jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (159 posts)

Why you think "Prove God doesn't exist" is a logical argument.

  1. IAmAnAtheist profile image60
    IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago

    I have seen this in too many places. That is why I ask, I am seriously intrigued on this.

    1. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's an Attempt to make the term "prove God exists", sound disingenuous. As it would seem anyway.

    2. 59
      jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ......it just an argument Believers use to heap more Judgement charges on the non-believers. They think it scores them more points in the Book of Life.

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's a valid argument as a retort.  No one should be forced to prove that there beliefs are valid just for the gratification of another person.  So if the Atheist is the one demanding proof then the request that he prove his belief first is completely valid. As that belief is basically " I don't believe God exists" then some proof is required in the spirit of fairness of debate.

      However if you are a believer attempting to convert someone then "prove God doesn't exist" is a pretty damn weak argument to try to convince someone to switch teams.

      1. 61
        nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My point exactly.

      2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know if I completely agree with this...

        The reason many don't believe in a god of any sort is because they don't have supporting proof. I don't know i would say those who don't believe are non-believers because they have proof of non-existance, but rather a lack of proof of existance and until sufficient proof can be found, they will continue to be non-believers.

        At least this is my take on the majority of non-believers.

        1. 61
          nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

          1. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +2

        2. Billy Hicks profile image88
          Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The argument is invalid. Once you provide proof, its no longer belief, its knowledge. You can always use the old "Rocking Chair" analogy:

          I look at a rocking chair.
          I believe it will support my weight.
          I sit down, and it holds me up.
          I no longer believe the chair will support me, I now know it will.

          Believers will never "need" proof, that's why they are "believers".

          Non-belief comes from either one of two things: a lack of understanding of the general concept, or a stronger belief in something else. The vast majority of Atheists I have met fall into the second category. It has very little to do with the "lack of proof" that there is a God, and more to do with their belief that God doesn't exist.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this



            And the reason they hold a belief that God doesn't exist??? Lack of evidence or proof...

            Even with your rocking chair...sure it held you the first time, will it hold you the second time... prior experience says yes it will because you believe you know from prior evidence or proof (sitting in it) that it does... but has anything change since you sat in it last? maybe it won't hold you this time...You are following a believe that it will hold based on previous experiences until you actually sit and prove that it holds and then you have knowledge until you stand back up...Same with belief in God...Evidence or proof might change your belief of if God exists or not...But until you die or actually see/meet God face to face one cannot have true knowledge...only a belief based on the proof or evidence...


            Knowledge can only be based on something that never changes...

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And there is nothing that I can think of that never changes.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile

                Our "knowledge" is only as good as the current situation. And with each new day something changes...Like it or not, our knowledge is nothing more than a firm "belief" in the current evidence as we know it...And last I checked we don't have all the answers and until such time and changes no longer occur...well...

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You know D.S. one day we will need to grab a six-pack and a couch and have a long conversation smile

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think I would agree with that.. smile

                2. swordsbane profile image61
                  swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Our knowledge is much more than a "belief"  Scientific discoveries are made by people who are grindingly meticulous.  They spend years, sometimes their entire lives pursuing a single goal, and even after they find what they are looking for, even after they make their discovery every other scientist in the field tries to prove them wrong.  Science lives under that kind of scrutiny and survives because what is is testable.

                  God exists everywhere else.  If science doesn't know something, people say God is responsible, and if science says something that flies in the face of something people think God said, then those believers cry "How do you know?  That's just a theory."

                  Yeah.. "theories" that has withstood the best minds in the world trying to disprove them, sometimes for decades.

                  I'll go with those theories, thank you.  It's God that has to prove himself, not we that have to disprove him.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Who said anything about God...??

                    Believing in God is choice...usually made by one, based on the evidence they hold...

                    And as I said before, we base our "knowledge" on what we currently have strong supporting evidence for...If/when something changes, then our knowledge is no longer accurate and must change with the new evidence. So until such time as we know everything or nothing changes our knowledge is nothing more than a strong belief in the evidence we currently hold as factual.

    4. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The question should be, "Prove that it is impossible that God cannot exist".

      1. 61
        nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Now common. That doesn't leave room for argument or debate at all.

        Be fair now.

        1. Claire Evans profile image89
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What is the definition of God? God means different things to different people.  God could be just some energy or something. 

          Is it impossible that the world was intelligently designed by a higher power? In fact, knowing DNA, it seems impossible that it wasn't. 

          So the question could be posed to you is how DNA came to be without a higher power?

          1. 61
            nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Like substances, tend to attract.

            1. Claire Evans profile image89
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So DNA just assembled itself? You need to prove that.

              1. 61
                nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If I put the chemicals needed to create life; Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and some others into a beaker (an experiment that was already done), said chemicals will arrange in certain patterns. Their called Amino acids "the building blocks of life".

                1. Claire Evans profile image89
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But how does it arrange itself in a certain pattern so that each individual has completely unique DNA?

                  Take for example a computer program.  It is obvious that codes had to be programmed in order for a program to work.

                  Quotes from website:

                  http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 … esign.aspx

                  n 1953, when Watson and Crick, founder of the helix of DNA, elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery.  The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code.  Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

                  Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis,” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code.  Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins.  The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole.  Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like."  As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.”

                  After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system—an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.

                  Where did the digital information in the cell come from?  And how did the cell’s complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed.  And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell.  Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone.  And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry.  Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly, “something else” is at work.

                  As for scientists making DNA, it just proves that an intelligent being, like humans, guided that process.  I don't think they put amino acids, etc, and watched it form into DNA.

                  And there is another question: How did consciousness come to being?

                  1. 61
                    nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You got me.

                    Chemical responses, which attest to most of our experiences. For every experience (and this has been proven) there's a genetic alteration of sorts.
                    I can't explain why because I'm not a biologist or a professor of natural science and physics.

                    So what can I say?

                  2. swordsbane profile image61
                    swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Claire Evans: You're using a classic argument, which basically goes like this: "You don't know, so it MUST be God doing it."

                    Science has a very good track record for uncovering how the universe works.  Religion doesn't.  It really is that simple.  Science makes a discovery, religion refuses to believe it, science proves it, and then religion eventually comes around and decides that science was right in the first place.  Religion never makes a previously unknown discovery because everything is already considered "discovered"  All they do is fight to hold on to their "discoveries" when science comes by and shows them to be wrong.

                    So it's not a "faith" per se that I have in science.  It is a well-founded trust that they will eventually discover the answers to any questions you can pose about the nature of the universe.  Religion is not a search for truth.  It is a destination that they expect science to arrive at eventually.  I do not believe that will happen however, because as the scientific discoveries pile up, we get further and further away from God.

          2. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Depends on whether or not this higher power if you will is the substance within all things both seen and unseen. If that's what you are pointing to then I agree.

            1. Claire Evans profile image89
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's New Age thinking.  It's quite startling how prevalent this sort of thinking is.  Not saying you are can't have this opinion but I couldn't help but notice.

              God as I know Him is a separate entity from us for if a higher power was in all of us, we'd be on par with Jesus.   

              If we had this higher power in us it doesn't say much for this higher power considering just how evil humanity is.  God and Satan as higher powers influence us but are not part of us.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It seems you have missed the whole point of Ephesians when it said God is above all, through all, and in you all.

                If you do not know the God within then what God do you know?

                Jesus spent a lot of time in the desert fighting the internal battle that most of us do. He wasn't born perfect although some like to believe that.

                1. Claire Evans profile image89
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Can you give me that Ephesians verse?

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Had to go look for it..Ephesians 4:6

                    There are many more passages throughout the bible that point to the God within.

                    4:10 points to all things.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I love this comment. I've been thinking about part of that, off and on, as I read the comments here. I know Jesus said the kingdom of God is within. It seems to me that many of the combative religious posts would point to the fact that they are fighting against a part of the kingdom they claim to be a part of by not loving others as much as they believe they love their god.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not sure why so many people miss that? Perhaps it's too simple? A complex world might need complex answers some might think? Yet Jesus did say, the simple will confound the wise. It's kinda looking that way.

                    If we find even a fraction of this kingdom within loving others no matter what they do would be less of a problem.

    5. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is logical, because it clearly shows the limitations of any attempt to put the question of God to rest. And, it helps bring to the forefront the reasons both parties are embroiled in the debate in the first place.

      Just because both questions have been debated on the internet (ad nauseam) doesn't mean they are illogical. It means both far ends have a burning need to not only be right, but to consistently have their opinions validated.  To show their super knowledge.I find those needs more intriguing than the question itself.

    6. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Simply stated, both sides of the argument "prove G/god exists", lacks epistemological {even empirical and esoteric} evidence, beyond the dis/beliefs themselves. So, beliefs are argued, in most cases. From a logical perspective, the argument makes sense/is justified by disambiguating, fiber by fiber, the pro/con belief, in the hope of clarity and some common ground/resolution. The only "thing" that can dis/prove G/god exists/does not exist would be Him/It in some form or fashion, that both sides can view in practical resonance.

      James

  2. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    If someone claims they Know Something As Fact-Then They Should Be Able To Prove That Fact-Should They Not?

    Now sure one can say I can't prove God as fact and the difference is I'm not trying to proof God I'm simply asking if you can accept this on faith.

    1. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good comment

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well thank you-what a surprise.

        1. 61
          nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why is it suprizing that I compliment a rational, logical stance?

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Usually one's own point of view is what's recognized.

            1. 61
              nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't care about that. I like you as a person, for now. Your belief should'nt affect how I feel about you personally.

  3. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago

    Or for pity's sake.  Is it now against HP TOS to blaspheme?  Christians, if you engage in debate about God with Atheists, they are going to disagree with you!  Have you not yet figured this out?  They will say things that to you are blasphemous, but to them are simply realistic. 

    Please do understand that God doesn't give you brownie points or greater power to save souls because you report blasphemers to HP moderator.

    And, I'm fairly certain that if Mark got banned, it was not for blasphemy.

    1. swordsbane profile image61
      swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have heard quite a few Christians who are more than happy to try to censure people speaking their minds under the argument that Atheists speaking their mind is some kind of threat.  To them, it is perfectly right to ban someone for blasphemy.

      That is the core of persecution; being told that you can't speak your mind because people don't like it.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok just my two cents... 

        The "persecution" thing is getting just a bit old.  Hyperbole is a useful tool I guess but lets be realistic.

        Being reported on a forum is NOT persecution.  It is this...


        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6824342_f248.jpg



        THIS is persecution.


        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6824339_f248.jpg


        Please lets keep things in perspective.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol lollol

        2. swordsbane profile image61
          swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Persecution is persecution.  Being unfairly punished or censured or imprisoned.  Being reported on a forum for saying something unpopular is persecution.  Putting Jews in concentration camps is persecution.  The only difference is severity.  Anyone jumping to the unfounded conclusion that I was comparing the two is not my responsibility.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Just so you realize that being told essentially to shut up on a message board ran by a private organization with no responsibility to grant free-speech is not really the same thing as being gassed in a concentration camp. Use of the word persecution to describe the former kinda takes away from the significance of the latter. Just saying.

            1. swordsbane profile image61
              swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              MelissaBarrett: No.  It doesn't.  Look up the word. "Persecute: To oppress or harass with ill-treatment"

              And for the record, a PUBLIC forum is assumed to consider free speech as sacred unless they say otherwise.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No... it's not.  Only the government is required to allow free speech.  There is no other entity that is required to do such.  No one except the government is required to let you express your opinion. Period.

                Telling someone to shut up is not oppressing them... curiously it is actually an exercise in free speech as it is just as much their right to tell you to shut up as it is for you to speak.  America is great like that.

                Additionally it is also no harassment as harassment implies that it is one sided.  If you are speaking to someone and they tell you to shut up then you are participating in the conversation by free choice and therefore harassment doesn't apply.

                So no you aren't being persecuted... by definition or law.  You can continue to compare yourself to those who are/have been persecuted but it's kinda an insult to them.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  True!  Neither free speech nor equal treatment is guaranteed here.  It is a business, not a democratic organization.  sad

                                                        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *Huggles* Sucks right?

                2. swordsbane profile image61
                  swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Did I say "required"?  And there is no mention of government in the definition of "persecute"

                  It's perfectly okay to say "shut up"  but it shows bad taste to report someone for speaking their mind, and it is persecution when HubPages honors such reports and bans them, and you are culpable if you are the one that reported them.  You don't have to be a government to persecute someone.  You simply have to have the power to persecute.  Being a business means that you are not REQUIRED to honor free speech, but if you do ban free-speech then you are guilty of persecution.  It's that simple and bringing the law into it doesn't change anything.  The law only says what is legal, not what it right.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Whatever you say... If you feel persecuted then have fun bearing that cross.  I'll save my sympathy for those who are truly suffering though.  Obviously you feel you are in the same boat... I happen to think you aren't even on the same ocean... but  again whatever.

      2. Claire Evans profile image89
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you not going to answer my questions?

    2. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right, do you think it's acceptable for Mark to say God raped Mary?

      If you go to the report button, it gives you a menu of options to select why you reported someone and there is an "other" option. 


      And it doesn't only fit into the category of blasphemy but obscenity also.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope.  I don't think it's acceptable, Claire.  You would be well served, however, to remember that HP is a secular site.  It is not here in any way to defend any set of beliefs or lack thereof.

        In my correspondence with you on these forums, you have said many things with which I do not agree, and MANY things that I personally find blasphemous.  I have never once reported you for any of those things because I'm a big girl and I know a)when to defend my point and b)when a conversation should simply be let go. 

        I don't generally engage you anymore, for instance, because I think that many of your beliefs are outrageous and inflammatory.  I tend to stay away from conversations such as those.

        When I engage, say, Mark - we have a line where we both realize it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other topics that we agree on that also deserve attention.

        1. Claire Evans profile image89
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this



          Thank you, you acknowledge that it is unacceptable and that is WHY I reported him, not for having opposing views.  Apart from Mark, I have never reported anyone for blasphemy.  As you can see, it goes hand in hand with obscenity.  If someone said Allah like raping people, I'd report that, too.  For heaven's sake, there needs to be a line drawn.


           

          Interesting...what did I say that was so blasphemous? 




          It's only outrageous because you can't see fault with the Vatican.  That's not my problem you can't see the obvious.





          It doesn't say much for you if you respect for Mark.  Do you?  He has been very inflammatory in his lambasting Christianity.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's right, you should be the sole arbiter for everyone's views.  You are blasphemous to science and intelligence in my opinion, but apparently, it isn't a banning offense.  cool

                                                 http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Claire, I'm Catholic.  I see much fault in the Church and even in the Vatican.  But I don't agree with you that the Pope is Satan's representative on earth.  Beh, big deal.  So we don't agree.  What bothers me the most about you is that you truly have yourself set up as THE representative Christian - and yet you veer from mainline Christian beliefs.  In all honesty, I respect your perseverance but not all of your ideals.  Just like I respect Mark's perseverance but not all of his ideals.  And, I certainly respect your right to not respect me. 

            So, carry on with your witnessing...or whatever it is you do here.  I have nothing to prove to you, darling, nor do I give a flying fig what you think of me.

            Peace!

            1. Claire Evans profile image89
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Saying the Pope is Satanic is not blasphemy.  Blasphemy is affronting God. 

              I did set myself up as the representative Christian? The only way I veer severely from mainstream Christian beliefs is regarding the Old Testament.  Now go read the passages Jomine posted below and then think of Jesus.  Do they reconcile? Of course not! That's because the Old Testament is corrupted mainly parts of it lifted from pagan beliefs and the occult.  So all this, "I smite you this, I smite you that" from God in the Old Testament is not the God, the Father of Christ.  It's easy to have an agenda and then say, "God said..." 

              Jeremiah 8:8:


              New International Version (©1984)
              "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

              The problem with most people in religion is that they don't think.  And when someone does think they are accused of going against mainstream Christianity.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Blasphemy!  You are affronting God by declaring that He has allowed His word to become lies.  His word, passed down through generations of His people has never been changed and is always true - He would not allow such a thing to happen.

                You need to ban yourself.

              2. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Change "most" to all, then you'll be cent percent accurate. Instead of 'don't think', if you put 'are delusional' then you'll be specifying those people who say the church and American leaders are satanists.

          3. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            (Numbers 31:7-18
            NLT)     They attacked
            Midian just as the
            LORD had
            commanded
            Moses, and they
            killed all the men. All five of the
            Midianite kings –
            Evi, Rekem, Zur,
            Hur, and Reba –
            died in the battle.
            They also killed Balaam son of
            Beor with the
            sword.  Then the
            Israelite army
            captured the
            Midianite women and children and
            seized their cattle
            and flocks and all
            their wealth as
            plunder.  They
            burned all the towns and villages
            where the
            Midianites had
            lived.  After they
            had gathered the
            plunder and captives, both
            people and
            animals, they
            brought them all
            to Moses and
            Eleazar the priest, and to the whole
            community of
            Israel, which was
            camped on the
            plains of Moab
            beside the Jordan River, across from
            Jericho.     Moses, Eleazar
            the priest, and all
            the leaders of the
            people went to
            meet them outside
            the camp.  But Moses was furious
            with all the
            military
            commanders who
            had returned from
            the battle.  "Why have you let all the
            women live?" he
            demanded.
            "These are the very
            ones who
            followed Balaam's advice and caused
            the people of
            Israel to rebel
            against the LORD
            at Mount Peor.
            They are the ones who caused the
            plague to strike
            the LORD's
            people.  Now kill
            all the boys and all
            the women who have slept with a
            man.  Only the
            young girls who
            are virgins may
            live; you may keep
            them for yourselves.

            Clearly, if your god is the bible god, he likes rape and murder, for he is commanding his people to do the same.

      2. swordsbane profile image61
        swordsbaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Clair Evans: "Is it acceptable to say that God raped Mary?"

        If you read a story about two people and one of them had non-consentual sex with the other, but the author didn't use the word "rape"  what would you call it?  People are prosecuted by the law for rape under those circumstances, so is this one of those "It's not wrong if the big guy does it?" things?

  4. jadesmg profile image85
    jadesmgposted 4 years ago

    I'dthink that 'prove God doesn't exist' is as valid as asking someone to prove that he does. However, it does seem unnecessay and obsolete. Proof of God whether in regrads to God's existence or non-existence is clearly not there to be found, at least right now. But as a rebuttle to those who disregard others beliefs as ignorance I would say it is valid. Athiests have no right to tell anybody that they have no right or reason to believe in God just because they lack proof, just as religious believers would have no right to tell an Athiest that they were wrong and ignorant for not believing or seeking proof. It seems to be a useful way of reaffirming the balance which leaves many Athiests feeling suppirior for not believing something whic is un-scientific.

  5. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    I don't think you have the power to get someone banned that you seem to believe you do.

    1. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Believe me, most reported things get banned.  Emile got banned for saying to someone that talking them to is like talking to a brick wall.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In fairness to the moderators, I think the comment was more along the lines of he wasn't much smarter than a brick wall. The difference being, I was directly attacking his intellect. Not the same as if I had told him the FSM had forced himself upon a mortal to create fettuccine.

        I'm not making light of your pain. Simply pointing out my take on their reasoning.

  6. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Play nicey-nice with the toys, children.

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      By the by Prove God doesn't exist isn't the argument. What comes after the statement Prove God Doesn't exist, is the argument.

    2. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Keep yer cool, girl. I mean you Claire. You get too emotional.wink

        1. Claire Evans profile image89
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          smile

  7. writeyourwrongs profile image82
    writeyourwrongsposted 4 years ago

    The absolute fact of the matter is this:

    Nobody can prove God exists, as religion is based on faith and faith is based on the belief of something that cannot be proved.

    Nobody can prove God doesn't exist, because no matter what scientific explanation there is to anything, there is always the possibility that it is being masterminded by a greater being beyond the capacity of our intelligence.

    The inability to prove that God exists does not mean God doesn't exist, and likewise the inability to prove that God doesn't exist does not mean God does exist.

    That's quite simply all there is to this.

  8. ColoFlynn profile image59
    ColoFlynnposted 4 years ago

    For all anyone knows "God" is just the idea of total goodness. Don't ask who you're doing something for, ask why your doing it. The more human beings try to understand and grasp the meaning of God, the less Godly the entity becomes. You can't understand the idea of God, because the more you work it with your human brain, the more human the idea becomes, and that's where all your flaws come in; right with all the "humanity".

  9. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    One day, a long time ago, an elephant fell square on top of me. I had two choices: Deny the elephant was on top of me....admit that something had happened totally out of the sphere of all logical sense...or search for the logic and sense of that elephant; embrace the fact that, yes, indeed, an elephant had fallen on top of me.



    Had I denied the elephant, I would probably be struck there yet...elephant and all. Luckily, I survived.

  10. pennyofheaven profile image82
    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago

    Well, I have learned a lot about persecution on this thread.

 
working