, which by the way doesn't make them ignorant for thinking that, that was the common belief and while there were ways to disprove it, spreading and collecting information in those times was significantly more difficult than it is now.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Overcomer said:


> Ignoring the fact the scriptures have been re-written and manipulated countless of times - do you really believe the person(s) who wrote the book of Genesis firmly believed a talking Snake that is supposedly an "adversary" of God could thwart his plan (Remember we are told God is supposed to be all powerful, omniscient, created the heavens and the earth, kills and makes alive, can transcend time and knows what has happened, what is happening and will happen) and be the driving force behind the fall of humanity? You really believe that is not only what they personally believed but wanted to get across.....you mentioned given how they thought at the time that is probably the case suggesting that they must have been very ignorant or primitive people. Yet these people were responsible for the discoveries of many of the branches of Science and Mathematics, constructed marvels such as the Pyramids (which to this very day we can't replicate on the same scale and have no idea how they managed to do it). Intelligence is not something that is linear, as in the earliest people lacked intelligence and the capacity for it increased over time. The Ancient people were just as intelligent and well equipped as people of modern times - perhaps even more so since according to the experts they were able to accomplish the above with supposedly less


I mean, thats absurd, we have people alive today who believe in it literally, so this is thrown right back at you, intelligence is clearly not linear as you said, so therefore logic dictates from your assumption that there must have been people just as stupid as people today who believed in talking snakes and they could have written the bible. 

Your whole premise is so flawed and easily thrown right back at you. Either way your premise is the bible is bullshit, utterly made up or there were people who were as stupid as today who believe in talking snakes and parting of seas. (I would actually go with a combination of both :smile2


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

this thread is still going? :CENA

your god is a phony, convert asap.


----------



## Miss June (Feb 26, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit the bible is all bullshit made up stories, including god then
> 
> good


Why does it have to be so black and white?

I am sure there are far too many people that believe in the Bible being a word for word re-telling of actual events. There are a lot of stupid people in the world.

However, every Priest I delt with in my youth was never that fire and brimstone attitude. They always referred to the Gospels as "guidelines" and that was the duty of the priest to study the scriptures and make them relatable.

It was a priest that first likened the Adam and Eve story to adolescence​. It got me interested in the Bible in a whole new way.

You have to stop looking at Faith so logically. Faith comes from the heart...not the brain.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

I had a very engaging conversation with some friends last night around religion, politics, and pretty much everything else under the sun. We were quite the mix: an agnostic (myself), an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew. All sitting in an empty room on the floor; no TV, no phones. Just whiskey, cigarettes, and talking.

My best friend is Christian, Lutheran to be precise, and he's really into the Book of Revelation, so we were talking about that for a long time. At first it struck me as incredibly predictive; so much of it is relevant right now. But it dawned on me that some of that may well be self-fulfilling prophecy. Religious texts are woven into peoples' lives, and it shapes how they see the world. All the fears of one world government, one world currency, having chips implanted (the mark of the beast), Christians being killed, that's all Book of Revelation stuff. But is that predictive powers of the Bible, or is it filtering peoples' thoughts to see things that way? It relates to what I see as an irrational fear of Sharia Law being instituted, superseding US government, and it being legal to kill Christians. My friend isn't on that trip, but some of my Southern Baptist family members are, and it gave me some insight into why they think that way.

What I loved was that none of us were trying to convince the other that we were right, or shoot each other down. We brought our perspectives and listened to others, there was no competition or butthurt involved. Religion, theism, it's fascinating stuff to talk about. I'm going to start reading the Bible; if nothing else, it's an incredible piece of art, and it'd give me more insight into Christian beliefs and mindset.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

TheMenace said:


> Actually, you just made the best argument for atheism. There are no historical facts to back up the purported existence of "God".


There are also no facts or evidence that completely rule out the existence of a deity. We can disprove creationism and religion-specific things, but a greater power holding the universe together, there's no proof against that as far as I can tell.

"God" is a loaded term, because people take it to mean the Christian God, which has been portrayed as a person, since people were purportedly made in "His" image. But God can be purely conceptual, like The Force to make a silly but relatable comparison. It doesn't have to be "some dude" who created everything in 7 days.

