Show me proof that God does not exist.

Jump to Last Post 101-136 of 136 discussions (1184 posts)

59
Druid Dudeposted 13 years ago
That's why I'm so PARANOID! Proof that God does not exist, does not exist. Repetitive....isn't it.
reply report
60
ddtank20posted 13 years ago
Some people believe in such an idea but to think that if God did not exist then how is it that everything was made all well? Everything works accordingly and if no one made that, who would have?
reply report
1. 59
  artblack01posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Everything works accordingly and if no one made that, who would have?" No one made it, and not everything works so well. Look at the appendix, a vestigial organ which serves no purpose in the human body, if you understand evolution then you know it once did but is no longer of any use even if we tried to go back to what it's intended use was. If you don't believe in evolution then you can conclude that it is a useless part of the body that God made that doesn't work so perfect. As far as other things working? They serve no purpose in our world yet they exist.... there are many things that in the world do not "work" in biological systems. And why do things in this universe need a creator in order to exist? We attempt to explain the universe by anthropomorphizing the universe as something mechanical and therefore needing a creator when this is not the case. You cannot assume that something that is had a cause that was intentional. And you cannot assume that when I say something was unintentional "without purpose" that it was also accidental in the same sense, accident means that someone intended something to happen and it did not due to a mistake. The Universe does what it does because of the elements act on their characteristics, their substance. Everything that exists is made up of these elements. As for a God, if the universe would require such a God in order to be then the same can be said for such a being, God would also need a cause. You may say he was the first cause, but the fact is there is no supporting evidence for the existence of a God or the need for him to be a cause. The universe is a cycle of cause and effect, to say someone would have to put such a thing in motion is to also show the lack of understanding of the workings of the universe and an assumption that a being would have to be this cause.
  
  It's a vicious cycle in this debate. The only thing you can say without direct knowledge or evidence is I don't know how it happened so I am either going to study it and try and help discover what that is or leave such a question for those that will look for the answers.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reminds me much of the argument for the walking dead. Whether you believe them to be zombies, vampires, or something else all together. There are walking, talking, living people so there has to be walking, talking, dead people. Why? Laws of physics believe it or not. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law of course applied to dynamic inertia or the movement of energy. However, people will always tend to translate things as they sit for whatever seems to work for them. Doesn't matter the way it was intended once it was stated.
  
  Your very right in that. Kudos.
  reply report
2. 61
  GodlessHeathenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Flying Spaghetti Monster of course...geez...everyone knows that.
  reply report
65
LucidDreamsposted 13 years ago
The only reason I can think of that questions like this get posted is to start an argument. Especially the way it is worded. I am not an athiest but I am always in search of new information that involves why we are and how it all came about. Where is the proof that God exists? Please dont say...just look around.... that is really old.
reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 13 years ago
Actually, you are mistaken. The bible says that heaven and earth will pss away, and a new heaven and a new earth will be formed. It also says Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word will not.
reply report
1. 60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't remember reading this. I have asked another to point it out to me though so I will get back to you on my thoughts on it.
  reply report
76
cathylynn99posted 13 years ago
you can't prove there is no god. there certainly is a lack of evidence for god's existence, though. it's not like i haven't looked. i'm 99.9% sure there is no god.
reply report
76
cathylynn99posted 13 years ago
it's nietzsche.
reply report
60
Shawn May Scottposted 13 years ago
Wow, you have asked the questions of all questions in our society. I cannot show any proof that God or a God or Godess does not exsist but I can say that we believe in a higherarchy and that system must end somewhere somehow above us. I know that there is more to our being than just the coporial beings that we are on the earth that we inhabit. Acention is possible after our trial here on this planet or is it? But what is that and how does it happen is my question?
reply report
1. 59
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that it is about our hopes of Acention, but rather about this being a temtorary decention.
  reply report
65
LucidDreamsposted 13 years ago
Im trying to figure out why it is so important to prove THAT GOD DOES EXIST? What would heppen if God was proven to be a farce? What would heppem if God was proven to exist? Either way, we are still here fighting in our dailt lives. Does it really matter?
reply report
1. 59
  artblack01posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not really to me except in context of religious people trying to invoke their beliefs in realms that their beliefs don't belong... courts have already had to decide in several cases that religion cannot take the place of science and that religion cannot be put into science classes or taught in place of science classes in the public school system. Also when religion tries to undermine our basic First Amendment rights.
  Religion continues to try and we will continue to push back.
  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial
  Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
  The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
  Three cases but not the first and last time this will happen, religious people from all areas are constantly trying to undermine scientific truths. Science has practical applications that effect every part of our lives and religion only effects the believers who would like to see it effect everyone legally, and before the Salem Witch Trials it has.
  When religion ruled the world they called it the Dark Ages.... it may seem far fetched but that time is always possible again. Forget your history and you are doomed to repeat it.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Saying Religion in this context, we know that your referring to Christianity, but it is by no means all religions and seems quite derogatory towards the others. Just pointing it out is all.
  reply report
  59
  artblack01posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I understand, this is just one example, but look up Hamza Kashgari, a person being sentenced to death for tweeting a not really critical idea seen as critical to those of that religion, the Islamic one. Now, and since the birth of this nation, we are in danger of going backwards ourselves to this state of being called criminals for believing counter to the Christian religion and I know there are those Christians who do see people who are different as criminal or deviant (as in the whole God hates Fags movement). I can only really use Christianity (and since I was brought up as Christian) as reference to religion in general because like many people bring up here "America is a Christian Nation" which it's not, it just has a predominately Christian population. Any criticism can seem derogatory but as a whole is reference to the whole of religion. All I have to do is look at the world of religion and see aspects that are not so good as to not include my statement in just one of these religions. There are few religions that don't have aspects that are actually decent in their role over humanity and Christianity, Islam and others like them are guilty.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I understand. I also understand about people not understanding America is in no way founded on Christianity. Most people just don't like to do any type of research so they accept what others will tell them or imply.
  reply report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Since 90% of our founding fathers were Christians and the others had been influenced by Christianity in their environment while being reared it would be naive to believe that Christianity had no influence on the founding of our nation.
  
  The exercise of Christianity is flawed and far from being perfect. Christianity is only as good as its members in a practical sense. I defend only Christ Jesus and the Word of God as my ideals and faith thereof. The main reason for church service every Sunday is to praise and give thanks to God alone with receiving messages for personal improvement.
  reply report
  57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Based on your logic, we can see that whatever influence, if any, was used to found the countries Constitution and Bill of Rights would be as flawed as the Christian beliefs they were allegedly founded upon. And yet, when we read those documents and learn of how and why they were conceived the way they were, we find no such thing of any influence of Christianity, whatsoever.
  
  Of course, any Christian here is free to show us where exactly such an influence is evident.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A massive amount of deaths upon the Native American Indians, for starters...?
  reply report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For starters, "...all men are created equal..." is a very strong implication of being of God. If it were stated by atheist it would probably say, "...all men who randomly showed up...". Hee! Hee! Hee!
  
  Also, a Creator is explicitly expressed. LOLOL!
  
  I think we all are only knee high to our founding father's Christian belief. I think that our founding fathers were much more serious about their faith in God than either of us apparently...Trouble Man!
  
  Oh, here lately we get from our leaders "In God we trust..." on our money. Funny, our leaders don't won't to change it. Sorry Trouble, apparently they don't trust you atheist.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Massive research has proven otherwise. Many of the founding fathers couldn't agree on the idea of a supreme being much less of one God and one Religion.
  
  There are a couple of Hubs on this in fact. One of which I wrote, but there are others that are more highly detailed in their research. Assuming conclusions and proving your conclusions go into separate realms. Treaty of Tripoli for instance clearly states that the United States is in no way founded on Christianity.
  reply report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have been exposed to overwhelming evidence that believing in a supreme being, God, was not an issue; it was accepted.
  
  That was "...influenced the founding of..."; much difference from "the founding of..." Review my comment.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All men are created equal? Yes, an anenchephaly, people with chromosome anomalies and normal person and genius are all created equal, from a sperm and egg! And it certainly shows there is god, who else can screw up like that?
  reply report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For starters, "...all men are created equal..."
  
  Meaning in context of Constitution, each Being has been empowered with the rights. Just be breathing and you have the rights.
  reply report
  57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's utterly hilarious.
  
  So what?
  
  Have you ever noticed the pyramid with the eye on the money, as well? It goes back to Egyptian mythology (Eye of Horus), the very same mythology that spawned Christianity.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Eye of Providence is a symbol showing an eye that is surrounded by rays of light emitting from the source. It is sometimes interpreted as representing the "eye of God" watching over us, etc. The most notable depiction of the "eye of God" is on the United States one-dollar bill.
  
  Per Wikipedia: "Today, the Eye of Providence is usually associated with Freemasonry. The Eye first appeared as part of the standard iconography of the Freemasons in 1797, with the publication of Thomas Smith Webb's Freemasons Monitor. Here, it represents the all-seeing eye of God and is a reminder that a Mason's thoughts and deeds are always observed by God (who is referred to in Masonry as the Great Architect of the Universe). Typically, the Masonic Eye of Providence has a semi-circular glory below the eye. Sometimes the Eye is enclosed by a triangle."
  
  Yeah, money is fairly religious, it seems.
  Even the terms "annuit coeptis" that is found on our currency, translates into ""He approves (has approved) of the undertakings."
  
