How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?

Jump to Last Post 1-36 of 36 discussions (466 posts)

84
Spongy0llamaposted 9 years ago
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?
reply report
99
chef-de-jourposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
2. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you were to get a detailed account of each experience from those people, you would not get a consistent answer.
  
  Would the fact that people believe they have experienced Allah, buddah, Zeus etc mean that they also exist?
  reply report
3. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
5. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ....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.
  reply report
6. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Link, put 1 billion people from 100 different countries into a room. Do you think all 1 billion will say the same thing and describe an experience in the exact same way?
  reply report
7. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
8. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
9. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The point has been missed by you multiple times. You even repeated the point I initially made and now you are saying something different.
  
  My only interpretation of god I have made is based on yours which said it is all the same experience.
  reply report
10. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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..
  reply report
12. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peace be with you.
  reply report
13. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Direct quote - "why does your lone experience lead you to believe that God doesn't exist and everyone else is wrong?" YOU are saying it is "wrong". So yes, someone brought that up!
  reply report
14. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Parse away.
  reply report
85
Austinstarposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you! The thing is that everyone has their own set of beliefs and ideology. Yours may be different from mine, but that doesn't make it bad or good, just 'different'. And it's OK to be different.
  reply report
3. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Which god specifically AC? I feel your response will only show how biased you are and why you shouldn't be taken seriously.
  
  But do show me wrong. It would be a nice change of pace for once.
  reply report
5. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently, AC - YOU think that you can outthink your 'god'! You think your judgement is ever so perfect.
  reply report
6. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
7. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
8. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
9. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  First, your particular beliefs do not bother me personally.
  
  Second, if you think atheists have an issue with everyone of faith simply because they believe in a god you seem to be the one under a very huge misconception.
  reply report
10. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
11. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
13. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
14. 75
  Cobrafanposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
15. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Earlier it sounded as if you thought all atheists had a problem with anyone of faith, yet now you are saying not all atheists are the same.
  
  Which is it exactly? Your stance seems to jump around quite a bit, makes it difficult to grasp.
  reply report
16. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  There in ONE and only one thing that ALL atheists have in common - We do not believe in a god or gods. Every other belief or disbelief is up to the individual - just as it is in believers.
  reply report
17. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
18. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think you misunderstand my wording. My question is about whether the double negative inability to disprove God's existence quantifiably justifies theism.
  reply report
19. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "We are not making the claim that a god or gods exist." Yes, but you ARE making a claim that God does not exist, therefore you require proof for your claim.
  reply report
20. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  promisem - I am making the claim that "I AM AN ATHEIST". How does that affect whatever it is that YOU believe in? If i said that "I AM A RED HEAD". How would that affect you being a brunette?
  reply report
21. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Austinstar, I don't see how that addresses my point. I am responding to your comments that atheists don't have to argue proof for their beliefs while non-atheists do.
  reply report
22. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  and I was responding to your comment - "" Yes, but you ARE making a claim that God does not exist, therefore you require proof for your claim."
  reply report
23. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
24. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
25. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
26. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
27. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
28. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That burden falls on you if you claim the rest of us are wrong and that God doesn't exist.
  reply report
29. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, thank you for avoiding the question and proving the point I was getting at so clearly. Have a nice day promise.
  reply report
30. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Another diversion.
  reply report
31. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Just answer ONE question promisem, "Why has no one EVER in history EVER proved that a god or gods exist"? If you want someone to believe you, just provide some evidence. Just ONE piece of evidence!
  reply report
32. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
33. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So, that's the argument you make to the claim, "you can't disprove the existence of God"? That is your evidence?
  reply report
34. 60
  SavannahhhRoseposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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)
  reply report
35. 51
  KevinDoyle123posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The part belief here is important the difference in ideologies of each one and believing in them is more important than Ideology itself
  reply report
36. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
37. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
38. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Pro
  