Atheism often strikes me as a reactionary pushback against religion, because it's pushed on people and tells them how to think. But religion and the concept of deity don't have to be intrinsically intertwined.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Miss June said:


> Why does it have to be so black and white?
> 
> I am sure there are far too many people that believe in the Bible being a word for word re-telling of actual events. There are a lot of stupid people in the world.
> 
> ...


Because it is black and white. 

And again like I said, if you are going to claim the Adam and Eve story is not literal and it's just an allegory to adolescence into growing up, then Christianity falls apart.

Like I said without Adam and Eve being literal ther is no fall of man, and no Jesus going to earth to "save humanity" and thus no resurrection story.

Are you also going to admit the whole resurrection story is not true either?

I don't need to stop looking at faith logically, you need to stop believing in things that has no evidence of being true.





SureUmm said:


> There are also no facts or evidence that completely rule out the existence of a deity. We can disprove creationism and religion-specific things, but a greater power holding the universe together, there's no proof against that as far as I can tell.
> 
> 
> .


You don't need facts or evidence to rule out the existence of a deity, the person claiming a deity exists needs to prove it does.

There are also no facts or evidence that completely rules out the existence of *trolls, fairies, unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster* either. But we dont need evidnece they dont exist to not believe in them since there is no evidence they do exists.




SureUmm said:


> "God" is a loaded term, because people take it to mean the Christian God, which has been portrayed as a person, since people were purportedly made in "His" image. But God can be purely conceptual, like The Force to make a silly but relatable comparison. It doesn't have to be "some dude" who created everything in 7 days.


And that is why when debating about god its best to ask the person claiming god exists to define what god they are talking about. But most people when talking about god are talking about the christian god since they also bring in the bible and morality​ into as well.




SureUmm said:


> Atheism often strikes me as a reactionary pushback against religion, because it's pushed on people and tells them how to think. But religion and the concept of deity don't have to be intrinsically intertwined.


Atheism is rejection to the claim a god exists. So in a way yes its the rejection of religions​ that have to do with a god claim.

As for religion and the concept of deity not having to be intrinsically intertwined, that is true but in most cases it is intertwined since the people defending god are using their holybooks to do it.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

*To believe in God is pointless because it does not exist. End of discussion.*


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> Because it is black and white.
> 
> And again like I said, if you are going to claim the Adam and Eve story is not literal and it's just an allegory to adolescence into growing up, then Christianity falls apart.
> 
> ...


I agree, for the most part. As far as evidence goes, some would say the order of the universe points to something more holding it together, rather than Big Bang and shit happens from there. Biology, physics, ecology, I mean this is some seriously majestic shit. It's just as hard for me to wrap my head around all of this being random than to think there's *something* guiding all of this. Ironically, I guess I see God through science, again using God as a non-religious specific deity.

There's also an assumption that a deity is unfailing and perfect, and it invites the argument "why would God let all this terrible shit happen?" Well, maybe he's kind of an asshole? Or maybe he's kind of sucks at this job? Remember that Futurama episode where Bender was trying to be God and kept fucking everything up, by helping too much or not helping enough? I'm kind of joking but there's just a lot of assumptions around theism I like to poke at.

This is something where I'm probably never going to have a belief system, and I don't think I need to.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> I agree, for the most part. As far as evidence goes, some would say the order of the universe points to something more holding it together, rather than Big Bang and shit happens from there. Biology, physics, ecology, I mean this is some seriously majestic shit. It's just as hard for me to wrap my head around all of this being random than to think there's *something* guiding all of this. Ironically, I guess I see God through science, again using God as a non-religious specific deity.
> 
> There's also an assumption that a deity is unfailing and perfect, and it invites the argument "why would God let all this terrible shit happen?" Well, maybe he's kind of an asshole? Or maybe he's kind of sucks at this job? Remember that Futurama episode where Bender was trying to be God and kept fucking everything up? I'm kind of joking but there's just a lot of assumptions around theism I like to poke at.
> 
> This is something where I'm probably never going to have a belief system, and I don't think I need to.


Just because we don't know does not mean god or some magically being. That is a god of the gaps fallacy.

Also how is it so hard to wrap your head around all of this being random? Earth is the only known planet with intelligent life in our universe. How would that not help you wrap your head around it being random? If it was not random life would be all over the universe.

Not to mention only 15% of the earth can support human life. Again that shows how it's just random.

When it comes to science since the dawn of man, every time something was not known it was attributed to god or gods doing it but as humans got smarter they figured out it was not god causing those but there were other explanations.

If you were around 2000 years ago you would be saying the same things about earthquakes, floods, thunder, volcanos etc etc But now you know those were not caused by god.

its not an assumption that a deity is unfailing and perfect, most religious gods claim that in their holy books. So how is it just an assumption?


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> Just because we don't know does not mean god or some magically being. That is a god of the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Also how is it so hard to wrap your head around all of this being random? Earth is the only known planet with intelligent life in our universe. How would that not help you wrap your head around it being random? If it was not random life would be all over the universe.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying God "causes" things. You're still looking at it like a puppetmaster pulling the strings, and that's not what I'm getting at.

The assumption comes from discussing deity only based on rebuking religion. I'm saying, throw all that stuff out of the window. That's where I was referring to atheism as reactionary, because it becomes another form of religious debate. I'm talking extremely esoteric spirituality beyond our comprehension, unrelated to organized religion. 

Maybe it's not even about theism, but that's my starting point. Theism, deity, God etc. are so tied into religion that's hard to get outside of that. I started thinking about this stuff more when I was in a 12-step recovery program and they say you have to believe in a higher power. And they lie and say "well, that higher power can be whatever you want. It can be a tree, it can be Neil Young, whatever, it's personal to you." But it's all obviously Christian-based, because it's like "give all your problems to God, He will guide you" type shit and we even said the Lord's Prayer at the end of meetings lol. I didn't last long.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> I'm not saying God "causes" things. You're still looking at it like a puppetmaster pulling the strings, and that's not what I'm getting at.
> 
> The assumption comes from discussing deity only based on rebuking religion. I'm saying, throw all that stuff out of the window. That's where I was referring to atheism as reactionary, because it becomes another form of religious debate. I'm talking extremely esoteric spirituality beyond our comprehension, unrelated to organized religion.
> 
> Maybe it's not even about theism, but that's my starting point. Theism, deity, God etc. are so tied into religion that's hard to get outside of that. I started thinking about this stuff more when I was in a 12-step recovery program and they say you have to believe in a higher power. And they lie and say "well, that higher power can be whatever you want. It can be a tree, it can be Neil Young, whatever, it's personal to you." But it's all obviously Christian-based, because it's like "give all your problems to God, He will guide you" type shit and we even said the Lord's Prayer at the end of meetings lol. I didn't last long.


You are still saying, you don't know therefore god.

that is a fallacy.

what is your definition of god.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> You are still saying, you don't know therefore god.
> 
> that is a fallacy.
> 
> what is your definition of god.


Dude, I'm not gonna do this with ya, sorry. You're too concerned with winning an argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> Dude, I'm not gonna do this with ya, sorry. You're too concerned with winning an argument.


So why are you debating in this thread if you dont want to back up your claims?

if you cant even define your own god then why do you even believe in said god?


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> So why are you debating in this thread if you dont want to back up your claims?


I'm not debating, I'm discussing. Very different things. One has an intent to win, the other is to explore possibilities and learn from one another. I'm not interested in debating you, because I don't care if you think I'm right or not, and the way I'm looking at this isn't even about being right or wrong. And you continually show a lack of ability to have an actual discussion without going "this, so therefore that. you are wrong, I am right."


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> I'm not debating, I'm discussing. Very different things. One has an intent to win, the other is to explore possibilities and learn from one another. I'm not interested in debating you, because I don't care if you think I'm right or not, and the way I'm looking at this isn't even about being right or wrong. And you continually show a lack of ability to have an actual discussion without going "this, so therefore that. you are wrong, I am right."


This is about being right or wrong. How is it not? You are making a claim god exists, you need to show evidence a god exists or there is no reason to believe its true.

It would just be like someone claiming invisible magical fairies exist. 


As for continually showing a lack of ability to have an actual discussion without going "this, so therefore that, that is the whole point in a discussion if you can't give real evidence a god exists, then you are not right that one exists.

There is nothing wrong with pointing that out and there is nothing wrong with showing the flaws in your logic or pointing out the fallacies people make when claiming there is a god.

Just because you can't make a valid case for god don't get mad at me

This is what theist tend to do when they can't prove their god claim. 

Just because I can tear apart your so called logic does not mean I lack the ability to have a conversation about it. It just means I am better discussing the topic than you.

if some one can give me real evidence that god exists, I would be more than willing to change my view. I just want real evidence and not, well we don't know how we got here so god must have done it.

that is not good enough.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> This is about being right or wrong. How is it not? You are making a claim god exists, you need to show evidence a god exists or there is no reason to believe its true.
> 
> It would just be like someone claiming invisible magical fairies exist.
> 
> ...


My God, you're such a caricature.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> My God, you're such a caricature.


yeah because I deal in facts and evidence to believe in things, unlike you who just thinks well god did it even though I have no proof gods even exists

You dont still believe in the tooth fairy, santa and the easter bunny do you?


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah because I deal in facts and evidence to believe in things, unlike you who just thinks well god did it even though I have no proof gods even exists
> 
> You dont still believe in the tooth fairy, santa and the easter bunny do you?


I don't understand why you're talking to me like I'm a devout Christian who takes the bible literally, calling on me to "defend my God" and "my beliefs", when I said I'm agnostic and going into possibilities.

Oh wait, it's because you're creating a strawman, and then saying FACTS! EVIDENCE! LOGIC! and declaring yourself the victor. Because that's what you do.

I'm way outside of what you're fighting against, but all you wanna do is fight against anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe. Do you have conversations in real life?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> I don't understand why you're talking to me like I'm a devout Christian who takes the bible literally, calling on me to "defend my God" and "my beliefs", when I said I'm agnostic and going into possibilities.
> 
> Oh wait, it's because you're creating a strawman, and then saying FACTS! EVIDENCE! LOGIC! and declaring yourself the victor. Because that's what you do.
> 
> I'm way outside of what you're fighting against, but all you wanna do is fight against anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe. Do you have conversations in real life?




You are talking out both sides of your mouth. You can claim you are agnostic all you want but you are trying to make the case for a god existing, that is why you need evidence and why I am asking for you to define what kind of god you are claiming.

If you are going to make a claim about god you need to defend it. You are not speaking like an agnostic , I am replying to what you are claiming not what you call yourself.

And its not a strawman to say if you don't have evidence for a god then you didn't win the debate/discussion.

You are not way outside what I am fighting, you keep saying you don't know what caused the universe then you say well it could be a deity

Atheism is against all gods and deities

You are just all pissy because you can't back up your definition of a god which you clearly claimed a deity is what must have created everything.

This is you making a god claim



SureUmm said:


> I agree, for the most part. As far as evidence goes, some would say the order of the universe points to something more holding it together, rather than Big Bang and shit happens from there. Biology, physics, ecology, *I mean this is some seriously majestic shit*. * It's just as hard for me to wrap my head around all of this being random than to think there's *something* guiding all of this*. *Ironically, I guess I see God through science, again using God as a non-religious specific deity.*
> 
> There's also an assumption that a deity is unfailing and perfect, and it invites the argument "why would God let all this terrible shit happen?" Well, maybe he's kind of an asshole? Or maybe he's kind of sucks at this job? Remember that Futurama episode where Bender was trying to be God and kept fucking everything up, by helping too much or not helping enough? I'm kind of joking but there's just a lot of assumptions around theism I like to poke at.
> 
> This is something where I'm probably never going to have a belief system, and I don't think I need to.


So if you want to claim that then you need to back it up. You are just pissy because I am holding you to backing up that claim and you know you can't. you won't even define what you mean when you say god.

If you want to claim something or believe something you need to be able to defend it, which you are failing at miserably.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> You are talking out both sides of your mouth. You can claim you are agnostic all you want but you are trying to make the case for a god existing, that is why you need evidence and why I am asking for you to define what kind of god you are claiming.
> 
> If you are going to make a claim about god you need to defend it. You are not speaking like an agnostic , I am replying to what you are claiming not what you call yourself.
> 
> ...


Well, I'll amend that with "the possibility" of God, and go on my merry way.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> Well, I'll amend that with "the possibility" of God, and go on my merry way.


You still need to defend how it's possible a god exists. But you don't have evidence for a god. So how can you even claim its possible.

That is like saying well its possible the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. Its just as valid as claiming god did it.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> You still need to defend how it's possible a god exists. But you don't have evidence for a god. So how can you even claim its possible.
> 
> That is like saying well its possible the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. Its just as valid as claiming god did it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

SureUmm said:


>


yes you do LOL but what ever dude.


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

JokersLastLaugh said:


> I just want to say that @birthday_massacre is speaking exactly what I would say


That's not the sort of thing you want to make public.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

_"I'm what you would call a teleological, existential atheist. I believe that there's an intelligence to the universe, with the exception of certain parts of New Jersey."_

@SureUmmm, wise thoughts concerning the possible parallels to the parables and stories of the Bible to our time, including numerous pieces from the Book of Revelation. Many of the trends of the world have in the past decade or two made me ponder some of the deeper meanings to passages in the Book of Genesis as well. Your decision to read the Bible is a most intelligent one with myriad rewards to the exercise. Having read the Bible from cover-to-cover twice, one need not be a believer at all to acknowledge that it is genuinely mind-expanding.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

DesolationRow said:


> _"I'm what you would call a teleological, existential atheist. I believe that there's an intelligence to the universe, with the exception of certain parts of New Jersey."_
> 
> 
> @SureUmmm, wise thoughts concerning the possible parallels to the parables and stories of the Bible to our time, including numerous pieces from the Book of Revelation. Many of the trends of the world have in the past decade or two made me ponder some of the deeper meanings to passages in the Book of Genesis as well. Your decision to read the Bible is a most intelligent one with myriad rewards to the exercise. Having read the Bible from cover-to-cover twice, one need not be a believer at all to acknowledge that it is genuinely mind-expanding.


No its not LOL Its just a bunch of BS stories written by goat herders. The bible gets so much wrong yet people try to explain those things away with current knowledge. its like how people try to make up excuses for Mass Effects 3 crappy ending and try claim it was all deep when they make up their own stories to try to explain it.

There is nothing deep about the bible. Its just a scam to get the rich to control the poor. They promise them, well your current life may suck but if you do what we saw and follow our rules you will have a good afterlife.

The bible is for weak minded people who want to ignore logic and reason and get them to believe anything without evidence and of course to take your money.

There is nothing deep about it, its just people trying to explain away the silliness of the bible.


----------



## BASEDBAYLEY (Jan 30, 2016)

im 18, i don't care enough to follow any sort of religion at this early in my life


----------



## TheMenace (May 26, 2013)

SureUmm said:


> I'm not debating, I'm discussing. Very different things. One has an intent to win, the other is to explore possibilities and learn from one another. I'm not interested in debating you, because I don't care if you think I'm right or not, and the way I'm looking at this isn't even about being right or wrong. And you continually show a lack of ability to have an actual discussion without going "this, so therefore that. you are wrong, I am right."


I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

I'm not here to debate, I'm just here to discuss my idea with you. :grin2:



SureUmm said:


>


----------



## Skermac (Apr 6, 2012)

ys, I believe in God and Jesus as our savior


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Here's an interesting logic test that I have fun posing to Christians. They say that the only way to get into Heaven is to accept Jesus into your life as your savior. So I ask them, what about the people who never hear the word of Jesus? And I'm not talking about people in mainstream society. I'm specifically talking about jungle tribes who have never experienced contact with the outside world. There are human beings who live and die in far flung places of the world without ever hearing about the bible and Jesus.

So, what about them? Are they destined for hell from the moment they are born simply because they never hear about Jesus?

I find that I usually get one of two answers. They either say A: Jesus is the only way to get into heaven or B: those who never hear of Jesus get judged at the gates of heaven.

So, if it's A, then that's a pretty fucked up god. He has created people with zero chance of getting into heaven and has predetermined that their souls are going to be tortured for eternity.

And if it's B, then we should just get rid of all the scriptures and never tell anyone about Jesus. That way, the people who live good lives get in and the people who live bad lives don't. Under Christian rules, someone could live their entire lives doing good things but be sent to hell to be tortured for eternity because they didn't have the correct beliefs, while the psycho mass murderer could have a change of heart on his death bed and get into heaven. 

Think about it. Someone could rape and murder a Christian but then ask forgiveness and praise Jesus before they die. Now your rapist and murderer is chilling in heaven with you. The fuck? Them's some fucked up rules if you ask me.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Cockroach god is coming - you'll see.

Nothing will ever stop those little fuckers. They make human's existence timeline look like a tiny spec compared to them.

Please god destroy them.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

I need to copy and paste some posts from this guy on my facebook.

Him and his little friend are the exact types of people who make people hate religion.

These two are basically all about 'if you don't believe in god, we will teach you the error of your ways, and point you in the right direction'.

They do not accept that people have different beliefs.

They are Christians, just to clarify.

They think Catholics follow a religion of lies (LOL).

Oh, the posts I could paste here. Would not post the names, just the text. These two are absolutely delusional. The dumb bitch only accepts people who believe the same as her on her friend list, not that the cunt has any good enough qualities for a request, anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Catalanotto said:


> I need to copy and paste some posts from this guy on my facebook.
> 
> Him and his little friend are the exact types of people who make people hate religion.
> 
> ...


The best way to shut up people like that is go well i hope you dont like shell fish or wear fix fabrics since those are slights against god according to the bible.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

birthday_massacre said:


> The best way to shut up people like that is go well i hope you dont like shell fish or wear fix fabrics since those are slights against god according to the bible.



Here are some of his comments:

The first one, speaking to the female idiot friend of his, talking about people who don't believe in god:

*Lol I totally get it. I've got some friends on my page that don't look at things the way we do, obviously, but I try to talk sense into them as best as I can.*


He made a post complaining about the Google image (where they use the google logo to celebrate different things, the latest one was about learning to co-exist with everyone):

*"Coexist", the left's way of trying to shove their system down our necks. The rainbow, a symbol of God's promise, now used as a gay pride symbol. Transgender kid in the middle, like that's normal....e for "equality", symbol of homosexual lifestyle. A Muslim, that we're supposed to accept into our culture after everything they've done to the world. The Jewish kid, I have no issue. I was surprised they included a Christian girl...BUT notice half the cross is faded, like it's not as important as the other symbols. Lastly, and most disturbing....notice in the background we see 4 depictions of the " horned hand," a symbol of Satan.
*


This is the response of a level headed friend of his about the logo:

*Ok.. two things.. this was part of a project where they asked children and teens to come up with a Google Logo.. and this was one of the winners. (Pretty talented for a kid) and second.. it spells out "Google".*


....and his response to that:

*And kids these days are being trained by the media to accept sinful behavior and even coddle it...JS.*


This is just barely even the tip of the iceberg with this guy. He has daily posts like these.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

Catalanotto said:


> Here are some of his comments:
> 
> The first one, speaking to the female idiot friend of his, talking about people who don't believe in god:
> 
> ...


Mighty Christian of this person to be so accepting and forgiving of others!


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Catalanotto said:


> Here are some of his comments:
> 
> The first one, speaking to the female idiot friend of his, talking about people who don't believe in god:
> 
> ...


They are living proof how dangerous indoctrination is.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

I had a hilarious moment today with a Christian. There were three Asian women outside putting little cards on the doors advertising their church right as I was leaving to go out for a bit. One of them was literally right outside my door when I opened it and tried to hand one of the cards to me. Just so happened, I was wearing my favorite shirt today...










_Science doesn't give a shit what you believe._

And I'm like, read my shirt. What made it even more hilarious, my blue tooth speaker in my backpack was currently blasting out fucking Dethklok.






I swear, that girl looked at me like I was fucking Lucifer himself. 

:ha


----------



## MOXL3Y (Mar 19, 2017)

Just came to find out if there is a "Do you believe in Santa Claus" thread as well?


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

No. Religion is a tool, it is a man made creation to explain the world around us when we didn't know anything. The world was a big, scary place to early man, gods explained how everything worked and how it all came to be.

I think its absurd that religion is still so popular in 2017, we know so much more now, we dont need the fairy tales. But that said if religion helps someone lead a better life and it gives them purpose then thats understandable and fair enough. But that it religions only real purpose thesedays.

And something thats always stuxk out to me is what makes people so arrogant to think that their god is the true god? Even today we as a race cant agree on just one god, we have multiple religions, even Christianity cant settle on just one way to worship god. But throughout history we as a race have had thousands of different gods. Every single culture had their own gods, so what makes people arrogant enough to say "they were all wrong, I'm right?


----------



## IDidPaige (Mar 18, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> You still need to defend how it's possible a god exists. But you don't have evidence for a god. So how can you even claim its possible.
> 
> That is like saying well its possible the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. Its just as valid as claiming god did it.


_"I'll take, 'birthday_massacre once again showing his ignorance' for $800, Alex."_

Repeat after me: Specific effects are proof of specific causes, even without direct observation of said specific cause.

Since it's been proven that birthday_massacre is dishonest and ignores evidence which contradicts his dangerous and illogical blind faith, I won't bother explaining this to him. Instead, I'll explain it to interested lurkers by giving an example:


We land on a distant planet.
On that planet, we discover what _overwhelmingly_ appears to be an abandoned civilization; buildings, streets, signs, etc., all written in an unknown language, but all clearly recognized for what they are.
There are no observable intelligent beings, dead or alive.
According to the scrambled-brains "logic" of imbeciles, since we can't observe the beings capable of creating the abandoned alien civilization, we must reject the theory.

This is, of course, nonsense of the highest order.

In reality, the obvious civilization, itself, would be proof of intelligent beings, even without any direct observation or knowledge of said intelligent beings.

The specific effect (the civilization) proves the specific cause (the civilization-building intelligent beings).

birthday_massacre, Tater, Richard Dawkins, etc., don't understand this because none of them understand science (Dawkins is a professional atheist posing as a scientist). Those of us who do understand science call what I've just described an "indirect observation."

"What does this have to do with God," you ask?

It's simple: The universe shows far more signs of being designed than the civilization described above, thus, it's entirely reasonable to plead to an intelligent being (God), even in the absence of direct observation.

This is even more true given that the opposition to God is so intellectually-bankrupt they can't even begin to formulate a competing hypothesis, instead choosing to duck the question altogether.

The God Position is rooted in evidence & argumentation, whereas, the atheist position is nothing more than the denial of the God Position's evidence & argumentation.

*Theist*: "There's plenty of evidence and arguments for the existence of God, and here they are (insert dozens of logically-sound, evidence-backed arguments here)."

*Atheist*: _"There is no evidence for the existence of God! Everything you just said doesn't count because . . . umm . . . BECAUSE!"_

Atheists are deniers, nothing more. They should not be respected. They should be mocked and shamed at every opportunity.


----------



## ElDiablo (Apr 8, 2017)

I am God.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

IDidPaige said:


> _"I'll take, 'birthday_massacre once again showing his ignorance' for $800, Alex."_
> 
> Repeat after me: Specific effects are proof of specific causes, even without direct observation of said specific cause.
> 
> ...



Nothing you said proves god or a god created the universe.

The universe does not show signs it was designed. That is why there is evolution. 

What is the plenty of evidence of this god? You have never shown it nor has any theist.

Everything that has ever been claimed oh god did that or god caused that like floods, earthquakes , plagues, thunder, lighting, etc etc have all been explained. Now all that is left is what caused the big bang and once again people like you use the god fo the gaps argument because you dont know, just like people did thousands of years ago in those other examples

If the univese was created buy some god why is earth the only planet in our know universe that has intellent or even any kind of life?

You would think if the universe was created it would be full of life but its not. 99.9% of the universe cant even support life. What kind of design is that and 85% earth cant even support human life.


----------