  I recently read about how the Eye over it (the pyramid you were speaking about) and the motto Annuit Coeptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favor of the American cause.
  
  The cool-sounding terms "Annuit Coeptis" is translated by the U.S. State Department, The U.S. Mint, and the U.S. Treasury as, "He [God] has favored our undertakings."
  
  Yeah, it sounds like some holy monetary madness, if ya ask me! Where's my freakin' offering plate!?
  
  What does any of this have to do with killing a bunch if innocent Native American Indians for no other reason besides being domineering bullies without a cause - other than religious freedom and greed, of course?
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the eye on the dollar bill is the eye of Lucifer. That's a Freemasonic symbol for Lucifer. You forget this part:Novus ordo seclorum
  
  That means New World Order. God has nothing to do with that.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't forget it, I just didn't include it; LOL!
  Eye of Lucifer?
  Well, they do say that the love of money is the root of all evil...
  I'd love to have more money right now.
  
  Anyway, the motto "Novus ordo seclorum" can be translated as "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.
  
  Blah!
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is true that it is translated strictly as a "New order of the ages" but the English word "secular" or "world" is derived from the Latin word "seclorum". New Agers, Freemasons (which the founding father were) believe that a one world government under a New World Order will happen in the age of Aquarius that we have just entered.
  
  The plot thickens, though. The eye in the blazing star on the dollar bill is in a pentagram.
  
  Freemasonic author, Arthur Edward Waite, wrote:
  
  "The grand and universal symbols which are characteristic and Emblematic of Freemasonry are the Pentalpha or Pentagram, the Hexangular Seal of Solomon, called otherwise Shield of David, the All-Seeing Eye, the Point within a Circle, the Cubic Stone, the Sun and Moon. The particular symbols . . . are the rough and perfect Ashlar, and of course the Working Tools. There is finally the Blazing Star."
  
  Sybil Leek, a well-known witch, declares that the "Pentagram has always been used in ritual magic and in the witchcraft rites of healing."
  An expert explains: "The pentacle (pentagram), the five-pointed figure, contained mystic symbols, used especially in divination and the conjuration of spirits. The pentalpha, a design formed by interlacing five A's was also in similar use. To summon demonic help, the pentagram was fashioned: a five-pointed geometric figure."
  
  Manly P. Hall, an occultist, points out that the, " . . . pentagram is used extensively in black magic, but when so used its form always differs in one of three ways: The star may be broken at one point by not permitting the converging line to touch; it may be inverted by having one point down and two up; or it may be distorted by having the points of varying length. When used in black magic, the pentagram is called 'the sign of the cloven hoof' or the footprint of the devil. The star with two points upward IS ALSO called the 'Goat of Mendes,' because the inverted star is the same shape as a goat's head. When the upright star turns and the upper point falls to the bottom, it signifies the fall of the morning star."
  
  I'll say to you that Satan has MANY names. Not only is the eye in the blazing star known as Lucifer and Horus but also Osiris:
  
  "The 'All-Seeing Eye' is a Masonic representation of Osiris." Osiris is the Egyptian god of the dead (and of the underworld) and part of the "Masonic trinity" to whom Masons pay honor.
  
  Freemason Albert Pike wrote:
  
  We have therefore, in the 24th degree (Masonic Ritual), recited the principal incidents in the legend of Osiris and Isis … Everything good in Nature comes from Osiris… Osiris was the image of generative power. This was expressed by his symbolic statues … Osiris and Isis were the Sun and Moon … and is the All-Seeing Eye in our Lodges … Osiris was invoked as the God that resides in the Sun (Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike, pgs. 474-477)
  
  There’s a hexagram on the dollar bill, too.
  
  The Hexagram (also called the Shield of David, Star of David, Crest of Solomon, and Hexangular Seal of Solomon), is another symbol used by Masons, Witches and Magicians. Jennings indicates that the hexagram, although used now as a symbol of the Jewish religion, was used long before Judaism. He notes that the sing was used as a, " . . . stand-by for magicians and alchemists. The sorcerers believed it represented the footprint of a special kind of demon called a trud, and used it in ceremonies both to call up demons and to keep them away."
  
  You say 1776 represents the Declaration of Independence? It does not. The Illuminati was founded on 1 May, 1776. Therefore, the Illuminati's enterprise has been a success. What does the phoenix, or eagle, on the dollar bill represent?
  
  Masonic author, Manly P. Hall, 33 Degree, K.T., in his book, The Phoenix: An Illustrated Review of Occultism and Philosophy:
  
  Among the ancients a fabulous bird called the Phoenix is described by early writers ... in size and shape it resembles the eagle, but with certain differences. The body of the Phoenix is one covered with glossy purple feathers, and the plumes in its tail are alternately blue and red. The head of the bird is light in color, and about its neck is a circlet of golden plumage. At the back of its back the Phoenix has a crest of feathers of brilliant color ... The Phoenix, it is said, lives for 500 years, and at its death its body opens and the new born Phoenix emerges. Because of this symbolism, the Phoenix is generally regarded as representing immortality and resurrection ... The Phoenix is one sign of the secret orders of the ancient world and of the initiate of those orders, for it was common to refer to one who had been accepted into the temples as a man twice-born, or reborn. Wisdom confers a new life, and those who become wise are born again." [p. p. 176-77]
  
  Barbara Walker, in her occult book, Now Is The Dawning , p. 281. "Egyptians believed that the Phoenix was the representative of a god who "rose to heaven in the form of a morning star, like Lucifer, after his fire-immolation of death and rebirth ..."
  
  Former witch, William Schnoebelen, in his book, Satan's Door Revisited , p. 4. wrote: "The Phoenix, of Bunnu is believed to be a divine bird going back to Egypt ... This Phoenix destroys itself in flames and then rises from the ashes. Most occultists believe that the Phoenix is a symbol of Lucifer who was cast down in flames and who ... will one day rise triumphant. This [belief] also relates to the raising of Hiram Abiff, the Masonic 'christ'."
  
  Manly P. Hall, in his book, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry , states, "These were the immortals to whom the term 'phoenix' was applied, and their symbol was the mysterious two-headed bird, now called an eagle , a familiar and little understood Masonic emblem ." [p. 108; Emphasis added]
  
  Albert Pike, in Magnum Opus, writes, "... the Eagle was the living Symbol of Egyptian God Mendes ... and the representative of the Sun ..." [p. xviii]
  
  And there's the fellow who owns America. Dear old Baphomet, the goat of Mendes, and commonly named as Satan.
  
  Sources:
  
  http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonic3.htm
  
  http://www.cuttingedge.org/free12.html
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for writing a Hub about it in the forum; LOL!
  
  A Phoenix is a mythical bird that supposedly lived 500+ years and I've even read up to a thousand years. It is a legend, and I wouldn't put much weight on it. Doesn't the Phoenix generally symbolize rebirth?
  Are you seriously asking what the Eagle represents in America?
  
  Since we are on the topic of myths & legends, when you speak of the Hexagram on the dollar, have you ever heard of the legend: "It is alleged that George Washington requested the stars on the Great Seal to be put in the shape of a hexagram because that's also the shape of the Star of David – supposedly as a way of thanking the Jewish patriot Haym Salomon for his service to the country, particularly his financial help during the Revolution." Of course, there is no proof for that, as it was a legend of some sorts.
  
  I didn't know all pentagrams were considered evil, and that it depended on what direction they were pointing, etc. Either way, there is no obvious pentagram on the dollar bill unless you start drawing lines around the pyramid using the letters A, S, N, O, and M which would spell Mason when unscrambled.
  
  Why is the dollar bill so evil?
  
  True, it isn't enough, as I'd like to have more Benjamins, myself; LOL!
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're most welcome. Anything to get my point across.
  
  It doesn't matter if it is a legend it is what it MEANS that is important. Why adopt the symbol that represents Lucifer? Freemasons are fixated on mythology like Francis Bacon who was the integral leader and regenerater of a previous generation of Freemasons. He developed a great interest in learning mythology and using symbols as part of their education.
  
  I'm not asking you what the Eagle represents, I'm telling you. What do you think it means?
  
  And the hexagram is the most powerful symbol in witch-craft. There is absolutely no reference to the Star of David in the Old Testament. It is not related to Judaism. It is related to Satan, though...
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4QYqquW … re=related
  
  Come one, what direction is the pentagram on Baphomet's forehead. It doesn't matter what way it is pointed, it's still Satanic. The blazing star represents the pentagram in Freemasonry.
  
  The dollar bill is not evil in itself. It is just telling you who owns America and your banks.
  
  In all actuality, this is not a laughing matter.
  report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Unfounded! Jesus is Christianity.
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are right about the eye representing the eye of Horus, Lucifer as well, but where's your proof that Christianity is based on Egyptian mythology?
  reply report
  64
  peanutroasterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can point out all sorts of inconsistancy, though it will be for naught. They will continue to hide behind the falacy of their doctrine, using scripture to prove their argument. When they have lost the leg they stand on, they replace it with more smoke and mirrors, highlighting it with glitter and garland.
  