  Brilliant reasoning!!
  reply report
39. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
40. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  As, you are making an assumption there is a money trail for the sake of disputing my point. You don't know for a fact that there is.
  reply report
41. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I do not think you need proof to be a believer. I was agnostic for a long time before I started reading about the history of religion its amazing what you find when you actually do your homework.
  reply report
42. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Psem that is why I'm saying there needs to be an investigation. Pleas read my comments carefully before replying.
  reply report
43. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How does atheism affect me personally? Only when closed-minded atheists treat non-atheists with contempt.
  reply report
44. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Psem - Do vegetarians treat you with 'contempt' when you eat meat? Does that stop you from eating meat?
  reply report
45. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jake, I suggest deleting this question altogether. The number of insults flying back and forth have become seriously counterproductive.
  reply report
46. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
47. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
48. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
  ― Stuart Chase
  reply report
49. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  People who believe without proof are being manipulated by someone else and are not able to live to their full potential.
  reply report
50. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  True spiritual experience is proof to many people. Can you acknowledge that some people have had experiences that you have not had? Yes or no.
  reply report
51. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  People who believe without proof may just have faith. Whether that's wondrous or naive depends on perspective.
  reply report
52. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Faith is a byproduct of spiritual experience. Many atheists falsely assume it is the primary driver of theism.
  reply report
53. 68
  reinhardBeckposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
40
Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How does your theoretical need for "much more than exceptional intellect" in order to design creation prove the existence of a creator? This kind of philosophical speculation is not viable evidence.
  reply report
2. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, the flying spaghetti monster is indeed almighty. Pair him up with Thor and the well cooked noodlely goodness never ends.
  reply report
3. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
4. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Spongy
  
  It's quite simple really. If merely copying something from nature requires extraordinary effort then it stands to reason that the original was the product of even greater effort by a sentient entity.
  reply report
5. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
6. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @ Joseph
  
  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.
  reply report
7. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Austin
  Child's play for people like you or child's play to the PhDs?
  
  @Spongy
  If intelligence is needed to merely copy systems and designs found in nature then obviously the existence of the original also had to be the product of an intelligence
  reply report
8. 0
  SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
9. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
10. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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".
  reply report
11. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I personally do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. What category do I fall in?
  reply report
12. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  AC - If you do not believe in the FSM, then you are ATHEISTIC toward that particular "god", Proving you are an atheist.
  reply report
13. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Austinstar
  
  You know, you never did tell me, how many people have you and yours killed with a blood transfusion?
  reply report
14. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
15. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it isn't an odd question to ask, assuming you do back alley blood transfusions with no medical preparation whatsoever that is.
  
  Logical first assumption
  reply report
16. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I feel he is trying to accuse me of killing people! I have certifications in Tx and Hawaii to do blood transfusions. That was my career specialty. So, yes, I do find it a very odd question.
  reply report
17. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Austinstar
  
  You mean to tell me no one has ever died from Sepsis, Acute Kidney failure, Intravascular Coagulation or a Hemolytic reaction as a result of transfused blood?
  reply report
18. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Joseph I will admit that you truly are a master at twisting words. Bravo.
  reply report
19. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think the creator is the Holy Spirit" you do not mess with that- karma is a ...well you know! yet please view my comments below..
  reply report
20. 60
  SavannahhhRoseposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
89
Billie Kelpinposted 9 years ago
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!
reply report
1. 71
  Insightful Tigerposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is one of the most honest answers I have ever read on a forum like this.
  reply report
2. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
80
Laura Schneiderposted 9 years ago
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...
reply report
1. 93
  Thomas Swanposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that cultural narratives play a major role. The way scripture has been venerated for centuries has lent undue credence to it.
  reply report
3. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That means billions of people over thousands of years are all wrong...
  reply report
4. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  People were wrong about the earth being the center of the universe as well as it being flat. We learned from that.
  
  Religion just happens to take an extremely long time to admit it COULD be wrong let alone actually learn from a mistake.
  reply report
5. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
6. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
7. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
8. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Not too sure why you seem to think I don't know my own stance. Getting down to specifics, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any gods but I don't claim none exist.
  
  And no, i don't think we are quite on the same page still.
  reply report
9. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'm simply acknowleging something you said where I think we are in agreement. There is such a thing as searching for common ground instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.
  reply report
10. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Fine. Prove it's not Creation.
  reply report
13. 60
  Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
0
AC-DCposted 9 years ago
Like the quote says: If God was not real there would be no reason to have atheists.
reply report
1. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If God was not real, there would be no NEED to have atheists.
  reply report
2. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If god was real and theists could prove it, there would be no reason to have atheists.
  
  One side seems to be slacking quite a bit wouldn't you say...
  reply report
3. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I should have phrased my comment, "If God was not real, everyone would be an atheist!" LOL
  reply report
4. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "If there was no God, there would be no reason to be an atheist."
  Sorry thats' what I get for typing toofast.
  reply report
5. 72
  Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's some strange logic you're using there.
  
  If humans didn't create the idea of God, there would be no reason to be an atheist. It has nothing to do with its actual existence.
  reply report
6. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It has everything to do with his existence. Atheists talk more about God than Christians. All 3% of you
  reply report
7. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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. :-)
  reply report
8. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Just like you are doing now. POINT PROVEN!
  reply report
9. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine that, talking about gods in response to a comment that talked about god first.
  
  Who would have thought...
  reply report
10. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  AC - Your depth of misinterpretation of the written word amazes me.
  reply report
12. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So why do you choose to waste your time as well?
  The point behind discussing anything is to consider other viewpoints if you didn't know.
  
  And it would only be frivolous if theists could prove their gods existed. So again, that side is sorely lacking
  reply report
13. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
14. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Link! If only theists could just prove that even ONE "god" actually exists. It would clear up so many things.
  reply report
15. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
16. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I never said you were wrong. I said, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD OR GODS. Note the use of the word "I" (meaning me.) You are the one insisting that I am wrong.
  reply report
17. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I do not believe that I have mentioned any names Mam. Nor, have I directed my comments at one person. Wishing everyone a great day!
  reply report
18. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  YouTube TTA Podcast 206, that's a pretty good reason not to be quiet about things all the time.
  
  And no rational atheist would argue consistent, undeniable proof of a god. People of different religions certainly would so please get your bias straight
  reply report
19. 0
  AC-DCposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
20. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ac - good luck with that!
  reply report
21. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
22. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
23. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jennings, you ARE the problem with all your prejudice. Judge not lest ye be judged.
  reply report
24. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
25. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Mmm...and Christianity has maimed and murdered to get where its at now.
  
  Yet somehow it still hasnt managed to prove itself right over other religions. Would it be accurate to say there is no need for religion then if it does those two things?
  reply report
26. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
27. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jennings That is NOT what you said. I re-read your comments. God was't on money before the 1950's and wasn't in the constitution. Who possesed someone to put it there in the first place?
  reply report
70
ptosisposted 9 years ago
Not sure if this is what you are looking for but @ https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosop … ative.html

Steven D. Hales Professor of Philosophy says that you can prove a negative.

" ... a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. ... In other words, we use inferences — induction — from past experiences in every aspect of our lives ... "
reply report
75
Cobrafanposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Cobrafan, very well said and written.
  reply report
2. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You say there is "just too little evidence of any deity existing." To what evidence are you referring to?
  reply report
60
Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago
How can you be a Christian if you can't disprove the existence of Xbalanque? Or Kali? Or Thor?
reply report
1. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
3. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @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.
  reply report
4. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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).
  reply report
5. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I brought that up to a christian on here once and they outright denied they were an atheist of whatever god I mentioned. Didn't make a lick of sense and I can't remember if I got insulted afterwards.
  reply report
6. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
7. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the argumentative ones ignore the question, i.e., Are you saying with certainty that God doesn't exist? It's a yes or no question.
  reply report
8. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
9. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Spongy0llama, I respect your focus on debating the issue logically. How can you be certain that God doesn't exist if you can't prove he doesn't exist?
  reply report
10. 60
  Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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."
  reply report
11. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Zelk
  
  Sure you can. Here's proof, for example, that Santa Claus can't exist in reality: http://bit.ly/185Tf1D
  
  Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty.
  reply report
12. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
13. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OK, AS, I agree.
  reply report
14. 60
  Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
15. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Zelk
  
  Then you're just making a distinction without a difference ...
  reply report
16. 74
  Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
57
Jessica8526posted 9 years ago
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?
reply report
1. 57
  Jessica8526posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
2. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Many care what people think- otherwise why even post? we should value all opinions, and continue to seek answers..much love!
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
52
Eddy Vonposted 9 years ago
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!
reply report
1. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
2. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I do remember that being the central theme of Dan Browns the lost symbol.
  reply report
4. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I find spiritualists often play with words like "love" "feeling" "emotion" etc., all of which are well understood in terms of psychology and neuroscience.
  
  Anecdotal evidence of miracles are not sufficient proof of the supernatural.
  reply report
5. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  for give my prior response that it is proven: it is a theoretical hypothesis which is gaining more scientific evidence through modern technology. Here is an interesting article for all to read. http://horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38
  reply report
6. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
7. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Austinstar : The article and clinical studies is not for NDE rather it discusses the difference in weight before and after death.
  reply report
8. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I did not see that. I read the 2014 conclusion of their "study". What page was the weight of dead bodies discussed on?
  reply report
9. 68
  Boots Iaconoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Basically, we haven't come up with a scientific God detector yet... very good analogy. Wish I thought of it.
  reply report
10. 53
  Nat Kposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
0
promisemposted 9 years ago
Too often the debate comes down to logic and proof. Some people have spiritual experiences that provide them with all the proof they need.

Some things can't be "proven" to other people on either side of the debate, any more than someone can prove the existence of aliens.

Anyone who doesn't understand that fact will end up an atheist, agnostic or zealot.

I say this as a former atheist who found my proof.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe it's possible that God exists? Or do you believe with certainty that God does not exist?
  reply report
5. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Basically, I am not making the claim that "God does not exist", I am making the claim that "I am an atheist". See the difference?
  reply report
6. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I believe only in that for which there is evidence. There is no real evidence for God's existence or anything supernatural, so it plays no role in my world view.
  reply report
7. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
8. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, of course! Objective physical evidence is exactly what I would need to believe in the supernatural. As it is, there is not a shred of evidence.
  reply report
9. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
10. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ....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?
  reply report
11. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
13. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Do keep the facts straight promise. If we are talking about me personally, I attack blind faith that demands acceptance with absolutely nothing backing it.
  
  So far, most atheists i see on here have similar mindsets
  reply report
14. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  AS and Link, you are twisting my words as usual. Link, the only common mindset is you and AS. At least spongyollama tries to have an honest and respectful debate without resorting to zealotry.
  reply report
15. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
16. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Link, Psem seems to misunderstand quite a few of the English definitions for our words. As a former atheist, I would be interested in knowing about the 'proof' Scott has found.
  reply report
75
Steven Gomezposted 9 years ago
An atheist isn't interested in proving or disproving anything. An atheist simply lives while lacking the belief in a higher power.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have asked for proof probably 100s of times. No one has any shred of verifiable evidence for gods or santa. So, that is why religionists come back with, "No, YOU prove it doesn't exist!"
  reply report
3. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Burden of proof lies with the person who insists on telling us this "truth."
  reply report
5. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maggie, that just went right over your head. Obviously you didn't read what I wrote or you must be feeling frisky and itching for an argument.
  reply report
68
Boots Iaconoposted 9 years ago
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?
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Spongy
  
  Prove it. Prove God does not nor cannot exist ...
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Because you claim that all of us theists are delusional. For that to be true you need to prove that God does not nor cannot exist. That or retract your preposterous claim.
  reply report
5. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It makes more sense for me to ask you to prove your preposterous claim that God exists.
  reply report
6. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Actually it makes more sense for you to prove your own claim. Or are you too afraid to?
  reply report
7. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
8. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  All of a sudden you're too timid to present some actual evidence for your belief in God's nonexistence?
  reply report
9. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This discussion would be more productive if we distinguish belief from proof. You can believe or disbelieve in the existance of God, but you can't prove or disprove that existence empirically.
  reply report
10. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Neither does God.
  reply report
12. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You keep saying that but you've yet to prove it, Spongy. Where is your evidence God does not nor cannot exist? Time to put up or ...
  reply report
13. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
14. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What a cop-out ...
  
  You can't make a claim and then run away from it ...
  reply report
15. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yet you do it all the time Joseph...
  
  Do as I say not as I do kinda guy aren't you...
  reply report
53
Nat Kposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I take issue with people who give themselves over to blind faith when ignorance and scientific illiteracy are clearly factors.
  reply report
4. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have a very hard time believing that anyone who has a basis of science or philosophy or apologetics finds this movie anything but humorous
  reply report
5. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Spongy
  
  Prove that we're apes.
  reply report
6. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
7. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
8. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
9. 0
  SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Jake. I would love to see all those MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution.
  reply report
10. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Talkorigins.org
  reply report
11. 0
  SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, JM but I would like something a little more specific. Talkorigins is a site you must sign up for to view, or it used to be. EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong. I can view the site now.
  reply report
61
Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, the truth is what matters. So prove the truth of your belief that God does not nor cannot exist ...
  reply report
5. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am not responsible for proving God's non-existence. I live in a world in which there is no evidence for his existence, therefore, there is no rational reason to believe that he does exist.
  reply report
6. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's pretty bombastic considering all of the tangible evidence for God's necessary existence ...
  reply report
7. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
8. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Joseph
  
  Please enlighten me. Of what tangible evidence for God's existence do you speak?
  reply report
9. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The existence of all Creation demands a Creator.
  reply report
10. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
12. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence. It is only rational to accept that which is based on evidence and to criticize blind faith.
  reply report
13. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
14. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If it's not Creation what is it?
  reply report
15. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have yet to encounter a theist who is able to offer any evidence for the existence of God which is not merely toying with words like "creation", "love", "emotion", "design", etc.
  reply report
16. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
17. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is not Creation. It simply is.
  reply report
18. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
19. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
20. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
21. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Are you people attacking a specific definition of God or the existence of a higher spiritual experience that can't yet be explained? It's hard to tell.
  reply report
22. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Spongy
  
  Prove it's not Creation.
  reply report
23. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
24. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
25. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
26. 74
  Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
27. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
67
samanthamjordanposted 9 years ago
This question can obviously go both ways; how can you be religious if you can not prove the existence of God?

I realize there are "miracles" and "feelings," but what concrete evidence do you have to prove His existence?

The only example I can think of is the bible, and that is a man-made invention.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is amazing how poorly the bible holds up to scrutiny, but more amazing still how bad people are at admitting it.
  reply report
2. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  what concrete proof do you have God does not exist?
  reply report
5. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
6. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Actually there is on some of those if you look at the origins of the myths. For example Medusa was created to put kids to sleep when they were younger because they were afraid to open their eyes.
  reply report
50
bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Agree completely. Closed-minded atheists lump everything religious into one big pile and attack the flaws. Open-minded atheists make the kind of distinctions that you provided.
  reply report
2. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
3. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jake: even in the dictionary: Evil is defined as "Satan" and Satan is defined as "evil".
  reply report
4. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What is your point? Satan has been a metaphorically symbolic representation of evil in the Western world for centuries. And?
  reply report
61
Vandall8888posted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The majority of Atheists you'll find on here believe God does not nor cannot exist. Interestingly enough, though, they have absolutely zero evidence for their claim.
  reply report
2. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The existence of all Creation demands a Creator.
  reply report
4. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus Christ is a piece of evidence if you look at what he did you would be amazed at the fact that lots of his miracles are in more places then just religious history.
  reply report
5. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
6. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I am talking about the fact that Jesus was here and preformed miracles. I never said he was a god, but the things he did are a mystery.
  reply report
7. 0
  Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus Christ did exist, and he did perform miracles. The proof is the word of the people who have passed his stories down through generations.
  reply report
8. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm all of Thor's legends and miracles have been passed down as well.
  reply report
9. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
10. 61
  Vandall8888posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you do your research on greek myths like i did you would see that they have been PROVEN myths for example, Medusa was created to put kids to sleep when they were little.
  reply report
11. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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..
  reply report
68
reinhardBeckposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  reply report
2. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The reality of all Creation demands a Creator. 'Nuff said.
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You calling it creation is not the same as it being creation.
  reply report
4. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
5. 74
  Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
6. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
73
tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

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?

No!

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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Brilliant observations Jatko!!
  reply report
3. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Nipping it in the bud early..bravo spongy. Saved yourself a migraine.
  reply report
5. 60
  Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If we're going to engage in reductio ad absurdum, let's sum up Christianity, then, shall we:
  
  Christianity: "A wizard did it!"
  reply report
6. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You won't argue because you are hiding behind another tactic "when you can't refute the facts demean and attack the messenger" which tells a whole lot about your lack of education and intellect.
  reply report
7. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I won't argue with you because you are wrong on so many counts that I can not properly deal with all of your absurd arguments within a 250 character limit.
  reply report
8. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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".
  reply report
9. 52
  Eddy Vonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
10. 0
  Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Very good answer, Tsad! I agree 100%!
  reply report
11. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
13. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
14. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
15. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Abstract thought? Forget that! How about some actual historical evidence for your absurd claim?
  reply report
16. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah,abstract thought,not facts/actual observable evidence.You are saying you need more faith to believe in evolution which doesn't even qualify as a theory https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of- … en-theory/ than God!
  reply report
17. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
18. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
19. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Prove it then. Prove that "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" is a scientific fact.
  reply report
20. 60
  Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Cosmic background radiation is pretty convincing proof of the Big Bang. Now where's your proof that "a wizard did it" is a scientific fact?
  reply report
21. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
22. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
23. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Joe, I got this, If Z knew anything about the big bang he'd know that the only explanation for it is supernatural. Her is your proof http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/universeorigin.htm zelkiiro, meet your wizard or should I say your maker
  reply report
24. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'm done going in circles with this. If you simply refuse to accept the facts, I am not interested in arguing it any further. You win by default. No need to rub it in my face.
  reply report
25. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jake, you have experienced these two trolls now. Trust me, it's better to delete them than argue with them. Or if you don't want to delete them, then totally ignore them.
  reply report
26. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
27. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Joseph and TSAD, you are not alone.
  reply report
28. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh goody! Someone let out the trolls. I'll get Thor to squash them. ;-)
  reply report
29. 74
  Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Virtually any material thing you can think of that has order, purpose, design, beauty was created by intelligent beings"
  Ever seen a spider's web? How intelligent do you think the spider is?
  reply report
74
lone77starposted 9 years ago
Lack of evidence can never prove or disprove anything. To claim such would be an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy.

Some topics do not lend themselves to scientific analysis or disprovability. For something like God, there is no test anyone could conduct on the topic.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. If there exists no evidence for something, then there is no rational reason to believe that it exists.
  reply report
2. 61
  Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
60
Phil Perezposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 89
  Billie Kelpinposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I like your court-system analogy, Phil.
  reply report
2. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
3. 60
  Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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...
  reply report
4. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
5. 60
  Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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..
  reply report
38
rahmat54146posted 9 years ago
our hearts are going to talk about faith in god
reply report
94
Jeremy Gillposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jeremy, pseudo intellectuals who say they want to debate an issue are actually seeking validation for their beliefs. When they don't get it, they get angry and make the debate personal.
  reply report
2. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Scot, when one has actually has already lost the debate is when accusations like that are used, to make the debate personal, about something else, rather than concede defeat.
  reply report
5. 74
  Besarienposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
67
Luke M Simmonsposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 67
  Luke M Simmonsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Jake & @Lela: I exactly agree. Both of these statements are thoroughly rational and eloquently stated.
  reply report
4. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
5. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And how many religionists have given up that fantasy and become atheists or agnostics? I suspect it is 10 times more than atheists reverting to "faith".
  reply report
6. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
7. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And you would be wrong. Last time I checked most of the world's population has been and continues to be Theistic.
  reply report
8. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
9. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Let's try and respect each other's views, guys.
  reply report
10. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
11. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @Lela, women have been oppressed for so long, I do not think they can do on their own. Way back when women did have the autority they were burned at the stake...
  reply report
13. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @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.
  reply report
14. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
15. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
16. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
17. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
18. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, Scott. Hubbers, non-believers and believers alike, should be above personal assaults. There's a large difference between "tough" questions (or statements) and disrespectful ones.
  reply report
19. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is intellectual laziness to avoid responding to an argument, opting instead to dismiss the other as disrespectful and condescending. If you feel offended, fight back and tell me why I'm wrong.
  reply report
20. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
21. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
22. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
23. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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"
  reply report
24. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Julie, please read my post again. I'm not saying God does exist. I'm saying you can't prove God doesn't exist. You are making the claims, not me.
  reply report
25. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
26. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me what claim I made. I have never said god doesn't exist. I simply don't believe in any gods because none have been proven. A lack of belief is in no way a claim.
  reply report
27. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
28. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one saying that atheists are wrong because we can't prove god doesn't exist. We don't have to. No one has proven or demonstrated or even defined a god. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … %27t_exist
  reply report
29. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's a simple question. Can you prove God doesn't exist? Yes or no.
  reply report
30. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
31. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, and no one can prove that god does exist.
  
  Taking that into account, what exactly was your point Jeremy?
  reply report
32. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Julie, I am asking you a simple yes or no question. Why can't you answer it? I will be happy to answer any reasonable question in return.
  reply report
33. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
34. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
35. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
36. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a simple Question. It's a logical fallacy, and I'm certain that you know that.
  
  Respectful according to whom? Everyone has subjective ideas about respect and attacks. What you consider respectful may not be perceived that way.
  reply report
37. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
38. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
39. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Better yet, if you don't want responses or if you plan on insulting the people who do respond, then don't post the question at all.
  reply report
40. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
41. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Promisem - to answer your simple question - No, I cannot prove god doesn't exist. I can't prove Santa doesn't exist. But there is no real evidence to prove either one of them exists.
  reply report
42. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
43. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
44. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Lela, that seems reasonable to me. Thanks for answering the question.
  reply report
45. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
46. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
47. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jeremy, PLEASE let it go! Turn the other cheek or simply stop coming to HP.
  reply report
48. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
49. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
50. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I would totally ignore anyone who called me stupid. Arguing with them would be fruitless.
  reply report
51. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
52. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I really wouldn't be interested in laying blame. I simply would not accept that opinion as being valid. I'm not stupid, I know I'm not stupid, but it would be stupid to keep beating a dead horse.
  reply report
53. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
54. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And atheists wonder why they are labelled "angry". lol
  reply report
55. 0
  Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @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.
  reply report
56. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
57. 0
  Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Believe it or not, J, one can totally deduct another's tone in writing. We learned that in school--what is the author's tone toward the subject?
  reply report
58. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
59. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think the main critique was that he makes comments, not Hubs. He only has 3 Hubs and hasn't written for a long time. This is the kind of person Austin wrote a question about a few days ago.
  reply report
60. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
61. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's because u only cherry pick what u want to "debate" about. U hear what u want.
  reply report
62. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I see. Have we moved to personal accusations again? Cause you know me so well and we're so close?
  reply report
63. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
64. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
65. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
66. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Show me how. Prove your assertion.
  reply report
67. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  @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...
  reply report
68. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
69. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to 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.
  reply report
70. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
71. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jmc, it is in black and white, so I don't have to "prove" my assertion. All one must do is read this thread.
  reply report
72. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jeremy, the question is not just about whether or not God exists, rather a deep discussion of the double negative inability to prove God's non-existence, and how it is used in theist/atheist debates.
  reply report
73. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
74. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
75. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
76. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
77. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
78. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
79. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  JM, perhaps these do:
  http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM
  http://www.facingthechallenge.org/josephus.php
  reply report
80. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
81. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
82. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
83. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
84. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
85. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If there's not enough evidence either way, then why believe something until there's more? For what? A maybe shot that out of all the claims and deities you may have gotten the right one?
  reply report
86. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
87. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously, you all haven't read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … acter.html
  reply report
88. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Argumentum ex silentio. Try again.
  reply report
89. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Burden of proof is on believers. You can't prove a negative. You know that. Otherwise, I'm proposing that Spiderman exists. Prove he doesn't. He even has books written about him!
  reply report
90. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
91. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Jeremy, I have more proof that Spiderman exists than your god. Show me the "facts."
  reply report
92. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
93. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Except, Jeremy, Hugh Ross is using falsified documents to make his claim. Check out: http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.com/2012 … r-god.html Oh, and: http://tinyurl.com/kkvy6ma from DiscoveryMagazine
  reply report
94. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
95. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
96. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
97. 62
  Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
98. 94
  Jeremy Gillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
99. 0
  promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Maggie, you are deluding yourself. Please provide your proof that Spiderman exists.
  reply report
68
Dwight Phoenixposted 9 years ago
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
reply report
90
Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years ago

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.
reply report
1. 84
  Spongy0llamaposted 9 years agoin reply to 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"
  reply report
2. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
3. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality - http://bit.ly/185Tf1D
  
  Now try to apply the same approach to our Creator and God Almighty.
  reply report
0
TheBizWhizposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
2. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  How many people a day try to "convert" you? I only see you going around trying to instigate fights w/ believers. And again, I have never heard a believer use that defense unless provoked.
  reply report
3. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
4. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
5. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
6. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  BTW, I don't believe someone tries to convert u 3 times a week. Do u have any proof of this? I am from the Bible belt and we don't talk about Jesus that much! lol
  reply report
7. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I work with a fundamentalist evangelical, 3 Baptists and 5 Catholics. Whether you believe me or not doesn't change the fact that it's true :-)
  reply report
8. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
9. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is fine but some Christians are calling other Christinas atheists and that is NOT right. Don't judge! THAT IS THE POINT.
  reply report
10. 85
  Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
11. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
12. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
13. 66
  Lady Guinevereposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Did I specifically say you in my comment? No I did not. There ae a few pple here that do that and then claim that we no nothing about what we r talking about, when they cannot provide proof.
  reply report
14. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Then u should address ur comments 2 those that say those things to u. Not 2 moderates.
  reply report
15. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
16. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
17. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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 :-)
  reply report
18. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  U want 2 talk to me about putting accusations on others? Didn't u do that when u first commented on MY answer? R u the pot or the kettle? lol
  reply report
19. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
20. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  U were accusing others of trying to convert u to what they believe.
  reply report
21. 71
  JMcFarlandposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
22. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So, u said a fact. I made an accusation. This is like being married! lol I actually proved my point of why u r here, so I am stating facts, too. U had ur chance 2 prove me wrong, but u didn't take it.
  reply report
59
Himanshi Singh25posted 9 years ago
i must say very interesting question,..!! nd agree evrythng needs proof.
reply report
53
peter565posted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
74
Besarienposted 9 years ago
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.
reply report
59
Ali Sulehriaposted 9 years ago
Atheist don'y say that there is no god, they only don't believe in him as they say that there is no proof of his existence.
reply report
1. 40
  Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they do! They're called Gnostic Atheists.
  reply report
2. 90
  Maggie Bonhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Joseph is right. There are Gnostic Atheists.
  reply report
60
viralaroundposted 9 years ago
it is pretty much like never say NEVER!!! check your question for answer.
reply report
60
B M Gunnposted 8 years ago
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.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	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.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies