How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?
What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved?
You also can not disprove the existence of leprechauns and unicorns, but most would agree that is not a good reason to believe that they do exist. I consider myself an atheist because there is no positive proof for the existence of any spiritual deity. Some consider themselves agnostic because they concede that God's non-existence can't be disproved.
Do you stand for positive proof or double negative speculation?
If I speak to a believer and ask for proof of God's existence they may point to the Bible as proof, they may provide philosophical arguments against the non existence of God, they may say that there is no need for proof, there is only faith. And faith is irreducible. You can't measure faith, or quantify it, or argue rationally for or against it, because you'll hit the brick wall of blind belief again and again ad nauseam. I call myself an atheist. I do not believe in an omnipotent all knowing all pervasive God probably because I have never met such a figure in the reality that I call my life. For me to believe I would need concrete conscious contact with such a being and for their to be purpose in that contact. I deny the existence of a God because God doesn't register in my emotional life. There is no known communication between this character God and my self, unlike say a dream registers an effect in my emotional life.
If you need to have conscious contact with God to believe that it exists, and billions of people over thousands of years have had that contact, why does your lone experience lead you to believe that God doesn't exist and everyone else is wrong?
First off, it's not a question of who is "right or wrong". It's a question of what YOU personally believe. I believe in one thing and you believe in another. And Link hasn't had a "lone" experience. there are lots of agnostics in the world.
Link, ask what people saw at a crime scene and you'll get different answers. It's the degree of consistency that counts. And God, Allah and Buddha are all cultural descriptions of the same experience. Austin, no one said it's about right and wrong.
....that's kind of the point I was making about consistency...the less consistent the accounts are, the least likely whatever in question is true. Cultural differences should have no affect on an experience with god who supposedly permeates all life.
In any other instance? Absolutely not. But the subject is god. Can you explain why god would give billions of people conflicting experiences which leads to division and violence? Shouldnt be that difficult to give everyone the same experience
Link, you are missing my point about human abilities to interpret and communicate something in the exact same way. And you also are making a personal assumption and communicating your interpretation about what God is -- which validates my point.
I have consistently made the point about a common experience combined with human differences in communication. I have not once offered an interpretation of God. If you want to keep diverting the debate, feel free.
I recall posing a question that got ignored, but if it had been answered it would have required you to explain how a god is incapable of providing the same experience to all regardless of culture and communication ability. Yet I'm the one diverting..
Atheists do not need to "prove" that a god or gods do not exist. We are not making the claim that a god or gods exist. Believers continually want this "proof" - that a god or gods do not exist, but there is no proof. You hit it when you said, we cannot disprove ANY myth or legend or story that is not physical in nature. (leprechauns/unicorns/Santa Claus/Zeus) Supernatural proof cannot, by its very definition, exist. Basically, an agnostic or atheist needs proof BEFORE believing in invisible gods or supernatural events. "Believers" do NOT need proof because they already have been convinced mentally that a god or gods exist. They won't even accept physical proof that shows the impossibility of supernatural events. They just rely on their feelings and emotions. And that is enough for them. It just isn't enough for non-believers.
Studies have shown that people who rely more on emotion and intuition rather than reason and logic are much more likely to be religious/spiritual. Your answer is very accurate and poignant, in my opinion.
Just because God is above your intellectual reasoning does not make God nonexistent. No one in history has been able to outthink God. Never will! IMO You are just making yourselves look inferior because you are.
Any God that one chooses to follow. We are all human beings that have a choice. So, whatever God one chooses to serve is their business and not ours. Where in lies the problem that atheists just cannot grasp that God loving people could care less?
A better answer than I would have thought. But again, why are you assuming that atheists have a problem with everyone of faith, rather than those of faith that judge, condem, deny certain privileges and even kill simply for having different beliefs?
Is this not the case? Please fill me in as to what I am missing. I am not one to judge anyone. Like I said we are only humans and have flaws even greater than the one's we are judging. You have chosen your beliefs;I have chosen mine. Why not let it b
What is the problem then? Why is so much hatred spewed especially in the forums towards Christians? Calling God names, belittling him, just crass, vulgar attitudes towards God. What has God done to deserve this retribution from those who do not belie
I know your supposed problems with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. is you do not want them to force their beliefs down your throat. That my friend I' sure never happens in your private life. On here all you must do is avoid religious questions.
Is there a reason you are assuming I flock to religious themed questions just to bash god/people who believe in god? So far I haven't even grouped religious people as a whole let alone Christians together as much as you have atheists.
Some do, some do not. From what I have seen in my short time here is that the atheists I have came in contact with are very aggressive, condescending people. I am of course not saying all atheists are like this. As all Christians are not extremists.
AC-DC, you've meet the average atheist. Not all of us are aggressive. I believe it's your right to believe in any God. I choose not to, but I support your decision to. We all all individual, unique people with our own beliefs
The question posed here, it seems, is fundamentally flawed. "How can one be an atheist" invites a discussion of the irrational. "How can you believe there is no God without proof of his/her nonexistence?" is easy - a belief does not require proof.
Burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. If I said there was a space dragon hiding in my basement on a third floor apartment building with absolutely nothing to prove it, would you believe me no questions asked?
Implying that you have the right to believe whatever you want has nothing to do with the fact that you are requiring proof from non-atheists for their belief while saying that atheists don't have to provide proof for theirs.
Even if I were to state that there are no gods, I cannot prove it, just as you or anyone else cannot prove that gods exist. But its certainly alot more logical to be able to prove something exists before believing it does.
Link, if you are making a claim that God does not exist, then of course you have to offer proof for it. But if you are simply claiming that I can't provide proof to your satisfaction, then we have no disagreement.
You realize that before someone can make the claim gods don't exist, someone would have to first make the claim that they do? So why does the responsibility to prove/disprove fall onto the person who hasnt even had it proven to them first?
That's easy, Austin. Because it's an internal, intangible experience. But we're not debating the proof of whether God exists. We're debating why atheists claim God doesn't exist and then claim they don't have to offer proof for their claim.
If an "atheist needs proof BEFORE believing in..." That proof must include personal experience. It seems to only take one time outside their belief system to change their game - Poof! No more atheist. Check out: Eben Alexander, M.D. (Neurosurgery)
Savannah - No, personal experience is not necessary. The physical prrof must only meet the scientific method of proof verified by independent researchers who can duplicate and repeat the same experiment with the same results. ex. creating glass
Austinstar, someone I know was robbed. According to atheist logic, the robbery didn't take place because it was merely the personal experience of that individual and we have to take his word on faith. Do you agree? Yes or no.
Psem - I do not agree. Either the money was real, therefore proving he was robbed, or it wasn't. Money leaves a trail, an ATM receipt, physical paper notes, fingerprints, etc. There are several way to prove your friend was actually robbed or not.
I'm afraid not. I was expecting a more nuanced intellectual discussion of a specific double negative theological paradox. However, I will not censor impassioned comments simply because they do not meet my expectations.
Proving existence is easier than proving non-existence b/c if you find one exp of existence, you're done. Proof of non-existence requires every possibility to be explored. However, since humankind does not have sufficient FACTS, everything is BELIEF.
You took the words right out of my mouth. People who believe in God have "faith" - look it up in a dictoionary to see what it means. People who believe in God spend their whole lives with their fingers firmly crossed.
I would say that the fact that something can't be disproved should, at the very least, leave one open to the possibility that it can and does exist. Now going from their to actual belief in its existence must be done so on the basis of evidence.
In the case of God's existence, for instance, If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of an Almighty Creator.
Simply explain to us how a god can create itself out of absolute nothing and then go on to create everything else in the universe. Also out of nothing. Oh, I forgot, God exists out of "space and time". It ALWAYS existed, right? Just like the Universe
Joe, as usual, you are assuming that copying nature is difficult. It isn't. We can grow fetuses in tubes now. And cloning is pretty simple for a good biologist as well. In the future, I suspect, it will be child's play.
The problem that I have with your argument is that your speculation starts with the assumption that there is a creator, and then goes on from there. Complexity in nature beyond human capacity is not evidence of an intelligent designer.
Copying nature isn't difficult? I have never seen nor heard of nature harvesting it's own eggs and fertilizing them artificially. Of course, they do not harvest their own sperm either. It isn't copying nature when it is done against nature's ways.
What if it is ALL God? So God, then is not immutable, all-powerful, all-knowing. Perhaps this is ALL simply God- ever changing, growing. We are all part of it.Thus morality hinges on what our growing intellect tells us preserves this wondrous system
Billie - Good Answer! At the very least, we should all be interconnected by 'something'. Perhaps it's all just gravity we are going on about? We are all tied together by gravity. Held together by gravity. Maybe gravity is the "god particle".
JP - Surely you are not accusing me of murder? I know of no case that resulted in a death by blood transfusion in all of my 38 years of working in transfusion services. I lost count of the number of people that I saved. What an odd question to ask.
Aloha, I'm Savannah & I'm new here. I am working on my first hub and came across this debate. A fellow atheist has written an account of what he was doing when he lost his functioning brain. Google: Eben Alexander, M.D. (BTW he's a ) neurosurge
I think it's actually "faith" that causes an atheist to "believe" that God does not exist, especially as the general term "god" usually indicates. For me, a Supreme Being who has a plan and a judgment and who promises a "heaven" I can't conceive of, and an existence for me without my body or my brain, an existence with only my "soul", is about the scariest thing on the face of this planet for me. I hope there is no God, not because I fear retribution for my sins and failings. I just cannot conceive of existence with only my soul after my mind and body have gone. I don't want that kind of existence. I cannot even vaguely imagine how that might be. To believe that it would be beatific is just beyond my level of comprehension or desire. Seeing "Interstellar" threw me completely over the edge. I have no willingness to exist in any dimension other than this, let alone multiple dimensions or parallel universes. No thank you, very much. So I have to take my belief in nothing "on faith" and hope for the best I can hope for - non existence after this life. To those who have loved ones who have passed away who they long to be connected with, I respect and honor your beliefs. Perhaps, as I once read, we get what we believe in after life. May that be true because then we all are blessed Here's to all of us!
I think souls either live before and after the body, or not at all. We'd already know if souls live outside the body because we had no body before we were born. Conversely, if souls develop at conception, then they'd also fade as the body perishes.
Vortrek Grafix, Interesting.I, for one, can't conceive soul without mind, so I can't understand soul outside of the body. I get that they're supposed to be different concepts,but it's beyond my level of comprehension to conceive of a mindless soul.
I'm an atheist because of lack of proof of a deity. At other times I've been agnostic, more open-minded, allowing that there is a limit to what I "know" or CAN know based on concrete facts. But if it looks like a unicorn or leprechaun...
I think the only reason for being atheistic rather than agnostic about leprechauns and unicorns is because cultural narratives have made the idea of their existence seem absurd. Philosophically, I think we should be equally agnostic about them.
Link, I used to think the same way as you. And then I realized that I didn't know everything and that having an opinion about something I didn't understand was wrong. It turned me from an atheist into an agnostic.
Not too sure why you are assuming that I think I know everything promise. I have yet to declare that no gods exist. I simply don't know. What I do know is that its asinine declare something as true but expect other people to prove it
Link, then we're on the same page. Expecting Christians to prove that God exists is just as asinine as expecting atheists to prove that he doesn't. And if you are saying you just don't know -- again on which we agree -- then you're an agnostic.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate the breathtaking daedal designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation thus represents unshakable proof of our Creator's existence.
Your argument that the existence of Creation proves the existence of a Creator is wrong. It is a semantic issue. You simply choose to use the word "Creation", which originates from a preexisting religious bias in your understanding of the world.
We can't even prove if there is another Universe and we're constantly discussing God. I'm up for debate. It's beyond us to find the answer at this point in our lives. If there has to be something that began, we have no way of logically proving that.
Mumbo-Jumbo much girls? An atheist NEVER talks/preaches about gods. They don't believe in them. We talk about science and logic and why we don't believe in gods. But we don't talk ABOUT a god or gods. We don't believe in them. :-)
It is your choice to actually involve yourself in a conversation about God. If I were an atheist I would be running from these type of questions. You are not going to convince anyone. Why are so many of you just wasting your time? It is frivolous.
Why worry about what others believe or do not believe? Is it going to make you rich? Why not worry about yourselves and the back yard you need to be cleaning up before you judge others. The only thing atheists want to do is stir the pot. Good job!
No it wouldn't. Atheists would never believe any proof and would argue that proof until they were blue in the face. But, telling billions of people that they are wrong is just egotistical rhetoric isn't it
Biased? And what might you label yourself young man? See this is the great misconception that atheists have about Christians. Christians are not trying to please anyone or WIN an argument. They are simply trying to live a life pleasing to God. Simple
Nothing wrong with that, although I'm not sure why you seem to think all atheists have a problem with everyone of faith, rather than those of faith that judge and condem others for believing something different from themselves
In my opinion there is no need for atheists. All they do is try to prove that god does not exist, but not one of them has tried to prove does exist. Atheists in my experience restrict Christians beliefs and values and don't understand the base of god
Jennings - did you even read my answer (best answer)? I am an atheist and I contend that I cannot prove that gods don't exist, I merely contend that I (me) do not believe in them. If you choose to believe, I don't have a problem with it.
Read my comment before saying Im the problem I said "In my experience" I could be wrong, but my friends want god out of things such as the constitution and the base of god is free will just cause I dont like it doesn't mean I have right to control it
Technically I'm agnostic, but it's easier to tell people I'm atheist when they ask (not as many people understand the term agnostic). I generally choose to believe what I believe because there is no proof of a high being and, relating to Christianity specifically, I don't believe there is any proof of Jesus Christ having actually existed. Many people mistake my lack of belief for a lack of education but I have solicitors at my door often wanting to talk about Jesus and attending their church. Generally I don't answer the door but when I do I can easily con them into believing I'm just a Christian too lazy to attend church because I do know quite a bit about the bible. There is just too little evidence of any deity existing for me to believe it. With the amount of planets we are discovering that could potentially harbor life, I'm expected to believe that one almighty being created this planet for the sole existence of humanity? If so, then why are there potentially more planets our there that could harbor out existence? If this almighty being had to create a planet for us to live on, why did he/she not opt to use one of the existing ones (ignoring the big bang theory)? Why did he/she create a star in the center of our solar system that would eventually end our existence? Why did he/she allow us to prove our planet is millions of years old yet allow a text to be scribed declaring our planet just a few thousand years old? Knowing mankind has an obsession with knowledge, why would an almighty being allow so many of his/her creatures to believe such a lie and be led by blind faith? If Jesus Christ died for our sins, why are we still forbidden from sinning after being given free will? If we're all forgiven of our sins, why is there a hell? Nobody would ever be sent there if they're forgiven of their sins.
To me, religion is a basic moral code. A basic text telling people how to live their lives the best they can. But translated literally, it is almost a cult. Driving people to hate people of other religions. We all just want to live our lives as best we can. In my opinion, take religion with a grain of salt and do what you think is best in any given situation. In the end, we all go to the same place whether you prayed 6 times a day or chose not to believe at all. Living a life of fear is not living at all.
Lady G - That is exactly what they did! Since no one has ever actually seen a god or group of gods, there is no way to assign names to them really! Except maybe by their "powers" - god of rain, sun, water, etc.
Exactly! It always amazes me that most religious people believe in just one "god" and think all of the others are nonexistent or dead or something. If you believe in one, you must believe in ALL of them! But then, u just say they have different names
@AS Did you know that the Catholic church, when they took over the Pagans made the pagan gods into the Saints? I read that somewhere. They didn't get rid of the God(S), they just gave them another name.
This is why hostility toward atheists doesn't make any sense. Everyone is an atheist of most gods that are or ever were, some of us just take it further (I realize something to that effect already exists as a popular quotation).
Notice how the argumentative ones just ignore this question? They don't have an answer for why so many other gods exist in their minds. They just insist that the one most POPULAR god exists :-) But eventually, even Yahwey will fade into nonexistence
Let me put it this way. I am as certain that God doesn't exist as I am that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Both are equally unprovable, so we technically have to be agnostic about both, but functionally, I am an atheist.
You don't prove a negative--the onus of proof is on the positive claim, i.e. "There is a god" or "There is an angel sitting inside the Euphrates river" or "I have a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls in my pocket."
Psem - you asked, " Are you saying with certainty that God doesn't exist?" Our answer is plain. NO ONE can say with certainty that God doesn't exist. We choose not to believe based on the fact that no evidence has been produced to prove God exists.
I didn't say you CAN'T prove a negative--as with the Santa Claus example you provided, sometimes it's really easy--I said that you DON'T prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the guy who says Santa does exist, not the guy who says he doesn't.
The Bible doesn't deny that other gods exist. It rather confirms it. You are a Christian if you choose Jesus as your Lord and savior. For me that means living as Jesus did- helping the poor, the sick, the weak, forgiving and tolerating others.
Who cares what anyone else in this jacked up world believes in or don't believe in? Everyone believes in something! Weather it be God, or many God's, or maybe they believe there isn't a God at all! There's still believe in all of it, and guess what that's your own individual right, it's free will, freedom of speech, whatever you must call it. Some people believe we evolved from ape's, monkey's, and or gorillas and some people believe were a speck made out of nothing by mistake. Your right to voice your opinion is yours and who's to say your wrong? Not me, not no one. Know don't get me wrong, I believe in God. I believe it's real, heaven an hell, angels, demons, and I know one thing for sure, We all came in this world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. You haven't ever seen a baby born holding a book, or a bottle have you? Let me know if you have! Lol that's another believer.. But you don't have to have a bible or quotes to prove there's a God, if your a true believer you could make anyone believe in anything. As is an atheist, they believe to not believe that there is a God, they sesce to live as none believers. That's there choice and we all live with them. Do drugs, don't do drugs, cruse, don't cruse, have sex, or wait till your married, steal, don't steal, kill, or don't kill. We all know doing drugs isn't good for us, we all hate to see kids messed up on drugs, we all know stealing isn't right an you should work harder if you want it, we all know that people killing people is wrong an wish the world didn't have so much of it, but why is that? Questions after questions and it leads back to one thing. How did God get here then? Who knows and should we know the answers to all questions? I don't want to know everything, because sometimes, something's are better left unanswered! Your husband loves you more than anything? Aww how sweet! Prove it.. I can't see it, I can't feel it, It's not a written fact in a book, how are you sure its real? How are you so sure, what if he loves his son more, or his dog, or even his truck? What if? What if this, what if that, what if is like a might it grows on a chickens butt. What if you believe and they don't believe? Doesn't matter because were all believers in something in one way or another. To believe or not believe is the biggest question! Your biggest day is the day your born, the most biggest day of your life is when you figure out why you was born? Everyone has a purpose,what's yours?
If your wife or husband didn't believe or have faith that the other one loved them more than anything then they would really be nothing right? To prove it you'd have no faith in each other and proof denies faith and without faith it is nothing!
Actually, atheism is not a belief. This is a common misconception. Most atheists choose what to accept about the world based on facts and evidence. Naturally, this tendency for truth-seeking precludes the supernatural. Again, atheism is not a belief.
God comes in many forms- yet to deny God exists is?? lets take air for an example- Can I see it, nope- does it exist, must be- cause I know I can breath it. Just because one can not SEE or have proof there are many documented stories, cases of miracles (usually documented by prayers from energy souls produce) etc that are unexplained- so there is evidence- but not proof (yes there is a difference). Do you have hope? Can you see it? do you have feelings? can you see them? No you feel them. where do they come from? I have come to believe we are souls (spiritual energies if you will- "collectively" whom make God. We have all made a plan in the differing layers of heaven and agree to inhibit a body to allow a earthly experience for a learning lesson, which we all have the same lesson - it is called love. and we repeat it (life in a soul agreement until we learn) an example would be: If there is a God, then why would he allow a child to be beaten to death? I struggled with questions such as this for many years, now I come to believe - the child soul agreed to this earthly life, not knowing how we will die (because of human free will) yet to experience pain or suffering to help another who is affected by such an act to learn love. I would encourage reading many books on love and souls one in particular which is an easy read and a theory I feel has value is by Doctor Weiss "Only love is real" never quit asking and seeking- be a life student!...see you on the other side my friend! Religion is a whole other topic!
PS: proven fact - I will find scientific Proof if requested and post) but when a body dies, it is documented 4 ounces can not be accounted for in weight. theorize' this is the weight of a soul...unexplained but very interesting indeed!
Ok, where's your proof? Which body? Who documented it? Who verified it? Who reproduced that experiment with other bodies? Who proved it wasn't water or bodily elimination? This is a very old rumor that got started many years ago and isn't verifiable.
EV - I read the conclusion statement from that study of NDEs. As usual, there was no reliable result of patients having cognizant awareness of objects in the rooms. So, there is no evidence as you are suggesting of anything. The study failed.
As a medical professional, I have never heard of such a thing as a body weighting less, but I can tell you when you die, your body gets rid of all the fluids and you basically pee, poop, and bleed all over yourself. I have seen it.
In the deaths of a few of my cats and a dog I can tell you that is is false. They are light until after they reach rigo mortis and then their body get very heavy. I did hear of the study though and did not believe it cuz of my findings.
I rely solely on logic and evidence because human perception is flawed and sensory illusions can play a major role in spiritual leanings. I used to think I'd seen ghosts, but now I realize they were just tricks of light and perception.
Logic and science have limits and are filled with their own sensory illusions. They can't explain everything. And if you believe perception is flawed, then you can't rely on evidence if your perception of that evidence is flawed.
Science can't explain everything, but I choose to believe only what it can explain. When I said perception is flawed, I meant in terms of ghost sightings and near-death experiences. The evidence for evolution, for example, can't be mistaken.
Austin, on that point we agree. Spongy, I would be more willing to agree with you if you said you want objective physical evidence. "No real evidence" misses the point that some things in this universe can't be explained, at least not yet.
Then I respect your choice. But I'll use a point I made in another comment. Someone I know was robbed. But according to atheist logic, the robbery didn't take place because there is no evidence other than taking the word of someone on faith.
....you realize promise that has nothing to do with atheist logic right? That's like telling a Cop you got kicked in the face by that guy over there, but there isn't a mark on your body to prove it. Should he believe you based solely on your word?
It has everything to do with atheist logic. You attack faith because someone says a thing exists. You say it doesn't exist because you can't prove it exists and therefore faith can't be used to justify spiritual experiences.
Psem - no one is attacking your faith! Why do you think this? We are just saying that we choose to require EVIDENCE that a god exists BEFORE we believe it. If that doesn't apply to you, what is your problem?
Twisting words? You assumed that I attack faith simply because it deals with a higher being and that because it cannot be proven it doesn't exist. Can you point to where I said that at all, even hypothetically? Please use a dictionary for zealotry.
That isn't quite accurate in my case. I am an atheist who is intensely interested in proof when I am accosted by a religious person who disagrees with my lack of faith in that for which there is no evidence.
Lela, a believer answers that way because we know we have no proof for YOU. And we know atheists know this also, so when the question is asked, that is the best response to stop the beating we are about to take.
The same way a Christian cannot prove the existence of God... its what our faith tells us that dictates what we do and don't believe. I am a Christian who believes in the big bang (or some other origin of similar beginning) and evolution, but I believe it because I see the evidence and have come to my own faithful conclusion that its because God made it so... That's the trouble in this world... you always have to be on one side or the other it seems... if you believe in God, you are expected to look at the Bible as a history book... not so... the bible is a book of God's wisdom... nothing more. Then again, I also believe there is sentient intelligent life on other worlds, both like us and like nothing we can imagine... and that God made it all. There are no two people who believe the exact same things on everything in this world... which is why, we as human beings in general, have conflict. But that's one of the beauties of being human... we can fight for our beliefs and it doesn't necessarily mean our survival.
If you ever meet a leprechaun, PLEASE take pictures... I have a feeling they're more blue than green, and that's where the story of the Smurfs come from... As for unicorns, I hear their horns can be powdered and used to give old men eternal boners that don't have to be popped if they stay that way for more than 4 hours.
As far as your atheistic beliefs, that is entirely your choice... it is not right, it is not wrong, it just is... for you. But either way you look at it, theistic, atheistic, agnostic, etc... any way you choose, there is always someone who is going to tell you you're wrong. I think, if you believe in something, believe in it, and don't let anyone change your mind unless they TRULY are able to inspire you to change your mind (even if God, himself, has helped you to do so). If you change your mind, and you are shrouded in skepticism, you are not a true believer. You have to be true to yourself.
IN CLOSING, I want to challenge you to TRY to talk to God... even if you don't believe in Him, you CAN still talk to him, you know, just in case he IS there... tell Him your problems, tell him how beautiful the sky looks, how pretty the flowers are... and ask Him, even if only out of curiosity, to show you a sign so you know that he IS there... if you never see a sign, then you know you were right... What does it hurt to speak out loud to nobody when you are by yourself?
God is an illusion of human psychology, namely, the capacity to conceive of consciousnesses beyond the self. I am not interested in looking for signs or awaiting feelings. This is subjective dribble that fosters ignorance and superstition.
Why do I have to prove that God does not exist? It is perfectly fair and reasonable to accept only that for which there is evidence. I invite anyone to consider the evidence, and to construct a world view based on that.
There is no evidence for God's existence. There is also no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't disprove the existence of either of these things, but should that be a good reason to believe their existence is probable?
Spaghetti has defined physical properties such that a monster cannot be created from it. Moreover, our understanding of aerodynamics makes it obvious that spaghetti cannot travel sustainedly through the air. As such, the FSM has no basis in reality.
If you read my question carefully, the whole point of this thread is to question and consider the nuances and complexities of the paradox of not being able to prove God's non-existence. It is not meant to be a direct debate about his existence.
As a recent convert to Christianity, I have to say I have discovered a lot about God, the Bible, and Christian belief. I have to say, there have been times when I have wondered about God's existance. When I was in those times, I always felt alone, depressed, and as if there was nothing worth living for in life. When I belive, I feel there is hope despite what is going on in my life. I never tell people what to believe. My mom, for example, believes that there is a God, but no Jesus, and that light is good and dark is evil. She believes in casting spells, witches, people that are mediums, etc. I don't tell her what to believe because that is what she feels is real. I have not learned enough to convince an atheist that there is a God, but think about this. Although it is emotion, can you see love? Also, where did the emotions come from? Where did we come from for that matter? I will never believe we came from apes. We are closely related to many animals, not just apes, so I refuse to believe that. If you know anything about medicine, you have seen animal study and know that pigs, apes, rats, etc, have been used to study diseases and cures for humans as well as medical devices, so obviously, we are related to many. All I can say from here is see the movie "God's Not Dead" if you haven't because that made me decide that for sure there is a God. Also, I have to say that every time in my life I have said prayers for someone or something I needed, they have come through. Maybe not overnight, or even in a few days, but eventually. That is usually the biggest deterent for most people is they don't understand that God works on his time. We are a society of instant gratification. We want to be rich overnight and never be sick more that one day, but life just doesn't work like that. There is usually a lesson in what happens too if you really take the time to look. Just keep searching if you aren't sure and eventually you will find it. If you want to believe you will, and if you don't, you won't. Good luck with your venture. I hope we hear from you again about what you decide.
Humans don't come from apes, we are apes. We belong to a family of primates who share the same origin, just as all mammals, including rats and pigs, are more distantly related. You can't see oxygen either, but we have evidence for it's existence.
That entire movie is a strawman, and every argument that was presented in that movie is fallacious. I would recommend looking the movie up online and many of the rebuttal blogs that were written, even from Christians who abhor its dishonesty.
Evidence found in DNA, the fossil record, and comparative physiology definitively proves that modern primates (including humans) are closely related and share a fairly recent common ancestor. Humans are apes just as well as the earth is round.
So far as supposed hereditary clues that purportedly reveal common descent, forming dogmatic opinions on the basis of somewhere around 0.0025% of all the available genetic data is a blatantly fallacious A Dicto Simpliciter.
There is nothing dogmatic about the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is based on mountains of evidence. Our understanding of evolution is subject to change based on the evidence we are regularly gathering.
This is a sensitive subject for many people. My own take on the subject is to welcome any believer in god, religion, or faith which has as his\her primary mission enhancing social welfare. By that rationale, it matters little what people choose to believe, it matters only that a conscious effort is made to a be sincerely good member of society. That said, in my humble opinion, organized religious doctrine regarding creation tends to be symbolic, whereas I regard creation as more of a complex model or equation with many unknown working variables. Worshiping and erecting monuments to unknown variables does not make know those variables any better, but does bring people together for a united purpose. That united purpose encourages many virtues intended to foster joy in life, such as family values, community charity, courtesy and civility. Granted, not everyone needs to be a believer to be a good person, and I personally make every effort to be a good person without being a believer, but if belief works for other people then that's great as far as I'm concerned.
Bottom line: The universe is infinitely vast, and the human mind lacks an infinite neural network system with which to absorb the concept of infinity. By that metric, neither religious believers, scientists, philosophers, academicians, dreamers, or whomever can fully conceive of a universe without simplifying properties assigned to many of the unknown variables. In my view, science is at the forefront of disciplines whereby the quest for answers will ultimately be narrowed down. However, relative to the vast intricacies of our infinite universe, science is still just scratching at the surface of what is conceivable.
The truth is what matters. It is irresponsible and intellectually detrimental to "fill in the gaps" with religion. As you can see, I am opposed to rationalizing harmony between scientific truth and religious superstition.
if "filling in the gaps with religion" discourages natural curiosity to question the "word of god" (as preached by mortals) then that is unfortunate. That's not a rule though. Many scientists, mathematicians, etc. believe but research\discover also.
The existence of religious scientists does not validate religion. What I meant with "gaps" was about christians pointing to the gaps of a scientific worldview as proof that it is inferior to their "complete" religious world view.
Logic requires verifiable observation for validation, so faith cannot validate itself. And yet, physicists also use assumptions (educated guess - hypothesis) when developing equations to research\explain scientific phenomena
It is you who name it "creation", and it is your play with words that implies the necessity of a corresponding "Creator". In reality, there is no rational reason for labeling our existence as creation.
Truth is derived from unknowns through logical deduction, and faith would not be faith if it dealt in tangibles. Either camp is feasible while unknowns exist, but staunch adherence to faith precludes discovery of what might otherwise be tangible
Assigning fanciful labels to unknowns does not make them tangible. I respect anyone's freedom of choice, but do sometimes question how prominently preserving institutionalized religion figures into indoctrinating the flock with that type of protocol.
Hi Jo, that is the ultimate question. The complete answer eludes us all. I'll bet on science\physics to discover the details. Others prefer a different approach to digest that befuddling puzzle. As a liberal, I welcome differences in opinion any day.
I find it interesting that even when an atheist concedes and agrees, for the sake of the argument, that everything was created, nothing is ever put forth that designates a specific creator over another.
Spongy, I agree logic trumps faith whenever applicable but "it simply is" does ring rather like a faith based statement. Yes we perceive but are we fully cognizant of the significance of our perceptions? Cogito ergo sum is logical until that point.
You are delving into philosophy, into which one may go deep enough as to come to the conclusion that we can't really know anything for sure. I don't go down that path. I accept that which I perceive with my senses because it is most rational to do so
Promisem, no battle, just thesis vs antithesis & potential synthesis. Logic attempts to learn the unknown while faith covets it as devine which tends to discourage questioning it. Lots of room for logic & faith though when unknowns remain unk
Vortrek Grafix, LOVE ur thought process. From ur profile, I'm not sure if I'm addressing Chari or Marc or both, but I have the highest respect 4 the logic of ur input.I agree that societal good is foremost. To keep on keeping seems the mandate to me.
Thanks, Vortrek. Faith is not the central concept for belief in the existence of a higher spiritual experience. Faith is simply the belief in what other people describe about that experience. The faithful SHOULD question it.
Hi Jake! Everyone fills in the gaps all the time. You never have all the evidence about anything. Your brain fills in the blind spots in your vision. If you are honest with yourself you realize you can't know the truth about anything.
Joseph, prove it IS creation. You see, you assume that because humans make things that your god made the universe. Very egocentric, really. The universe may not have a starting point. Physicists are talking about that now.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate the breathtaking daedal designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation thus represents unshakable proof of our Creator's existence.
Claiming religious faith is based on miracles and feelings is not only inaccurate but totally misses the point. Revelation is the central religious experience. If you don't understand revelation, you will always misunderstand spirituality.
There is no concrete proof that God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Thor, mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns etc. don't exist. Is that a good reason to believe that they do? You can invent literally anything and not be able to prove it's nonexistence.
you don't have to be an atheist or anything to not believe in God. Even the Christians don't believe in God, if it turns out that the Jesus of the New Testament is not the God that created us, and the universe.
There is already a split between those people that don't believe in either the old or the new testament. Many of these people have their own religion based on a different God. Or some just don't believe in a God.
So if you don't believe in the biblical Gods, then you could believe in a creator of some kind.
Proving the existence of the biblical Gods are up to its followers. One indication is that mankind has not changed since recorded history, they are as evil as ever. If a God produced them, then one should probably not believe in that God. It sounds more like the depiction of a devil.
I don't stand for talk and rhetoric without substance. How much do you really know about the history of mankind and specifically, the history of evil? How do you justify a focus on evil as the dominant force behind human actions throughout history?
I am confused does an atheist belief in god or not know? The atheists I have talked with and read on belief there is absolutely no god? They do not believe so the answers where people claim to be atheists and say that they are not claiming that god does or does not exist is false. If you do not know if god does or doesn't exist then one your uneducated about multiple subjects like science and history, which largely affect your opinion about religion. A person that does not know if god exists, but does not deny it is not an Atheist they are called Agnostic meaning they don't know. If you are going to say your an Atheist that means you do not believe in a higher power, which in my personal opinion is just arrogance and them having an emotional response maybe from forced belief from family or friends. Atheists can't disprove god just because you can prove a book written by men who we all know are imperfect does not mean you can explain why we are so different from other organisms. That is why calling yourself Agnostic seems fair because there is ways that support God or a higher power, but there are zero that disprove him. Like I said the only evidence Atheists have against God or a high being come from the bible, which not all Christians believe is true because of the fact that men are corrupted, power hunger, and greedy. This could have caused changes in the bible as well as influences that led people away from certain books that were left out of the bible that could be important.
There is no evidence for God's existence. Absolutely none. It is only rational to develop a worldview based on that for which there is evidence. Of course no one can prove that God does not exist, but that is no reason to believe that he does.
Vandall - Where is the evidence that Jesus was a 'god' or the son of a 'god'? There is no evidence that Jesus was "divine" in any way. The books of the bible describe him only AFTER his alleged death. Some say he never existed at all.
The legends of the Greek gods are passed down to this very day for anyone who takes ancient history classes. There is a lot more lore to back their existence than there is Jesus, so they exist as well right?
So there's proof that refutes myths (that you dont believe in) from nearly 3000 years ago but nothing to prove that Jesus not only walked the earth but performed miracles only 2000 years ago (you do believe in)? Do explain the convenience of that..
It's got nothing to do with proving the existing of God or proving he doesn't. People who believe in God have faith. And "faith" isn't proof. I am an atheist too and I don't feel any obligation to prove that God doesn't exist. But if you make a claim such as "I believe in God and that the Bible is the word of God" then I expect them to come up with some evidence.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of an Almighty Creator.
People believe and act without proof positive all the time. You could not function if you did not. People elect Presidents without even meeting them. They jail people without seeing the crime. They buy stocks. They marry.
Joseph, no. You are defining all you see as a "creation." But it isn't a creation, necessarily, & there may be no creator. Prove it was created. Besarin, you can go to DC and see the president. You can't take a road trip to see god.
Your question is nothing but a straw man. I have never met anyone who justifies their belief in God just because you cannot prove he doesn't exist which is clearly what you've stated and is a false accusation. I've never even heard of an apologist who would even suggest that because you cannot prove God doesn't exist it is an evidence to believe in God & if you know any believer who asserts such a thing I'm here to tell you they are misguided & that reasoning is not a tenant of anyone's faith in God. I find what you are doing in this Q&A is a common tactic of atheists, using a straw man argument to create a false impression of how believers justify their faith in God.
I believe God exists because it makes perfect sense. Look around you. Virtually any material thing you can think of that has order, purpose, design, beauty was created by intelligent beings...Humans. Automobiles didn't spontaneously evolve, skyscrapers didn't evolve, airplanes didn't evolve, computers didn't evolve and if you were to assert they did, no sane person would believe you.
So why would anyone choose to believe that life evolved by chance when even the tiniest single celled organism is more intricate and complex than anything I have mentioned so far created by man, and it can replicate itself, over and over. If a car could replicate itself would anyone jump to the conclusion that it had to have evolved? Let alone that now it could "evolve" into an airplane? given a few million years or so?
To believe that life, which to date has never been created by man, can microscopically spontaneously appear in a world that has to be perfectly designed in the universe for life to just survive, and from these microscopic organic "chemicals" "evolve" into complex self aware living beings with a conscience and the ability to reason, imagine, create and destroy does not make any kind of sense and dictates that that interpretation of any of the evidence is a wrong conclusion.
One last thing I must mention however, and that is that it makes no sense for an atheist (according to their own beliefs) to try to convince anyone of their beliefs because if life here on earth is all there is it doesn't matter what anyone believes because life has no meaning or purpose...it is just the result of chemical reactions that run their course and end, there is no morality, no future, nothing but chance collisions, and interactions of molecules in a vast universe that exploded into existence from nothing.
I won't argue with you because all of your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect. Your interpretation of evolution is based on popular misconception and your understanding of reality is unenlightened.
Also, atheism is not the belief in nothing, it is the belief in only that for which there is evidence, which precludes spiritual beings. If you are dependent on religion for finding meaning and purpose in life, then I feel sorry for you.
Really? then just take one thing. Let's see what your tactic is for that minor challenge. You must have something else in your playbook that you can use to weasel out of answering besides "attack the messenger".
tsadjatko: I completely agree with all you have said. And there is no need to argue Spongy , an intelligent dialog / discussion is what I would encourage. start a new hub I to hear your side to discount/ respond to above . Bravo to you tsadjatko.
Joseph, Eddy, Starrgirl...You know you have just demonstrated your lack of education and intellect! According to his highness, Spongebobby, you (and I)are to be pitied. Sounds like someone is harboring a deep resentment and needs to lash out.
Fine. You clearly know nothing about evolution. It is a common misconception that the world is designed to suit life, as you suggest. In reality, life evolved to best adapt to the conditions as they exist and change on this planet.
So what you are saying then is life could evolve on any planet but it would conform to that planets characteristics?ABSURDor there should be life on the moon,Venus&Mars.The only explanation for the precise design of Earth/life is the Godof Bible
No, I did not say that life could evolve on any planet, but life evolved on this planet and adapted/continues to adapt to the environment at our disposal. It is a very complex process which requires a great deal of abstract thought to understand.
My "absurd claim" is a scientific fact, about which you know terribly little. I am not reluctant to argue because I do not have a compelling argument, but because you are simply denying the facts and are clearly unwilling to consider the evidence.
I'll say this for you Jake,at least you don't censor debate because it disagrees with you like the person you choose as best answer has a reputation for doing(then lying about why she deletes the comment).But your statements arejustasabsurdashers
SO,you didn't even look at the link above,it explains clearly how evolution isn't a fact by any stretch of the imagination &it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory because there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed
Nobody's talking about the Big Bang. The issue is hard evidence for "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" as a scientific fact. Do you have any to proffer?
The typical atheist response, if you can't refute the facts, name call, attack the messengers personally or delete their comments. Speak of lack of education, intellect and unenlightenment "here's your sign" wear it in good health.
No evidence but logic of relativity suggests Earth\humans are so tiny in the universe they are statistically insignificant. The infinite potential for variety out there makes the odds of 'creation' having assumed human like attributes quite low
Theists and Atheists use the art of rhetoric. We cannot know EVERYTHING.Theists make a claim about the existence of God. Atheists argue against that claim. In order to make a claim there has to be sufficient proof for that claim to be taken into consideration. Hypothetically, if Theists do find proof of God's existence Atheists exists mainly to find a way of showing how it isn't God's doing.
To be able to prove something, it MUST be objective or else it cannot exist.
Atheists don't need to disprove the existence of God. Theists were the ones who originally came up with the claim.
Just like in the court-system, the Plaintiff and Defendant share their case. The Plaintiff is accusing the Defendant and must have proof of what he is accusing them for. If the Plaintiff cannot, there is no reason to defend the case that does not exist.
I am Agnostic because of my ignorance and because of the Cosmological Theory. I don't believe in being Theist or Atheist until I have gathered enough information that leads me to believe there is or isn't a God.
Agnosticism is a noble and neutral position to take. However, would you agree it behooves one to take an agnostic stance toward, say, the flying spaghetti monster, simply because there is no proof indicating its nonexistence?
Jake, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a farce. It doesn't and never existed. It was to make fun of religion. If you look up the history of it you'll find out it was just to make fun of religion. It was never intended to be taken seriously...
This isn't about the FSM alone, it is just an example of a multiplicity of things whose existence can't be disproved. The FSM was not created to just "make fun" of religion, rather to point out the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural.
Exactly! I completely agree about that statement concerning the FSM! I couldn't have said it better! It's just sad that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to prove "anything" higher knowing or supernatural..
Hubbers, I know this is a very personal topic for us, but lets do our best to respect each other's viewpoints! I'm not atheist, but to answer the original question, just because you can't disprove the existence of something doesn't mean you have to believe in it. I can't prove to you that there are no blue-spotted flesh-eating aliens somewhere out there, but I find it unlikely to be the case, so I don't believe in it.
Avoiding the argument and dismissing the critic as disrespectful is a cop-out. I don't make personal assaults on anyone. If you disagree with my criticism, argue back or don't, but don't just project your insecurities and uncertainly back onto me.
Jake, I have clearly not avoided the argument based on the number of posts I've made on topic. I'm merely pointing out that comments like "your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect" makes the debate personal.
I don't think there is any way to "defeat" or be "defeated" when a matter of belief is involved. I am not even sure why it is contest. Personally I am fine with what others believe or don't. I can love them all the same.
To be an atheist does not imply a claim to proof against the existence of god, only the claim that the existence of god itself cannot be proven. For more on the burden of proof, please Google the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The burden of proof certainly lies with the claimant. The FSM is a great example of the fact that no outlandish supernatural claim can be disproved. It makes much more sense to develop a worldview based only on that for which there is evidence.
While a lack of evidence for a claim is not proof, it tends to dispel the myths of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and other such imaginative things. But why the god myth won't die for lack of evidence is beyond me.
Interestingly enough, moderate atheists admit that there is evidence for God. Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for instance don't deny it. They just claim that, in their opinion, the evidence is not convincing enough.
Most historians seem to agree that Jesus was real. Proof of a divine deity? No. But something to consider, and something more likely than "the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Personally, I think so. May not be definitive evidence, but it's there.
But there is also no agreement among this theistic majority as to the very nature of this elusive deity. There are psychological explanations for the universality of theistic belief, but I wouldn't expect an ignorant theist to know much about that.
Abrahamic religions are patriarchal and condone genocide/ethnic cleansing, among other things. How dare you wag your finger at me and smugly suggest I should just "respect" it. These religions are not compatible with modern feminism and human dignity
Jake - this is the very reason that I am flabbergasted by women who claim to be Christians! I can understand why men want to control "their women", but I don't understand why women want to be controlled.
@Jake. First, my comment wasn't directed solely at you. Second, please calm down. Is there really a problem with me suggesting we all respect each other's opinions? Yes, some Christians have done terrible things, but they're not all monsters.
To respect Christianity is, for example, to respect chauvinism. It is overly simplistic for you to sit there and claim neutrality. I suppose you also "respect" the totalitarian Islamic oppression of most Middle Easterners. Give me a break.
Why are you attacking me and making assumptions about myself? I am asking you to respect me as a fellow Hubber and human being. If you are incapable of that, HubPages is not the site for you. If you are capable of it, then please show it.
I'm challenging you to think critically. It's not my fault you can't handle tough questions. It is a cop-out when people who are uncomfortable with argumentative critical thinking play the victim and avoid the issues at hand altogether.
Jeremy, anyone who uses the word "you" repeatedly in a condescending manner, i.e., "it is overly simplistic for you", is definitely making it personal. People with successful careers and long-term relationships know better than to talk that way.
OK. You are wrong because you can't prove God doesn't exist. You also are wrong because you tell people "your assertions are simply wrong and indicate a lack of education and intellect." Rudeness has no place in true debating.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. If you are claiming the existence of god, it is not on the atheist to prove your God doesn't exist when you haven't bothered to prove that it does. This is basic debate.
Jake, listen to yourself. Earlier, you accused me of being smug, yet how do your own phrases sound? "Give me a break" and "It's not my fault you can't handle tough questions". Consider that we're not here to "fight back", but to respectfully debate.
Fine, if you can't handle debate (as evidence by your consistent attempts to avoid doing so) then I won't push it any further. Just because you adhere to an rigid definition of debate doesn't mean I should feel wrong for being "disrespectful"
Jake, your earlier belligerent tone was far more suggestive of picking a fight than having a debate. I'm not trying to avoid anything. If you want people to focus on what you're saying (not how you're saying it), phrase it non-insultingly.
You and others are claiming that I believe God exists -- using your own definition of God. "The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim." And you didn't address my key point. You can't prove God doesn't exist.
I'm saying your question is absurd since no evidence supporting the existence of god has been presented. You're shifting the burden of proof, which is a fallacy, and also bring dishonest by inventing claims that we haven't made.
Because you know your question is absurdly backwards, which is why you're pushing it so insistently. I'll make a deal with you. Prove definitively that universe creating pixies do not exist, and I'll use your methods to disprove a god.
I'm pushing it consistently because you refuse to answer a simple yes or no answer. Even when I was an atheist, I was not afraid to answer such a question. Nor am I convinced today that God exists as defined by church teachings. I can still say no.
Jag, my point was that whether a hubber believes or not in God's existence, HubPages should be a place where we can respectfully discuss the topic, even if we don't all agree. And personal attacks or condescending tones shouldn't be present.
Julie, I agree it can be subjective. But some phrases are distinguishable as belligerent. For example, does "Give me a break" and "How dare you smugly suggest" sound like reasonable thoughts to you? Just doesn't sound like a professional debate.
Jeremy, this isn't a formal, professional debating site. It's a writing site. If you don't like the quality of responses, you don't have to keep responding. No one gets to control what other people say or how they react
I agree with that point, Scott. And Julie, I'd like to mention that while it's true this isn't a professional debate site, HubPages has official rules of conduct. Please read the "Keep it Civil" note at http://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules
It's still subjective, Jeremy. The moderators respond to posts that are reported, and anyone can be reported for anything. After being here for over 2 years, I'm quite familiar, but what u see as an attack is probably not how I'd see one.
Julie, I'll agree that we have different perceptions. Perhaps this isn't the case for you, but to me, phrases like "You can't handle tough questions" seem unnecessary and mean-spirited. I hope one day atheists and believers can get along.
As long as many believers keep telling us about eternal torture, ridicule and insult us, I imagine some atheists will remark in kind. for me, why should I care if a stranger was rude to me on the Internet? It doesn't affect my life. Ignore it
Julie, please do not attribute the faults of some believers to every believer. I have not ridiculed you or any atheist, and I'm sorry you've been persecuted. Hubbers shouldn't have to ignore something when it isn't permitted in the first place.
I specifically said many and some. Not all. Nor do I claim to be persecuted. Ridicule and afterworld threats are nowhere near persecution. Neither are Christians persecuted in this country simply by being disagreed with or opposed.
Lela, you seem exasperated by me. May I ask why? If, hypothetically, at your favorite diner I walked up and called you "stupid", are you at fault for feeling put down, or am I at fault for being disrespectful? Would it be fair for u to not return?
That's fair, Lela. But where would the fault lie? Julie, I know you used those terms; my apologies if I offended you. My point was just a reminder that some believers are accepting people, regardless of whether you believe or not.
The interest here isn't in laying blame, but in creating a better foundation for a thoughtful and respectful environment. Thus, I believe transgressions should be addressed. I'll stop posting, though, so we can get back to the original question.
@Link, Welcome back from a long hiatus. Why is it you pop up out of nowhere to gang up on people you disagree with? Why don't you offer something other than an insult? Your tone is mocking. Write another hub or something.
I'm amazed at the miraculous claim of determining someone's tone over the Internet and the willingness to dictate what complete strangers should be doing instead of asking a question? Why choose to take offense rather than contribute productively?
Aside from the fact that it is entirely subjective, aren't you doing the exact same thing? Popping up out of nowhere to criticize a person, telling him what to do instead of contributing to the actual conversation? Isn't that hypocritical?
If that was the main critique, is baffling how it was the very last thing mentioned, almost like an afterthought. Telling other people what to do simply for not liking their tone or methods doesn't mean much.
So u can say someone is "hypocritical" because that is a fact, but I am making personal accusations when I say a "fact" about u. I love how u use loaded language. U have a gift. That takes years of practice.
I asked her if her behavior was hypocritical, I did not say she was a hypocrite. There's a difference. Your opinion that I cherry pick is entirely subjective. We cannot all respond to everything 24/7, which means we choose, yes. We ALL do that.
No, u implied she was hypocritical in that question. U also cherry picked the part of her statement. That is different than not being able 2 comment on everything. U took her statement out of context and used only the part for your critique.
@Jeremy, there is a difference between using strong and gruff language when arguing and walking up to someone in a restaurant and calling them "stupid". I have not even come close to calling you stupid. It is very immature to just play the victim...
Jake, I never claimed you called me stupid, and I'm not playing a victim, nor am I immature. Would you kindly stop saying I am smug, immature, intellectually lazy, and things of such nature? We can do better than this.
I did not directly call you smug, immature, and intellectually lazy, rather I described your conduct in this way. I just find it strange how you seem so fixated on attacking my methods of discourse rather than engaging in the topic of discussion.
Jake, if your "methods of discourse" include negatively labeling people solely because of a simple reminder for us to respect each other, then they are flawed. If you're interested, my opinion on God's existence is that none of us can prove our views
I understand that. I'll mention things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and historian's agreement of Jesus's existence as bits of evidence. Additionally, the scientist Hugh Ross has some good Youtube videos, but it's not conclusive proof, even to me.
Again, this is not about positive evidence for God's existence, rather the double negative lack of disproof for his evidence and how that is used in debates about the nature of the world and the universe.
I think the two topics are connected, and worth discussing. We have evidence for God's existence. Whether the evidence is compelling or not is up to perspective. And yes, neither side can disprove the other, which often turns debates into stalemates.
I have believers telling me all the time that if evidence were possible, there would be no need for faith. Yet you're claiming to have positive evidence not only for a god, but for a specific one? I'd love to see it.
Remember, I'm using "evidence", not "proof". The Dead Sea Scrolls provide support as to the validity of the Bible, most historians agree that Jesus existed, and if you have *lots* of time, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY
What are you saying the dead sea scrolls prove? That the Bible exists? No one questions that. Earlier copies have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the stories are true. Also, authority and popularity arguments for Jesus don't mean much
Julie, I already said it's not proof. They indicate that the Bible from today is essentially the same as the one from back then. And I quite disagree; historians establishing Jesus's existence is a good first step for lending credit to the Bible.
The only evidence for a historical jesus are the Bible and writings long after he supposedly lived by people who could have easily gotten the common beliefs from Christians. No eyewitnesses, no contemporary sources.
So, you're saying that the sources might not be reliable. Hmm, who knows? Debra mentioned Josephus, who also wrote about Jesus, but some argue the validity of those writings. Maybe it's honest, maybe not. It's up to us to decide what we believe.
Almost no scholars accept Josephus, and the testimony doesn't appear for several hundred years. I'm saying all the chips in the world mean little if the stories never happened. We have dozens of examples of that that no one believes are true.
Like I said, there's not enough evidence either way for a conclusive decision. It comes down to what you believe. Consider examining Hugh Ross's youtube video I linked to. It's lengthy, but offers some interesting arguments.
Some of the evidence, such as points Dr Ross brought up, make a lot sense to me and have something of a scientific background, even if they're not definitive proof. For me, it's enough, though it may not be for others.
Maggie, I know it's lengthy, but the video I linked to mentions some interesting things about the Bible from a scientist's point of view. I don't think we have any obvious conclusions one way or the other, but it's not like there's no evidence at all
Quite a statement to declare, Maggie. I never claimed to have proof, and the evidence is too complex to properly sum up in this comment. But basically, the Bible's depiction of *some* creation aspects closely matches scientific analyses.
Maggie, one of the comments in that link lists a response to that post by Ross that counters many of its claims. The responses back and forth could go on forever. My overall point is, there's evidence on both sides that's inconclusive.
Jeremy -- You are deluding yourself. You have no proof. If you want to believe in your god on faith, that is one thing. But don't drag logic and science into it and claim it supports your belief, when it obviously doesn't.
Harsh words, Maggie. I've stated already that I have no proof. None of us do; therefore, I find your use of the word "obviously" odd. The evidence I've researched and conclusions I've drawn is enough for me. It just isn't enough for everyone.
A bit late on my part star but can you explain to me how asking a question to one person is considered ganging up on multiple people and mocking? That is If you can get past the hypocritical bs of your own comment, which reminds me of an old HP user
Jag, its cool if I answer? I don't think you ganged up on me. You didn't use mocking words or anything, you simply asked a question and I answered. Please feel free to ask me more in the future, if you wish. Hope everyone here has a great Easter day.
That's exactly what I've been saying my friend..You see many atheist seem to believe that it's Christians who want's proof but in fact Christians don't need proof because they have faith (anti-proof) you just can't prove faith! However many atheists fail to see this especially with the bible verse 1Co:2:9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 1Co:2:10: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1Co:2:11: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1Co:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1Co:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1Co:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
HENCE THEY WILL NOT UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IN FACT THEY WILL AS THE SCRIPTURES SAYS THINK OUR BELIEFS ARE FOOLISHNESS! Good question
I believe that there are different types of atheism as there are different types of beliefs. Many atheists believe there is no god because there hasn't been a way to prove there is a god through the scientific method. Others lean toward agnosticism by saying we really don't know and can't prove a god one way or another.
Logically, you can't prove a negative, but realistically one can look at the facts presented by both sides and come up with a rational conclusion, if one were actually unbiased. But we all have dogs in that fight, so to speak, so being unbiased isn't exactly what we, as humans, do terribly well.
I think that most of us who are agnostic or atheistic just really don't want to be bothered by the religious rhetoric. I'm actually less agnostic than I used to be largely because of some experiences I won't bore you with, but I stand in science's court on this.
I went from agnostic to staunch atheist when I came to understand that claiming the existence of something does not automatically give it a philosophical 50/50 chance of being so. One could claim anything and then counter "you can't prove it DOESN'T"
Jake, it's weird, but I became less agnostic and more toward being a believer in a god, but not in the Judeo-Xian-Islam god. And yes, you're absolutely right. Anyone can claim anything. I do not claim I am right which is why I agree with you on this.
I have never heard a believer justify their belief in God by the mere fact that God cannot be disproved. I have however heard that rebuttal when an atheist picks an argument by asking "Prove God exists". If one doesn't believe, then that is fine with me, I don't care, but try to pick a fight with me over what I believe and that is the answer you will get. My thought is that if you want to say I am wrong, prove it. I don't come to your atheist meetings or whatever it is you do and say you are wrong.
There is a difference between telling a believer that they're wrong and asking them to quantify or demonstrate that they're right, especially if they're trying to convince us to convert and believe what they do.
Somebody talks to me about God and tells me I should try Jesus like some kind of spiritual milkshake several times a week in daily life, not on hubpages. I don't want to instigate fights, I look for intelligent discussions. Define provoked.
You say u seek intelligent discussions, yet u r the 1 that wrote about "no-win conversation". If believers only harass u then why not ignore them. If we cannot offer u proof, why ask? 90% of ur hubs r against religion. That enough? lol
Some people cannot have intelligent conversation. I do ignore them. Others can. I was raised in religion. Ive studied it. I'm a student of history, and religion surrounds me and influences my culture. Why wouldn't I talk about it?
Same goes for my beliefs and others like me, so we can stop the needless "intelligent conversations" and u and other atheists can stop asking for proof. Now, don't you feel better that we cleared that all up?
Don't be asking people to believe something unless you have proof of the thing you are asking people to believe in. We have never seen proof and that is why we don't believe. Believers are the ones saying that they have this so-called proof.
I'm not going to stop having conversations just because you think they're pointless. I learn and grow and gain understanding from them. Maybe you don't, which would make them pointless for you, not me.
Fair enough J. I challenge u 2 write a Hub that lists the positive things u have learned from others about religion. Let's c if u can walk the walk or if u r just blowing hot air. Deb & lel, did I do those things 2 u? ok don't lump every1 n2 1 la
Sure, once you write a hub on the positive things you've learned from atheists and those of every belief that is not your own. this may come as a shock, but I don't answer to you or particularly care if you think I'm blowing hot air or not.
No. I never said I learned anything positive from atheists. I actually said "I don't care" in my answer 2 the question, so why would I waste my time? Also, u answer a challenge w/ a challenge that proves u r not sincere, which means u r trolling.
Whatever you say. :-) life's really easy when you put all the responsibility and accusations on others so you don't have to shoulder any yourself. Again, I don't answer to you and your opinion of me really couldn't matter to me less. Bye :-)
I made no accusations against you. Perhaps you should read it again. If believers seek out the conversion of non believers, they have to be able to show that what they're saying is true. I'm not sure how that can be seen as an accusation.
Is that an accusation or a statement of fact? People do try to convert me. They do it because they day that's what their beliefs mandate they do. That's a far cry from telling someone who disagrees with you that they're a troll or inventing intent
There are a lot of thing that exist but science can not explain. In ancient time, there was a lot more people can't explain (e.g. why it rain, why the water tie rise and fall) and they explain it with super nature story. Today, we have explain most if it with science, but there are still some, that can't be explain, but because we have explain most of the obvious, we start thinking the myth we can't explain are plan none sense. But many of them really exist, we just can't explain it. e.g. Asian myth believe by looking facial feature you can tell their personality and they have entire book on what work and what don't work, today's science have proven it to be real. There is link between facial DNA and personality DNA. The same apply to god. I believe there is something out there, that we humans interpret as god. But what it is? Modern science still can't explain it.
Unicorns exist. They are called Indian rhinos. Not to mention any number of two horns animals that occasionally give birth to one horned mutations. Now you don't have to believe or disbelieve in unicorns because you have proof they exist.
That is why it is called a belief. If I had proof positive of God there would be no reason for me to have faith. I am not demanding that you believe. You can't help that you don't the same way I can't help that I do. We shall have to agree to disagree and be besties anyway.
How can you not be a Pastafarian if you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
How can you not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn if you can't disprove her existence?
How can you not believe in leprechauns if you can't prove that they aren't just hiding behind the next tree when you look for them?
While it is possible that a God could exist (just like it is remotely possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist), there is no evidence whatsoever to compel me to accept this scientifically worthless hypothesis as fact.
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they persist to say the same words, example a husband and wife claims to love one...
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
Google AdSense Host API
We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels
We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google Analytics
Amazon Tracking Pixel