  You can't fight magical thinking with reason, especially when dealing with the indoctrinated adult. They are, unfortunately, too far gone.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The world is full of smoke and mirrors, as that much is very true. That's why I usually come through like a Vampire with Fog Lights; ha-ha!
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But it also sucks when atheists get so gullible that they actually believe Jesus came from the Horus legend. Peanutroaster is soon going to find out...
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I should be able to face my accuser, something impossible by religious standards, unless of course I'm dead, in which case I don't think it would matter.
  report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again I will only address some of them, the ones I deem most important, or else I would write a book. This person is utterly and truly pathetic.
  
  Isis-Meri. This idiot tries to tie “Meri” with “Mary”. Meri means “beloved” and was assigned to anyone considered beloved. Egypt was called, “Ta Meri”, “beloved Egypt”.
  
  http://lightandlifegraphics.com/bp_apol … 1mary.html
  
  Anyway, Isis was NEVER called Isis-Meri. Mariam is derived from Latin and means “Star of the sea” or "wished-for child; rebellion; sea of bitterness".
  
  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 620AAr4LEv
  
  Isis was not a virgin. She conceived Horus when Osiris was killed by Seth and she revived him long enough to have sex with him before he went to the underworld.
  
  Isis managed to recover her husband's (Osiris) body; however Seth was very stealthy and stole away with it. After cutting up the body of the Egyptian god of the underworld, Seth hid the pieces throughout the Egyptian desert. The connection between Isis and Osiris was so strong; the Egyptian goddess proceeded to spend a number of years searching for the mutilated body parts of her husband. She finally managed to find all of the pieces, save one and is believed to have used her magical powers to restore her husband's body. Although there are different versions to this part of the story, it seems Isis became pregnant, presumably by Osiris and gave birth to a son, Horus. Osiris died once again and descended to fully assume his duties as Egyptian god of the underworld.
  
  Horus was not Osiris “only begotten son”. Never does “begotten son” feature in Egypt mythology. Horus had a brother called Anubis.
  
  There is no Seb, the foster father, only Geb (or misspelled by the Romans as Seb) who was Horus’ grandfather.
  
  Horus was not born in a cave. He was born in a swamp.
  
  http://www.experts123.com/q/when-was-th … d-day.html
  
  Annunciation: By an angel to Isis, his mother.
  
  No record of that.
  
  Rite of passage ritual: Horus came of age with a special ritual, when his eye was restored.
  
  A rite of passage? It was a battle!
  
  Horus is variously portrayed as a mounted warrior with the head of a falcon and as a falcon-headed man with a large pointed spear driven into some foe. In one version of the myth, Horus had his left eye, which signified the moon, wounded in his battle with Set, thus giving rise to one explanation for the moon's various phases. The eye was healed by the god Thoth, and the restored eye, known as the udjat, became a powerful amulet.
  
  http://towerweb.net/alt-lib/myth/eyeofhorus.shtml
  
  Birth announcement: By angels.
  
  No record of that.
  
  No such thing as Herut trying to kill Jesus. Seth, Osiris’ brother did because he was afraid Horus would become king.
  
  Horus did not have twelve disciples. Sometimes he is said to have 16 human followers but had four semi-god followers.
  
  Hapi, dog-headed, and Tuamutef, jackal-headed, had charge of the two arms of the deceased; Mestha or Amset, a bearded man, and Qebhsennuf, hawk-headed, had charge of the two legs. These four deities also had surveillance of the four cardinal points: north, east, south, and west respectively.
  
  http://d2prxy8bgthmlr.cloudfront.net/a/ … /id/137867
  
  As for the ones left out, you need to provide original Horus stories to back up those claims.
  
  The writer of this page is absolutely and truly disgusting that is the depth that people would lie to deceive people into abandoning the Christian faith.
  reply report
59
wilmiers77posted 13 years ago
Firstly, I agree that followers usually place a blanketed rejection to other religions which could have 10 doctrines that are identical and only 1 that differs. They even do the same if emphasis on certain codifications is more than others in which the other religion places. This grips my gut, but I must continue to publish where I have faith. I have given honorable mention to Muhammad in some of my earlier hubs, but Muhammad is still in his grave; therefore, I can't put him above the Son of God. I believe that he is a major prophet.

No, not any religion frighten me from religions of tribes to nations. I do see them unfulfilled, incomplete relative to humans desired relationship with God. Christianity has not been fulfilled, but is on a journey to full fellowship with God while the others has limitations; thereby, falls short of God; although, they have much good. Their capacity is not that of a personal relationship with God thru Jesus Christ.

I don't defend Christians. I do not defend Christian leaders. I defend Jesus Christ and the Word of God which is in the B.I.B.L.E.

Why do all cultures create a higher power? Would you call this natural and necessary for the members to live in coexistence? Like can we all get alone?! Yes my sons, create a higher power! LOLOL!!!
reply report
39
alisha4uposted 13 years ago
God does exist..Not sure about you guys..But for me, He does !!
reply report
1. 57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, can you show God to us? How do you know God exists?
  reply report
  59
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because he revealed himself to us. The question you should ask is; "Why not me, Lord?" God is all around. No one can point and say "there he is!" or "Come see, he's over here!" To get a really good look at him, you could look in a mirror.
  reply report
  57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why must believers lie about that?
  
  No, God is not in the mirror. Sorry to burst your bubble.
  reply report
  39
  alisha4uposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your profile name is a Troubled man... And tell u what..You are actually a Troubled Man....
  The reason you exist is because God want you to... But, you wont buy that at all..cuz God has taken away the power of acceptance from you..
  You are not the one to be blamed.. !!
  reply report
  57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Odd, I've never heard that one before from a believer.
  
  Or, I don't buy it because it's complete nonsense based on irrational medieval superstitions and myths that were indoctrinated into you as a child.
  
  Thank you. I assume you're blaming your God.
  reply report
  39
  alisha4uposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think I shud better not waste my Time on "A Troubled Man" !!
  I call it a day... God Bless You!
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Love the mirror statement. As we human beings do have the power to create it does make a good argument.
  reply report
  59
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are in the way of God that's why you can't sense His presence. Trouble, get yourself out of the way of God so that all this madness can end. Stop and listen; let all the noise in your mind quiet.
  reply report
  57
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes, that makes sense. I'm in the way of an omnipotent super being hence I can't "sense His presence". Did you get that from Yoda or Darth Sidious?
  
  The madness won't ever end until religions end. The noise is the bleating of God's sheeple.
  reply report
84
SilentReedposted 13 years ago
This question should be classified under the category of probes like " which came first, the egg or the chick" How can one show proof for or against something that one already has a bias perception. If one believe that God exist...then he does. If one believe he doesn't then he does not exist. "Bless you"
reply report
64
peanutroasterposted 13 years ago
Prove to me that the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
reply report
1. 60
  twosheds1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  J.R. "Bob" Dobbs says he doesn't, and that's enough for me.
  reply report
65
LucidDreamsposted 13 years ago
Wow, deep!
reply report
0
Ryan-Morganposted 13 years ago
Reading the drivel that theists post makes we want to cry. What is wrong with the world?!
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A lot of things are wrong with the world, but life without problems isn't really real life, now is it?
  The common atheist hooey and the slop that pours out of the typical "spiritual haters" or however ya want to classify yourself, doesn't necessarily solve anything either, and if anything, it unfortunately often leads to the promotion of "no need for morals" which sort of constitutes inhumane acts, for the ones who misunderstands your atheist messages, for example.
  Yeah, organized religion has caused enough wars, but why should people claim to be in the right by claiming to be atheist, when all most of them do is fight with others who have beliefs?
  If reading theistic drivel makes you cry, as you say, then why do you continue to read it?
  Surely you can find a sentimental DVD full of sappy, romantic, emotional content for that, right?
  Anyway, if you think global peace and a truly righteous world can be achieved with non-beliefs, well... The day we have a society full of people who have no beliefs, is the day the world is full of machines, androids, cyborgs, etc.
  Now, I'd rather deal with humanitarian problems and fight all day long, than to become a race of braindead robots. ...And yes, I'm actually making a point here that is somewhat disguised within that robotic chatter.
  Now, if you can prove that you have circuits and a motherboard, I still see no reason why you would cry. LOL!
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Someone believing in something has nothing to do with Morals. This is a cooked up concoction by believers to reaffirm their beliefs. You attempt to tie the two inexplicably together because you don't want to have to take responsibility for every action you take. The truth is that without belief, every human being on the face of the planet would be force to take responsibility for their actions and would not have scape goat in God or in Satan for the things they do. Things such as Morals and Ethics come from human beings, not some divine entity who comes out of no where to place them in your mind. Your taught them by another human being while you are a child. That's not a divine entity, that is people teaching people to be better.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Even evolutionists try to provide a reason for a conscience, hence forth morals.
  I don't want to take responsibility for my actions? LOL! Man, if you only knew...
  I find your comment to be quite shallow.
  I mentioned morals for a reason, as for the ones who misunderstands atheist messages...
  Please explain how you can have morals and a conscience while not believing in something!
  Also, please define the term 'something' as I think you don't realize what you just said.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lots of people try to do lots of things to explain that which they can't themselves comprehend. Thus was science and theories born.
  
  It's not about knowing. It's about people being willing to take responsibility for each and every action they make every day. There are those who justify hate and bigotry by using the bible. God is their scape goat. There are those that have blamed demons for the things they've done. Using Satan as a scape goat. When your forced to accept the fact that nothing is responsible for what you do but you, it paints everything in a different light.
  
  I'm not saying that people don't misunderstand the message of atheists. Just as much so people misunderstand each other, and more often then not, many refuse to take the time to even try to understand.
  
  Really? A conscience is dictated by having good morals and ethics to begin with. This is the why and how of people beginning to worry. As I already explained, parents teach Children Morals and Ethics as they raise them. As does society. There is no need for some higher being to suddenly invade your mind, hit you with some mojo, and out of no where you suddenly have these things. They are things that are learned. The mind is, and always has been, possessed of learned behaviours. Much the same way we learn to walk and talk, though we forget that we actually learned such things.
  
  In the context in which I used the word 'something' is quite easy to define. I used it as referring to religion, gods, goddesses, higher powers, angels, demons, and any other supernatural/paranormal spiritual entity. Though I'm sure you consider Morals and Ethics as believing in something, or perhaps even breathing, this is not the way in which it was intended and taking it out of context does nothing to help you in your argument.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, let me guess, you also think humans are not born with altruism, as well?
  You also claim that a conscience is a "learned behavior?" Sorry, but I couldn't understand your confused English...
  There are many studies on this, so be sure to be less sloppy with your next comment, dear religious hater.
  So, your 'something' means religion and the entities that could possibly follow... Interesting closed-minded view, ya have there.
  By the way, you have no idea what I believe, but yet you keep talking about religions, God, Satan and now angels...
  It sounds like you think about the supernatural more than most theists, so you may be human after all... LOL!
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can't have morals or ethics without believing in something.
  That something may be yourself, your family, life, or whatever.
  You must believe something.
  Your mind is a universe in itself.
  To truly not believe, show emotion, not feel or ponder, would to be like training yourself to be mechanical, which is not natural.
  Even Spock, as a Vulcan, couldn't do it; ha-ha! (excuse the joke)
  
  But in all seriousness, ya might as well demineralize humanity and transfer them into individual bagged crystals, if everyone stopped believing in something and started to mimic machines with no emotion or imagination. ...And yes, that includes a world of 100% atheists, as well. Can you imagine, if everyone thought life was a mechanical process? Do you not see the stupidity that flags your face with hate and apathy?
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Conscience is learned. Consciousness is the part of the brain that is active at all times. Two completely different things. Hence why some have a conscience and some don't. Your right in the fact that there are studies on this, fortunately I actually know the difference of what I'm looking at and what I'm implying to try and say someone else is wrong. A little study yourself would go a along way.
  
  Thanks for calling me a religious hater, but I'm far from it. I have my own personal set of beliefs that coincide with no known religion what so ever. Do I hate Religion? No, not at all. I just happen to know that Religion and Christianity are NOT the same thing. Anyone who ties their morals and ethics strictly to religion would indeed fall if their religion fell. They would have absolutely no concept of right and wrong if their beliefs faltered or were proved wrong. This is the why and the how of how they are not connected.
  
  Your right, I have no idea what you believe, but nor have your stated your beliefs, only that you believe in something. According to you Morals demand that you believe in something. Most who believe in something, believe in something greater than themselves. Thus I draw conclusion, if it is incorrect that's fine and I apologise for it, but there is no need to attempt to insult me for drawing a rather logical conclusion.
  
  I probably do think about it more than most theists do. I do not indulge myself into a fantasy world about it, but I do think about it. Things that should have an explanation and don't are things worth thinking about.
  
  You can and indeed you do. They end up becoming things that are ingrained into you. Much like the studies that show child molester has learned the behaviour and can't just stop, it's something they are compelled to do because it has become ingrained into them. Thus do they tend to ingrain it into at least one victim and so on and so forth to perpetuate the cycle. They think it is ok because the person who did it to them, taught them it was ok and perfectly normal while the rest of us no better. Hence children being impressionable and the need to be careful what you do and say around them.
  
  I'm not saying that people don't believe in something whether they admit it or not, I'm just saying that there is no need for belief in something to have Morals and Ethics. These are things that are and always have been taught. Both by Society and Parents they are taught to the youth. Thus why it is something ingrained and effects most of what we do. Thus why everyone is different and we have those who make choices that each of us wouldn't make. If some of us are taught something are wrong and others aren't, and the rest taught the exact opposite, what does that have to do with belief?
  
  I'm not saying that your breaking things down to the point of being basic robots is wrong. We know that emotions are a chemical reaction in the body though, they will always be with human beings no matter what. Morals and Ethics do not create and imagination, they just dictate what is being imagined.
  
  As your basically calling me a hate monger here, first you should take the time to get to know me and learn about before you decide that I'm a hate monger. I'm not banding around hate or dissension or anything else. I stated something that you took wrong and/or didn't like and you immediately went on the defensive about it. That's on you not on me. If you want to through hate and such around then go for it, just don't expect people to lay down and be a punching bag so that you can be right.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  First off, I'm must be alien, as I was born with a conscience. I was once an infant that remembers things before potty training, if ya will; ha-ha! It may sound funny, but it is true, nonetheless...
  I was born with a conscience, from before...?
  
  What? I never said anything about consciousness, albeit there is a pretty cool new movement going on called "divine consciousness" or something like that...
  
  Hmm, you seem to agree with a lot of things I say, yet we somehow disagree. [reading your comment further...]
  
  I call you a religious hater because you keep bringing it up in a detestable way or in a testy fashion...
  
  I never related religion with Christianity; WTF?
  In fact, when did I ever mention Christianity?
  
  I never tied morals and ethics to religion, you did! I said that you have to believe in "something" to have morals and ethics, but I do think we were at least installed a conscience and altruism at birth via whatever means, but whether we use it or not, is up to us, and obviously so. If everything had to do with our raising, then why would a preacher's daughter become a whore or a child from a religious upbringing become an atheist?
  I do not give excuses for the individual and I do believe in responsibility.
  
  However...
  There is nothing logical about not using your brain for imagination and/or beliefs, as it is a shame Einstein isn't alive right now 'cause he'd tell ya the same thing.
  True, if one talks their self into believing it is okay, even if they rid their self of their conscience and start performing criminal acts like you spoke about, they still know they are sick or wrong. Very few lunatics are actually unaware of their actions, unless they are clinically brain damaged or been vegetized by massive drug abuse. Ask Charles Manson about what he thinks about it! LOL! He looked at hallucinogenics as a spiritual awakening or expansion, for example.
  Anyway, the people you mention or scenerios, whatever, wasn't born child molesters, as you spoke about, they became that way. They still knew wrong from right and maybe they combatted the wrong they got with a wrong they provided (fight fire with fire response).
  Emotions are a chemical reaction and nothing more, you say?
  What causes a natural chemical reaction in the body? Magic? Drugs? Was Charles M. right? LOL!
  Sure, I can get to know ya.
  You sound pretty cool...
  By the way, I broke my punching bag a long time ago (one of those water-filled ones/Wave bags) , but I have been thinking about buying one of those Body Opponent Punching thingies (human-like torso on a stand used in place of a punching bag).
  Uh, cheers?
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is possible to remember that far back, and many people believe that souls transfer from body to body. Not all souls, but some. Could perhaps be a side effect? Even denying that, we define someone as having a conscience by their ability to both define right and wrong, and having the ability to feel an emotion when doing either one. Some people feel absolutely nothing either way. It's something that has for been truly unclear for a long time. The definition is subject to change but this is as accurate as I can get with it at the moment.
  
  Haven't heard about it, but it might be interesting to look into.
  
  Weird how that happens..I didn't think I was exactly disagreeing with you on this, I think perhaps though we have different views on it.
  
  I bring religion up in a test or detestable fashion because of what I have seen on these forums so far. It's not that I really have a problem with Religion, it's more that I have issues with people who think that all Religion is Christianity and it doesn't go any further than that. It's a common misconception that people seem unable to look beyond. I apologise if it comes off as my hating all religions because that's not the case, it's the way in which the term Religion keeps getting used that bothers me.
  
  With the matter of conscience, until we have a clearer definition of the word, I think it something that perhaps we may have to agree to disagree on and leave it at that. Morals and Ethics though are things we are taught. As for the preachers daughter, teaching your child religion and threats, does not teach them morals and ethics. It teaches them that there is nothing but a bunch of empty threats to stop you, so do whatever you want. The second one is much the same. Teaching beliefs does not teach morals and ethics. If your parents don't take time to actually teach these things to you and leave it to religion or their belief system to do, then you never learn them. Just ask Charles Manson about it. He was the son of a Preacher. His father also beat him as a kid. The father didn't have morals and ethics (or at least we can assume he didn't) and therefore did not teach them to his child. Yet he was a pastor. Go figure.
  
  Your right, there is nothing logical about not using your brain for imagination. The brain needs a release from normal everyday things. I don't dispute that. That doesn't mean you should imagine killing someone near you who you think is a witch because your a Christian and the bible tells you to do so. Morals and Ethics dictate where our imaginations tend to run. I'm not saying that the imagination is bad or that beliefs can't factor into it, but Morals and Ethics affect the imagination as well and it's separate from belief. We can continue to debate this, but you can look at belief in something as belief in Morals and Ethics like you stated before. They, at least in my opinion, do not require belief to have. You can tie beliefs and Morals together if you want though, there I cannot forsee a problem.
  
  Science shows that an emotion takes place that there is a chemical reaction in the body. As for what causes it? I never bothered looking that deep into the studies of emotion, but does it really matter? Without emotions, you don't have a conscience, at least that seems to be the consensus on it.
  
  Cheers
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, outside of your Christian babble that doesn't even relate to my comments, I can say that we agree about most things.
  However, unless you are a braindead lunatic without cognitive function, everybody believes in "something," but the 'something' varies from person to person and from simplicity to complexity and from what is rebelled or justified, etc., and so on, and to what or whom it may concern...
  You can't have morals without believing in what is right or wrong, as I never said it had anything to do with dogma or laws.
  
  Science & Religion work great together, once you free yourself from organized thoughts; remember that...
  
  Oh, yeah, the body is definitely a vessel and I never said that this thing wasn't divided upon levels.
  Just think, the majority of Earthlings are like K-3rd grade, while the 4th graders are misfits here and high school left out a few thousand years ago... All the college people are in saucer crafts, while we speculate about education. LOL! I'm joking, uh, I think...
  reply report
62
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
zzron, nice post but a tautology one. A negative question when you are trying to establish the positive is null and void.
reply report
60
Shawn May Scottposted 13 years ago
Look up Lorna Green at lornagreen.ca. she has alot to say on this subject. Read her essays on her site, it is very interesting.
reply report
60
twosheds1posted 13 years ago
Logically, you can't prove a negative. In US courts, the burden of proof is on those making a claim. For example, if the state says I committed a murder, they must prove that I did so, because the normal state of being is NOT committing murders. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Accusing me of speeding isn't particularly exatraordinary. Everyone speeds occasionally (assuming they drive), even if it is by accident.

Therefore, those make the claim that a god (Thor, Zeus, Kuan Yin, Vishnu, Marduk, Yahweh, take your pick) exists are making an extraordinary claim and must provide extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Physicist Steven Weinberg said "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but it makes it possible to not believe in God."
reply report
68
Silver Fishposted 12 years ago
I think the burden of proof falls on the believers here.
reply report
60
FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years ago
The burden of proof is on the believer.
reply report
1. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  God has shown man what is required (Book of Micah) as far as God is concerned each individual will be held accountable ..for their belief or disbelief.
  reply report
  60
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That book was written by people. Not God. To believe that God came down and told someone to write it or that they heard Gods voice in some way, is to believe all the people who kill their own families claiming God told them to. You wouldn't read a book one of them had written as a message from God, would you?
  reply report
  60
  scottsalotposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly! Written by people with an AGENDA! And modern society has a word for people who hear voices: schizophrenic.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yet many people concentrate on the agendas and the schizophrenics during critique, while ignoring their own ignorance and closed-mindedness to it all...
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  closed mindedness needs a preconceived notion of something. There are many closed minded people in these forums constantly debating to achieve nothing.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Closed-mindedness obviously needs no ideas to be labelled as such, because limited thoughts requires no expanded notion outside of eat, sleep, drink, sex, etc. Ya know, primitive stuff...
  I wouldn't relate "debating" and "open-minded" thoughts to requiring a preconceived notion from an outside source, as that would sort of sell ya brain short, eh? Then again, I have never been able to relate with imbeciles...
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Call me an imbecile all you want. Unlike others I know that when people start hurling insults it's generally because you've struck a nerve with them, whether or not they will admit it. Therefore it tends not to bother me.
  
  Did I say that debating and open minded thoughts required a preconceived notion? No I didn't. You jumped to ill conceived assumption and that lead you to the assumption that I was attacking something you said. All I said was that to be closed minded means you have a preconceived notion of something.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dear sensitive chap, nobody called you an imbecile... What is that, a "passive aggressive" attack on me? I said that I have a problem relating with imbeciles, as that much is very true! If you feel that you are one, then thanks for telling me in advance!
  
  You do not need to have a "preconceived notion" of "something" to be "closed-minded." Duh! For one, a person can simply ignore their surroundings without any "outside" notions at hand!
  reply report
  60
  scottsalotposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But the real argument is who is that who is closed minded? I submit that those who need to assign a deity to explain the mysteries of the universe are the ones who are closed minded. They are uncomfortable not being able to fix an explanation to the things that can't be explained.
  For the record, I'm not an atheist. But I don't believe in an all knowing guy in the sky who keeps score of everything we do. That, to me, is an obvious creation of man to control the masses through fear. I think of God as the (non-judging) power source of the universe, which living things are all an extension.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, fair enough... If you truly think that way, then quit making asinine comments about things of the past that you are too narrow-minded to accept as a possibility while thinking that only the "man of today" could achieve anything outside of wiping their own arse with straw, blah, blah.... People often confuse being "open-minded" with futuristic outcomes, while they ignore the possibilities that could have spawned from their own past. I once read an ancient proverb that spoke about how the ones who are truly lost, forget their past... It makes sense, when ya think about it, but only if you're a broad-minded being, of course.
  reply report
  61
  mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To live in the past is folly, to learn from the past is ideal.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yepper, ya got it!
  reply report
  60
  scottsalotposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I believe anything COULD be possible, it's just that nothing is certain. My problem is with the 'Bible is fact' types; the certainty of it all. I like to believe in a power, not a punisher.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds good to me; oh, I like your last line about "a power, not a punisher." Yeah, dogma sucks!
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Men were inspired by God ( God did not come down in person),over 40 different authors,spanning several years apart. Many of these authors never met each other, yet the theme does not contradict itself.
  
  No, I would not do anything (even if a man claimed it was God) UNLESS it confirmed to me in my spirit /conscience that it was right ,or made sense!
  
  But God already thought ahead of you on that one, and advises on how to test these liars and false prophets etc.
  
  In the new testament,Paul frequently admonishes Christians on listening to 'wrong doctrine' 'corrupted living' etc.
  
  Jesus was angry with profit making so called Christians eager to make a buck on the Sabbath ( sounds familiar)..
  
  No,faith enhances wisdom ,not diminishes it (imo)
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As for being divinely inspired, read this: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html
  
  Jesus wasn't angry about people making money on the Sabbath, he was angry about people making money in the temple. Which is counter to the "tithing" process used by Churches.
  
  As for the name Yeshua: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm
  
  and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29
  
  Just because I like diversity in what I read, I'll include this as well: http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_je … l_name.htm
  
  Enjoy reading and let me know your thoughts. Am always interested in input.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok thanks for the effort you took to copy these.Im off to check them out.
  reply report
60
scottsalotposted 12 years ago
When in the history of mankind has anyone ever had to prove that something DOESN'T exist? I can't prove that flying, plaid elephants that speak Russian don't exist either, but since no one has ever seen one (sober), I'll stick with what we can prove.
reply report
1. 60
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I love this post more than words can explain. Did you know the Invisible unicorns speak German? I completely agree with you on this one. Thank you.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I surmise that 'ancient electricity' is also a little too much for ya to grasp, as well? Many humans of today are so clueless, to say the least...
  I suppose you think dragons never existed either?
  I guess giant humanoid-like beings are also a bit much, eh?
  I may go ahead and make the conjecture that you assume that this mad race of Homo sapiens on planet Earth are also the only so-called intelligent bi-peds in the universe, as well?
  
  Ah, I'm so glad I don't think in a limited 2D fashion. Thanks!
  reply report
  60
  FlowOfThoughtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You on that ancient aliens kick?
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm on everything ancient and whatever happened a few decades ago, as today's world is heading toward the drone stages of robotic, senseless, braindead thoughts. Critical thinking is becoming more limited by the day...
  reply report
38
johnakcposted 12 years ago
a child dies in front of a temple is the proof.
reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
Wait till we get to the rat cage. We're almost there.
reply report
59
Jonathan Jancoposted 12 years ago
Am I the only one laughing when people refer to the Apocalypse of John known as the Book of Revelation and call it the Book of Revelations? Am I the only Crowley fan who isn't dead?
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't find any of it funny in a good way... What, Crowley and the Kabbalah doesn't relate to what you laugh about in the Bible? Blah! I seen a YouTube video of your Crowley a while back... Hell, the Yin & Yang looks better every day, especially with silly comments like that; cheers!
  Yeah, lets combine a little metaphysics in there with some dogma and create even more confusion and ridicule and call it the Kabbalah; LOL!
  I take that back; you're right, it is funny and surely I must be joking, right..?
  reply report
  61
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Insane the rice grain
  Sits in a window pane
  Soaking sun all the same
  Can't surf cuz it'll swell his rice brain
  And Insane thinks that's just lame...
  
  Just kid/n bro.. lol [don't ask, just one of those days..]
  
  reply report
2. 64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you a Satanist?
  reply report
  61
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Probably..
  
  Why would people worship owls anyway? ( random thoughts )
  
  Don't they know they are dumb as dirt? lol
  
  Oh wait, I see the conne... ::ahem:: umm - why they do it.
  
  reply report
  64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose Satan likes making fools of people. Why would leaders of America perform ceremonies for Lillith/Marduk whatever, the giant owl?
  reply report
63
diogenesposted 12 years ago
Hi there. No one has to prove God does not exist. If you want to convince anyone of his existance, you need to prove he does exist.
You can't prove a negative.
reply report
1. 61
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So a bunch of people are fighting for something they can't ever, and will never prove is true? LOL
  
  Is that not the result of the statement just made?
  
  I've given up 'convincing' btw, there are some who are actually curious and not overlooking evidence. I was just asking cuz I think it's absolutely hilarious.
  
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not inconceivable, is it, to fight for something that ultimately proves to be wrong? I'm not saying that you are making this kind of mistake, but I think you agree that millions of people are doing exactly that, right now. You likely believe that millions of atheists are making that mistake, and millions of Hindus and millions of Muslims. Why is this hilarious?
  reply report
  61
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that someone who DOUBTS is a hilarious ordeal..
  
  I think it's funny that people of that group say 'God DOES NOT exist.'
  
  And people from the SAME group say 'You can't prove a negative.' lol
  
  They are claiming for FACT that God doesn't exist, and stating simultaneously that it cannot be proven.. Yet 'facts' are known, and PROVEN truths.
  
  I believe SOME atheists are making a mistake, in concluding prematurely on what I can see as easy as the sun.
  
  I was once a person who severely doubted that God exists as well.. But I didn't try to prove anything one way or another until I knew personally it is a fact. I just kept looking.
  
  If one CAN'T prove it [ever] then how can one justify pushing the idea when one admits their held belief is a belief with no possibilty of proof, thereby never being fact? Is that not essentially a pretense?
  reply report
  60
  scottsalotposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that one shouldn't have to prove that something does NOT exist; that doesn't make sense. But, like you said, just because there's no proof doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The atheists are just as bad as the evangelicals; absolute certainty one way or the other. We simply don't know. There is nothing wrong with that; keeps it interesting.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those who assert, dogmatically, that they KNOW that God does NOT exist are not from the same group as those who acknowledge that you can't prove a negative. You are right; that would be a (funny?) contradiction.
  
  Let's put it this way... I don't know that there isn't an elephant in my living room. I'm in my computer room. I can't see what is, or what isn't, in my living room. The possibility exists than an elephant has appeared there. Do I BELIEVE that an elephant has appeared there? Absolutely not. The idea is ridiculous. However, do I KNOW that an elephant has not appeared there? Absolutely not.
  
  In daily life, I'd be willing to state that I KNOW that no elephant exists in my living room. However, as philosophical certainty, I'm not willing to make that claim.
  reply report
  0
  AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  However, one can show that it is rationally impossible for certain deities to exist - a creator god, for example. The only way a creator god could exist is by way of magical supernatural powers. For there to have been a creator god, one must assume a position that this entity could exist outside of all that is (impossible) and create something out of nothing (axiomatically impossible).
  
  I don't "know" this deity does not exist - but I can safely assume non-existence to be the case unless Ghost Busters turns out to have been a documentary instead of a comedy.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lies, lies, lies...
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How about, "Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect..." ?
  
  A "lie" is an intentionally false assertion, and, if AKA Winston's assertions are false, you have in no way demonstrated that they are intentionally false.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...And that is exactly what it is, as he tries to think he is a robot...
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Truthfully, I do assume that such a god doesn't exist, but I won't go so far as to assert knowledge that he doesn't.
  
  I divide claims about the world into the categories supernatural, paranormal, and natural. Think of the categories as regions, and the claims as existent things within those regions. I know that, sometimes, supernatural claims -- claims occupying the supernatural category -- migrate into the paranormal, and, sometimes, those same claims migrate into the natural.
  
  If those migrations never occurred, I would be able to express certainty about a larger subset of claims. As it is, my subset of doubtful claims dwarfs my subset of claims about truth.
  
  Richard Carrier provides some useful definitions:
  
  http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007 … tural.html
  reply report
  0
  AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From the Carrier blog:
  
  Oddly similar to the claim that all real things resolve to objects (fundamentally nonmental things), while concepts (mental things) are dependent upon objects (brains).
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...Yet bodily vessels contain the souls, barriers contain the energies, and life is never contained here while the thoughts are endless as the universe is expanding...
  reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
Which, oddly enough, are names given also to Christ. Lucifer is one of the angels, along with Gabriel and Michael. There is quite a list of them.
reply report
59
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
That star, by the way, isn't a star, it is the planet Venus.
reply report
93
peeplesposted 12 years ago
My life is proof there is no God. If there was he would have protected me as a child! He would have answered my prayers as I cried out to him daily, he would have stopped my father from raping me daily, he would have given nerve to my mother to protect me. If he was real children would not be taken advantage of. You Christians scream out that God can not control "Free Will". So an all powerful being who can give life, take life, and create an entire world is incapable of something as simple as protecting a child?
reply report
1. 68
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm so very sorry that you had to experience that. My heart broke reading this. But I see you're smiling in your photo. I'm glad you've found something in your life to bring you joy.
  reply report
2. 64
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry to hear this and I can't relate to you regarding this. I know what it is like, though, to wonder why God didn't stop my incessant nightmarish night terrors when He could just take them away. I did not understand why He didn't I thought that maybe He was enjoying it. I know now that without that experience I would not be a strong person today. Jesus was not protected from crucifixion and hell. Hell means taking on your pain and everyone else's. He knows what it is liked to be raped and murdered and be responsible for that. That is why He cried, "Father, why have you forsaken me?"
  reply report
60
Lawrence Da-vidposted 12 years ago
For those of us that "have "faith" and believe in "GOD," no explanation or proof is necessary....period. For those that do not have a faith and do not believe in "GOD" no explanation is possible....the mind is closed....Yet! who or what do non-believers call upon when in dire need.
reply report
1. 0
  AKA Winstonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lawrence,
  
  Curious why you would lose your faith in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny yet hold by faith alone the notion of god? Is it because the problems you hope this god can solve are more important to than lack of toys, normal tooth loss, and chocolate eggs, things like death, disease, and the ruthlessness of nature?
  
  I'm not going to be too harsh with you as I grew up in an evangelical home with fairly fundamentalist parents, so I know what it is to be indoctrinated into a belief system and how hard it is to overcome that indoctrination.
  
  I will only say this. I am in the medical field and see death on a constant basis. Death is a biological event. There is no mystery to it. Nature is not perfect but is instead ruthless and arbitrary - we humans have no control over what happens to us but we like to pretent that we do. In the big picture of nature, we are just another amoeba or a dandelion seed blown across the yard - whether we are blown into the street and crushed by the tires of a car or whether we end up in a freshly plowed garden is totally up to chance.
  
  The is no god to care what happens to either the dandelion or to us - so there is no point in crying about it.
  reply report
  68
  A Thousand Wordsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not warm and fuzzy, but it's truth. That's one of the things that makes it so hard to stop believing. We WANT to believe that we're special. That somehow we are really, really important. That there is SOMEONE out there who actually cares about our well being. That there's someone who will get back at the people who have done us wrong. That this life is not all there is. That there is hope (in a supernatural being, omnipotent) Etc, etc. It's a wonderful way to feel, but it's not real. What people don't get is that, especially with former believers (well I guess I can only speak for myself), life was much, MUCH simpler. When I was a Christian, I wasn't free of suffering or anything like that, but my perspective on life made it much easier to live. Life "after Christ," is not easy, and yet people think I left to "follow my own lusts," when they know nothing about me...
  
  (Even the transcendental ideas that I believe possible are not personal, good or bad, just a cosmic reality, but that's another conversation)
  reply report
2. 60
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When I am in need I call upon myself or my friends because they actually exist and can do something.
  reply report
60
thatguyCmposted 12 years ago
If I don't believe in the existence of God, then there's no hope for me for a better place after I die? hmm..I rather believe that God exist. Atheist..respect it. Its better to have a hope for a better tommorow someday than no hope at all. When it turns out that He doesn't really exist...I would still believe in a loving God. Thanks & God bless us all and open our hearts.
reply report
1. 78
  kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why not find hope here, in this life? Why give up on what you already have in favour of something that you may have in some distant future?
  
  I cannot see how someone who simply resorts to hoping the afterlife is going to be better is going to do anything to create good now or stop whatever evils there are going on now. It seems to me that so few people take action because they think they should suffer in this life to 'earn' a better afterlife instead of earning a better this life. There may be an afterlife, there may not be, why waste what you do have on the hopes of something that may not exist? If there is an afterlife surely you should worry about it after this life, and this life should be spent living this life and working on it instead of daydreaming about 'after'.
  reply report
  0
  Ryan-Morganposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're spot on.
  reply report
93
Thomas Swanposted 12 years ago
Atheists and religionists are equally moronic for claiming to have an answer to an unanswerable question. You cannot prove or disprove the unprovable. Anyone who isn't an agnostic has succumbed to motivated reasoning.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't mean to offend, but after 10 years of listenning to people ramble on about how there is or isn't a God, I've gotten a little impatient.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How did you reach the conclusion in which you think I was offended? Was it with the same irrationality you used in the post I was laughing about?
  
  I'm sure 10 years might seem like a long time to listen people about the subject either way, but if a person is honest with themselves, then they will ultimately come to the conclusion that NO G/god exists.
  
  It's part and parcel of rationale and common sense without ego.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see you haven't posted on this thread, so I don't know what your evidence is. If you can prove that God definitely doesn't exist then you should write a book about it and become a millionaire. What do you mean by "being honest with themselves"? That doesn't sound very scientific to me.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No evidence required. Common sense doesn't often require evidence except to make sense. And since there's no rational reason or need for a G/god to exist, then why should one exist to start off? Nothing.
  If I wanted to be a Millionaire, I wouldn't be talking with you right this second. Nothing to prove btw- just because a bunch of irrational people want to believe in a G/god, it doesn't necessarily make it any more true than Santa Claus or any other myth. So please.
  If you need me to explain that "being honest with themselves" means, then you are worse off than initially thought.
  Scientific? Hmmm.... let's see. Philosophy is a science is it not? Of course it is.
  
  Philosophy 101:
  
  (A) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be understood.
  (B) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be lived.
  
  Thus, NO G/god required.
  
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, seems I was right about causing offense. My apologies.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bad perception. There's nothing in my previous statement which would be seen as offended. I suggest you might want to work on your perception.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't worry about it, who needs perception when there is "no evidence required", it's common sense, there's no rational reason to deny it, so please, if you need me to explain why you were offended then you are worse off than initially thought, and everything I say under the banner of philosophical discussion is science too, so listen to my circular reasoning, that I will call philosophy 101 because it makes you sound stupid, and accept that I HAVE THE TRUTH...
  
  Ok, really sorry this time, but it had to be said. Your reasoning is just as religious as the people you claim have no common sense. And if you really need to ask about my perception, I can tell you were offended by the way you turned this personal with your "worse off than initially thought" and "philosophy 101" claptrap. It's juvenile.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Truth? You'd be lucky if you knew what "Truth" was.
  
  As for you pointing out how and why I am offended, then by all means, please use your ego to point out that I'm offended when it's not actually true.
  
  You will most certainly do as my father said- you're true character will show.
  
  So, go ahead? This should be interesting.
  Religious in nature, due to the fact that I am constantly repeating it, yes.
  
  However, you cannot dispute it.
  Juvenile? That must be your own reflecting back at you. This shows you're unable to see beyond yourself(ego). But, nice try though.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see you didn't grasp that I was parodying you. Nevermind then.
  
  Incidently, yes, I would be lucky to know what truth is, and so would you.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So would I? Again, a bad perception.
  
  And yes you "parodying" is missed due to the fact it requires actual contact in physical presence to "see" in the proper light.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Never mind truth, look up what parodying is.
  
  Is English your native language?
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  To answer your question- yes English(American) is my native language. I make no bones about being High School educated. As your intention, was quite clear and the main reason I choose initially not to answer it, because I wanted to let it stir for a moment, so as to see if you would delete the post.
  
  Since you didn't, it speaks huge volumes about you, when you're obviously no ground to stand on.
  
  What else is new.
  report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  report
2. 60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Motivated reasoning...interesting phrase. Especially since agnostic means without knowledge. So your saying everyone with knowledge has motives behind their reasoning. The same can be said of those without knowledge. The motives are honestly simpler and easier to see though.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm agnostic because I think its impossible to know whether God exists or not. So anyone who has come to a certain conclusion about God's existence can't be using evidence, they have to be motivated in some way (like our atheist friend above who says "no evidence required"). The religious are probably motivated by their belief being a comfort (afterlife, protection, etc), whereas the irreligious may be motivated by the sense of intellectual superiority they feel by sharing the opinion of prominent scientists (Dawkins etc).
  
  Motivated reasoning is a well researched topic. There is a journal article by Ziva Kunda freely available on the web called The Case For Motivated Reasoning. One of the main mechanisms through which this occurs is Cognitive Dissonance, which was actually posed as an explanation of religious thought by Leon Festinger in the 50's. The wikipedia page on cognitive dissonance gives his original example, and lots more info.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  By irreligious, I'm guessing you mean non-religious.
  
  Where as I understand your being agnostic, you have to realize that technically speaking, Cagsil is right. There is no evidence required. What's being discussed here, are beliefs. Beliefs never have and never will have any evidence what so ever. If they did, they wouldn't be beliefs, they would be facts.
  
  As for the research of motivated reasoning, it is actually a very very simple subject. When ever you get to the end of all the research, you realize that. No matter what you do, it's motivated by something. Reasoning is no different, and it all falls back to cause and effect really.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's what irreligious means.
  
  You can believe in facts just like you can choose not to believe in facts. You wouldn't call it a fact if you didn't believe it, but you would call it a fact if you did. They are not mutually exclusive. Facts require belief in them if they are to be established as facts in the first place.
  
  Evidence is required for every claim. If God appears tomorrow and convinces you that he exists, then what happens to your claim? It is proved wrong. You need evidence to state with certainty that God does not exist. Just like I need evidence to state with certainty that there isn't a moon hidden behind Neptune. There is no evidence for this moon, just like there is no evidence for God, but in both cases you can't be certain about their non-existence. To be certain is to have a belief. Atheism is a belief.
  
  If you'd gotten to the "end of all the research" on motivated reasoning (whatever the end is..) I think you'd realise it's not as simple as you think. So I disagree with you there. If we understood motivation fully, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The difference between facts and beliefs, is that a fact holds true regardless of if you believe in it or not. Gravity is one for instance. Regardless of if you believe in gravity or not, it is still a constant part of your life. Belief is irrelevant when it comes to facts.
  
  My point still stands. When discussing what you believe, which has no facts to back it up what so ever, you still don't need any evidence. The nature of beliefs is such, that even if presented with facts, they will become skewed for the favor of belief or blatantly ignored. Even still though, the facts remain, regardless of if a person chooses to believe them.
  
  I think you focus to much on trying to understand reasoning. When your studying motivated reasoning, your not look at reasoning, your looking at what motivates. Much like hunger motivates you to eat. However, your motivated to keep eating until your body gets what it tells you that it wants or your stomach swells and hurts. Like many others, your trying to dig to deep into something that's relatively easy.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no way for you to know if facts exist. What if your world is a simulation or a dream or something else you haven't thought of? There may be no certainty (or facts). All you have is belief in suppositions that are probable... in some cases very probable, but not certain. Calling something a fact is just a nice way of removing any remaining doubt.
  
  So your claim is "when discussing beliefs which have no facts to back them up, you don't need evidence". I presented you with an example. There are no facts to say there is a moon hidden behind Neptune. If I went into a room of physicists and said "I believe with certainty that there is no hidden moon behind Neptune" I would get laughed out of the room. How anyone can be certain in the face of uncertainty beggars belief. Whatever mental gymnastics Atheists perform to justify their belief, it only demonstrates the same motivated reasoning that religious people use.
  
  As for motivated reasoning, like many others you are trying to dismiss it as simplistic and understood. You demonstrate this with your example. There is more than what motivates; there is how it motivates, how this motivation interacts with different psychological states and emotions, how emotions motivate, how innate cognitive biases motivate, how reasoning is altered and to what extent. Philosophers dismiss motivation as psychology, psychologists dismiss it as philosophy, and cognitive scientists just ignore it and hope it will go away. You need a broader knowledge than just one of these fields.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure there is. If I do something over and over again and receive the same result, then it's a fact that I can do it. If I can subject it to the same test over and over and achieve the same result, then it's a fact. The world being a simulation or dream etc, doesn't really matter to me. It has not been presented as even being remotely possible in anyway. Have you ever heard the phrase "I define my own reality?" This doesn't mean that you can actually shape reality to what you want it to be, only that you can choose to accept things or not.
  
  No, my claim is that when discussing beliefs, all people have a tendency to become irrational and twist things into anything they want in order to try and garner an advantage. Much like you have done here in trying to twist exactly what I said. Belief's don't make facts, they never had. They only time they create doubt, is when people let them create doubt. Facts are consistent and always there, regardless of if you believe or not. Belief's however, are not created in facts and have no facts supporting them. Wishing it were so and it actually being so, are two different things.
  
  I think your trying to look to deeply at it. How something motivates, how it interacts with psychological states and emotions, how emotions motivate, etc is all relative to the person your trying to figure out. You can do the same thing to 10 people and at least 6 out of the 10 will have completely different results from the rest of them. What makes one person cry can make another laugh, another might show no emotion, etc. There's a reason that motivated reasoning isn't understood, and it's because you have to understand each and ever person on a individual level in order to understand it. Something so simplistic as that though, tends to elude those who think because genetic makeup is the same, everything else must be as well.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Before I reply, I wouldn't mind if you addressed my example, which you've ignored for two posts now. If there is no evidence for a moon hidden behind Neptune, how can you be certain the moon doesn't exist? Is this any different to the question of God's existence? You are deflecting this into a semantic argument about beliefs, facts, motivation and reasoning, and telling me I'm twisting your words... Lets concentrate on the topic at hand.
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your example about Neptune doesn't make any sense what so ever. People's belief in God and the results of what they do actually affect my life and the lives of those I care about, where as whether or not Neptune has a moon hiding behind it doesn't. Whether or not that moon may or may not exist, has no bearing on me or those I care about. Come up with something that actually has an impact on the discussion instead of something that doesn't when you wish me to address it, instead of using things that don't make any difference what so ever.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Forgive me for not reading your mind and extracting something you care about. I'm wondering how your personal cares are relevant to this philosophical question. Let me change the question. If there is no evidence for a potentially lethal black hole hiding behind Neptune, is this reason for you to be certain it is not there? I'm sure that would affect your personal world...
  reply report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Let me explain it more, since you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. People's beliefs in Gods and their resulting actions affect everyone they interact with. Whether or not something is hiding out in space, too far away to affect us, does not. If your going to come up with an analogy to use, it should have the same kind of frequency and impact on people as beliefs do. Otherwise, all the analogies are useless and pointless.
  
  Now as for the black hole, whether or not it's potentially lethal doesn't matter. Black Holes have the gravity to move things that don't have as great of a gravity etc. Whether or not it could have the potential to suck in planets etc, we do not know for sure. How it would be affected in being caught between two planets with their own gravitational pull, we have no idea. We also have no idea how far their reach might actually extend. Now assuming it could pull in Neptune and Jupiter, it's still quite far away from earth and more than likely wouldn't have an impact on us before it imploded. Again, belief it more than likely, wouldn't make any difference what so ever as it wouldn't affect anything.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I find it interesting how you dictate the limits of human knowledge of physics, and then assert that a black hole would be no threat if it sucked in Jupiter. Both claims are wrong, and I wonder why you're doing these mental gymnastics (once again) to dismiss my example. Basically, you're trying to say that the logic you apply to the question of God's existence doesn't apply to any other question. Your reason is that this question has greater "impact on people". President Bush believed Iraq had WMD's, and this belief had a huge impact on thousands of soldiers, Americans and Iraqis, but does that alter the probability of Iraq having WMD's? Impact does not alter probability.
  
  Here's another question (i'm guessing you're an atheist): Are you proud to be an atheist? How do you think this affects YOUR reasoning?
  report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So my experience of what is known now dictates knowledge physics. Glad to know that.
  
  Now, while your claiming I'm doing gymnastics to try and dismiss your examples, why don't you quit doing gymnastics with your examples. Quit making fantastic claims of things that don't apply to the situation at all, and try coming back to earth and using an analogy that you know, involves people on a daily basis of their lives. If you can't do that, then your just wasting time in an attempt to prove someone wrong just because you don't comprehend something.
  
  No, I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe in the Christian God either.
  report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've said that we don't know if black holes could suck in planets, and you've said a black hole sucking in Jupiter probably wouldn't affect Earth. As someone with a PhD in physics I can tell you right now how ridiculous your bending of the facts is. Does this not set off alarm bells in your head that maybe you stretching reality for a reason? What is your motivation?
  
  Here's another example: If there is no evidence that the Chinese want to take over the world, is this any reason to believe with certainty that they don't want to take over the world? This is relevant to our daily lives, and people often say the Chinese want to take over the world. It appears to be a recurrent concern. Or do I need to read your mind and find a concern directly relevant to your personal situation for you to understand that this philosophical question does not require a familiar context? I wonder what other conditions you'll add now, I look forward to your reply.
  report
  60
  EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As for conditions, I add none.
  
  As for the Chinese reference, actually it's a perfect example. There are people out there who believe the Chinese want to "take over the world." However, just because they believe it, doesn't mean there's evidence for it. It's what they believe and there is NO outward evidence for it what so ever. So we go back to square one, No evidence needed.
  
  As for your PhD in physics, if you say you have it, then ok. Please provide the relevant facts and theories to back up your assertions about black holes, or leave it alone. It's not worth arguing about and there was no stretching to it. Unlike you, I'm not a rocket scientist.
  report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If it's the perfect example, answer the question. Is there any reason to believe with certainty that the Chinese don't want to take over the world?
  
  Black holes can suck in more than planets, they can suck in stars: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13783877
  
  Jupiter is several times bigger than the Earth. If a black hole sucked it in, it would be powerful enough to threaten the Earth.
  
  As for being "not sure" about how black holes work, we know plenty from Stephen Hawkings work, see wiki for an intro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
  reply report
69
emilgen2011posted 12 years ago
There's nothing to show, for there are no proofs that God doesn't exist... I already made this kind of forum thread, before... What the Atheists would just do then is to resort to "mob rule," but will you show you nothing (:
reply report
1. 93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Seems that way. I find it incredible how atheists can claim to be advocates of scientific research whilst demonstrating an utter paucity of scientific reasoning. It's like the Christians jumping on Intelligent Design because it might reinforce their beliefs. I must say though, I'm here to learn, and I've learnt a great deal about the psychology of Atheists. The emotional vigour and irrational reasoning they employ is paralleled in religion. As a scientist turned psychologist I find it quite fascinating.
  reply report
  0
  Chasukposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm an atheist, and I am more than happy to acknowledge that, of course, there is no proof that God doesn't exist.
  reply report
0
scottcgruberposted 12 years ago
How could a black hole hide behind Neptune? Even if it were positioned at the Sun-Neptune L2 point, I think someone would notice the perturbations in the orbits of its moons, the x-rays produced as the hole siphons off Neptune's atmosphere, and the gravitational lensing of stars along the ecliptic. There's no physical way for something to be "hidden" behind another planet in the Solar System from our perspective at all points around both of our orbits. Parallax will allow us to see it at some point.

Now if it were a black hole at the Sun-Neptune L2 that was so small it didn't perturb the orbits of its moons and wasn't feeding on the planet, I would not consider it a threat. Granted, L2 isn't a very stable place to be, and we'd want to monitor it and prepare a contingency plan in case it began to drift.

And even then, how cool would it be to steer around our own black hole with a gravity tractor?
reply report
1. 57
  nonto21posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Also, we would tend to see a syphoning off of Neptune's gasseous atmosphere.
  reply report
  93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't be so sure. If it is behind Neptune, the accretion disk may be too. We may notice some change in the mass of the planet, reflected in the orbits of its moons, or we may notice the atmosphere on our side of the planet moving in a different way, but it's hard to say for sure.
  reply report
2. 93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like it would be a threat if it needs to be monitored and prepared for. The question didn't require the deep analysis though. It's just an analogy for the question: If there is no evidence to prove something's existence, is this any reason to believe with certainty that it doesn't exist? Some people seem to think they can answer the question differently if it concerns God
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know. It's an amped-up version of Russell's Teapot. And I agree with you to a point.
  
  Thing is, you can follow that train of thought to the most ludicrous extremes. Is anything real? Does anything really exist? All our senses are electrical impulses translated by neurons into a coherent picture of reality. For all I know, I could be just a program in a highly detailed simulation of a universe. Our entire three-dimensional reality could be just a dream in the mind of some pan-dimensional being. We can't really know anything, if you take an extreme perspective on it.
  
  At a certain point, you have to stop and designate a "for all intents and purposes" reality, accepting that what we perceive as real and tangible is actually real and tangible. Maybe it isn't, but the light works, the gravity works, the time works, and the matter works, so it might as well be real.
  reply report
0
scottcgruberposted 12 years ago
Continuing my post from above with some new thoughts...

If we accept what for all intents and purposes seems to be reality as reality, the next question we have to ask is "what does 'exist' mean?" If something exists, must it be matter? Can electromagnetic energy exist? How about the charge of an electron or a magnetic field? Do they exist?

What about ideas? Does General Relativity exist? The theory and its equations are words printed on a page - does that make them real? Does the fact that they descibe the bending of light by gravity make the theory exist?

What about a fictional character? Does the act of writing a story or making a film make a character exist? They may not be flesh-and-blood, but the book and film are tangible, so the characters depicted are also, in a sense. Even abstract concepts and literary techniques could be considered "existing" if we take this as our definition of existence. Hubris exists. Irony exists. The fourth wall and unreliable narrator exist.

And in that sense, God exists. If only as a fictional character on a printed page.

On the other hand, if we strictly define existence as being a matter-and-energy object in the three-dimensional universe and obeying the physical laws of that universe, then we can say that God - at least as defined in the Judeo-Christian sense - does not exist. For to exist is to be an object rooted in the physical laws of the universe. God, by definition and description, violates those laws, and thus cannot exist.
reply report
1. 89
  MizBejabbersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  scotcgruber: Why didn't you make this into a hub? You have some really good logic here. And you could start another really good argument! I'd vote you up if I could.
  reply report
2. 93
  Thomas Swanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would have thought that after asking all those questions for which we have no answers, you would take the agnostic position. In your last paragraph you touch on some good points though. I always think of God as unburdened by the assumptions made about him by religion. I agree that when you talk about the Judeo-Christian God, you are placing constraints on God that make him/her disprovable. Without these constraints he is just a creator. Without knowing what came before the Big Bang (if there was a "before") we are unable to reach certainty about the (non) existence of this creator God. Furthermore, there is no reason to say that nature's laws would be replicated in whatever preceeded the Big Bang.
  
  Humans have a propensity to invent creators, and this makes me skeptical of the whole God concept. I find it useful to imagine what I would think at the dawn of time; before the advent of religion. I would look at the world and wonder what created it. I would look at my fellow man and see that humans can create. Then I would hypothesise that the creation of the world required a being powerful enough to match the scope of his creation. Thus, I find God to be a viable hypothesis. I frankly find it absurd that anyone could "know" whether God does or doesn't exist. Even with Bertrand Russell's teapot, or the plethora of absurdity emerging from our collective imagination, if there is no proof it doesn't exist, you can't be certain. I never said the agnostic position was a desirable one.
  reply report
60
AFWF Erickposted 12 years ago
There is a lack of sufficient evidence that God exists. Huge difference.
reply report
59
Rhonda D Johnsonposted 12 years ago
I am not an evangelist. It is not my job to prove God does not exist but yours to prove that he does. But if you must have proof that that at least the God of the Bible does not exist, see my bub Bible Problematics Part 1: The Creation Story.
reply report
51
thietkelogoposted 12 years ago
Great post, thank for sharing
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 3

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)

Show me proof that God does not exist.

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

Show me proof that God does not exist.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies