Believe

[thepixiesrock]

there is no god. absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

 

btw, even if there was a god, who cares. 'it' doesn't, clearly, interact with humans so 'it' is in any case irrelevant. the bible, and every other religious text, is written by ignorant humans and ergo useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is your opinion, not fact. Try not to get those two confused. Don't worry, it happens to a lot of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, absence of evidence is a fact. there is absolutely evidence that proves, or even indicates, the existance of god(s).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What evidence disproves it?

[random evil guy]

there is no god. absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

 

btw, even if there was a god, who cares. 'it' doesn't, clearly, interact with humans so 'it' is in any case irrelevant. the bible, and every other religious text, is written by ignorant humans and ergo useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is your opinion, not fact. Try not to get those two confused. Don't worry, it happens to a lot of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, absence of evidence is a fact. there is absolutely evidence that proves, or even indicates, the existance of god(s).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What evidence disproves it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

don't try to shift the burden of proof here. otherwise we'd have to go into the leprechon, pink elephants or unicorn argument and nobody wants that...

 

an extrordinary claim requires extrodinary proof. there is no proof of gods, ergo the claim is rejected. end of.

[thepixiesrock]

don't try to shift the burden of proof here. otherwise we'd have to go into the leprechon, pink elephants or unicorn argument and nobody wants that...

 

an extrordinary claim requires extrodinary proof. there is no proof of gods, ergo the claim is rejected. end of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I could say that there is no evidence that a god/s doesn't exist, and that absence of evidence, as you say, is fact.

[Gabrielle]

You do not need to prove that doesn't exist. It's nonexistence is reason enough.

[Fionavar]

OK ... I'm sensing a time out may be in order ... could we try to be civil and avoid grossly categorising or insinuating prejudice? Yes that was rhetorical ... play nice or I'll have to move ...

[Gabrielle]

OK ... I'm sensing a time out may be in order ... could we try to be civil and avoid grossly categorising or insinuating prejudice? Yes that was rhetorical ... play nice or I'll have to move ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hear you. I'm going to my cool down box.

[thepixiesrock]

You do not need to prove that doesn't exist. It's nonexistence is reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, try not to pass off your opinion as fact please. You say it doesn't exist. The only proof you have to that claim is that you have never been convinced of any existance of a god/s.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I feel that athiesm is as much having faith as any other religion,

I don't, although that's an argument that hangs a lot on how you define the words 'faith' and 'belief'. I have bad memories of arguing that at length with someone, quoting several different dictionary sources.

 

I, and most atheists I think, would say that I have beliefs, but not faith. This is not setting my beliefs up as incontrovertible fact or as better than the beliefs of Christians or Buddhists. It merely reflects the fact that these beliefs were arrived at by a different process (by reason rather than by revelation) and I'd like that distinction noted.

[thepixiesrock]

I feel that athiesm is as much having faith as any other religion,

I don't, although that's an argument that hangs a lot on how you define the words 'faith' and 'belief'. I have bad memories of arguing that at length with someone, quoting several different dictionary sources.

 

I, and most atheists I think, would say that I have beliefs, but not faith. This is not setting my beliefs up as incontrovertible fact or as better than the beliefs of Christians or Buddhists. It merely reflects the fact that these beliefs were arrived at by a different process (by reason rather than by revelation) and I'd like that distinction noted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You're right, I have used the word "faith" losely. I guess I should have really used "belief".

[Gabrielle]

You do not need to prove that doesn't exist. It's nonexistence is reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, try not to pass off your opinion as fact please. You say it doesn't exist. The only proof you have to that claim is that you have never been convinced of any existance of a god/s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BLAH BLAH. You're not an athiest so stop pretending like you are.

[random evil guy]

 

don't try to shift the burden of proof here. otherwise we'd have to go into the leprechon, pink elephants or unicorn argument and nobody wants that...

 

an extrordinary claim requires extrodinary proof. there is no proof of gods, ergo the claim is rejected. end of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I could say that there is no evidence that a god/s doesn't exist, and that absence of evidence, as you say, is fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

again, this is a logical fallacy. shifting the burden of proof... there is no evidence super mice from the future created the earth 2000 years ago, but it is hardly likely...

 

the claim is 'god exists', but there is no evidence to support the claim. ergo should the claim be rejected. that is the rational choice.

[thepixiesrock]

You do not need to prove that doesn't exist. It's nonexistence is reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, try not to pass off your opinion as fact please. You say it doesn't exist. The only proof you have to that claim is that you have never been convinced of any existance of a god/s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BLAH BLAH. You're not an athiest so stop pretending like you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't tell me what I am and am not. I am an athiest. I do not believe in God. I'm not however, going around saying "there is no God." I can't prove it, so I'm not going to go around pretending like I can.

[random evil guy]

You do not need to prove that doesn't exist. It's nonexistence is reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again, try not to pass off your opinion as fact please. You say it doesn't exist. The only proof you have to that claim is that you have never been convinced of any existance of a god/s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BLAH BLAH. You're not an athiest so stop pretending like you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't tell me what I am and am not. I am an athiest. I do not believe in God. I'm not however, going around saying "there is no God." I can't prove it, so I'm not going to go around pretending like I can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

do you also go around saying there may be pink elephants living under the antarctic ice? please, get real...

[thepixiesrock]

again, this is a logical fallacy. shifting the burden of proof... there is no evidence super mice from the future created the earth 2000 years ago, but it is hardly likely...

 

the claim is 'god exists', but there is no evidence to support the claim. ergo should the claim be rejected. that is the rational choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you, and thank you. You have actually explained your reasoning instead of just saying "God isn't real" over and over.

[random evil guy]

again, this is a logical fallacy. shifting the burden of proof... there is no evidence super mice from the future created the earth 2000 years ago, but it is hardly likely...

 

the claim is 'god exists', but there is no evidence to support the claim. ergo should the claim be rejected. that is the rational choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you, and thank you. You have actually explained your reasoning instead of just saying "God isn't real" over and over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

religious beliefs are per definition an irrational choice. there is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods. that's all that matters. the lack of, expected, evidence is a very strong proof of the non existence of a god. in addition, most of the stuff in the bible has been disproved(genesis, flood, exodus etc) so it's pretty safe to say christianity is definately wrong...

[thepixiesrock]

The only reason I have been arguing with you is because I just wanted to hear some reasoning. Sorry if you took it the wrong way, and I'm sorry if you didn't and now I am assuming you did.

[Nick_i_am]

and to poke fun at the arrogant argument stuff, "I think therefore I am arrogant"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice work summerising my point.

 

HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF, YOU DON'T NEED IT FROM SOME GODAMNED DIETY THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

 

And what of deity that is personification of man? In other words, what about god being the man and man being the god? Such limited views can come from limited dictions as the one below, and assigning diction to the concept of 'god' (which can be argued to be different from the concept of diety and the concept of creator) is stupid at best.

 

god (gd)

n.

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

5. A very handsome man.

6. A powerful ruler or despot.

 

Additionally, thanks for showing the worst side of human nature that stems from 'god' and people's relation to their own 'god' be is science, the belief in a supreme being or whatever. How many people do you think have died over this very same nature? Sure, you're saying 'break free' and not 'worship what we worship' but how is 'follow my thinking pattern' any different than any other forceful conversion? and how is that any different from any war, execution or persectution done in the name of converting someone from one view of the universe to another.

 

THIS is the arrogance. As pointed out above 'I think, therefore I am arrogant' is simply part of the human condition, but people can be better than this. Too bad that so many have died because they havn't been, and too bad that an educated, modern individual in a 'free' countray can still follow such vile trains of thought. 'Think what I think, it's for your own good'. Even beliving it's for his own good does not make it excusable for exactly as long as he isn't harming those around him.

 

You can probably nitpick words or sentances in the above, but it doesn't make the overall point any less valid. Additionally, this are merely my opinions, read on them, ignore them, consider them, whatever you feel like.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[random evil guy]

The only reason I have been arguing with you is because I just wanted to hear some reasoning.  Sorry if you took it the wrong way, and I'm sorry if you didn't and now I am assuming you did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

ok.

 

it's just that i really dispise 'theists'. i have a lot more respect for 'deists'. i see myself as a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist against every religion there is. i absolutely loathe organized religion...

[Dark Moth]

religious beliefs are per definition an irrational choice. there is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods. that's all that matters. the lack of, expected, evidence is a very strong proof of the non existence of a god. in addition, most of the stuff in the bible has been disproved(genesis, flood, exodus etc) so it's pretty safe to say christianity is definately wrong...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, wrong. While genesis is up in the air (methinks much is symbolic), the flood and exodus haven't been disproven. And actually, there is evidence supporting Noah's flood. BTW, people can't prove aliens or ghosts. Does that mean they don't exist?

Edited January 6, 2006 by Mothman

[julianw]

religious beliefs are per definition an irrational choice. there is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods. that's all that matters. the lack of, expected, evidence is a very strong proof of the non existence of a god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strong evidence that there is no God? I have a few questions regarding that point if you don't mind. If there is strong evidence proving the non-existence of God, why would the majority of earth's population remains religious and the percentage for pure athiests stays less than 10%? Why would so many greatest minds throughout human history strongly believe in the existence of god? People like Newton, Descartes or Socrates; on top of being the greatest scientists, they are also great philosophers and made many breakthroughs in the field of religion.

 

I agree with you that there is little physical evidence for a universal god or a creator, but over 5 billion people alive today and those great names I just mentioned can easily stand as proof that a personal god exists. Of course, whether the proof is substantial is still up for debate, but you must realize that at 1:5, athiests do not have great odds here.

[Dark Moth]

there is no god. absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

 

btw, even if there was a god, who cares. 'it' doesn't, clearly, interact with humans so 'it' is in any case irrelevant. the bible, and every other religious text, is written by ignorant humans and ergo useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just goes to show you that ignorance is a two-way street. Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they? First of all, if you make generalizations like that, the only thing you'll do is make yourself look stupid. Secondly, many religious texts contain positive philosphies which many have lived by for centuries. Deny it if you wish, and I know some will, but religion has had just as many, if not much more, positive impact than negative.

 

But that of course has no relevancy, does it? Most active posters here are not part of some organized religion from what I've gathered. Of course, they in turn are going to be biased for their own opinion. But what I get a charge out of is that SOME posters here repeatedly crucify (no pun intended) religion for all of its "crimes", one of them being that they force their beliefs on others. And yet, you see atheists around here doing the same thing, if not in worse ways. Admitting you're part of any organized religion here is going to get you flamed at from the more "intelligent" posters on this board. They always feel the need to speak out about how evil all religion is.

 

But it doesn't matter. If a Christian would be to make any remark in support of his or her faith, or to disagree with another's point of view, some people would feel offended. But they or course wouldn't care if Christians (or any religious person) were offended by remarks such as "religion is evil", "Christians are ignorant", or "God is a doesn't exist/is a bastard". They only show their own hypocracy and arrogance when they do that. People feel free to generalize religious people, but the religious ones to do the same is just wrong! Sickening.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Mothman

[SteveThaiBinh]

If there is strong evidence proving the non-existence of God, why would the majority of earth's population remains religious and the percentage for pure athiests stays less than 10%?

There is no evidence proving the non-existence of God, as you rightly point out. There is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, and that is why atheists say that they don't believe that God exists.

 

Something isn't true just because lots of people believe it's true, or because some great men believed it was true. There are great scientists today who have religious beliefs, and great scientists and philosophers of the past who were atheists.

 

The question of why religions exist is a huge one, assuming you don't believe that they were divinely (or satanically) revealed. I think religion exists because people have always wanted answers to the great questions of life, and religion has offered these answers. It's a fascinating subject, that's for sure.

[thepixiesrock]

The way I see it is, hasn't Heaven always been reffered to as being above us, and Hell, below us. Well, we have been above us, and have learned a good deal about below us. There was no evidence of a Heaven, nor a Hell. So, then it changes. "It was just symbolism." I just have trouble believing something that can be taken literally one minute, then symbolic the next. That is however, my skewed perspective. I don't pretend to know about religious text.

[Diamond]

Now that was some really heated discussion and some (not mentioning the names) atheists here were today as bad as religious fanatics.

 

@random evil guy

Absense of evidence doesn't prove anything, it vaguely shows the statistical significance of some particular theory. Since our knowledge base is not complete, we cannot assert non-existence of God.

You seem to be very emotional about your argument, and that stems from your prejudice to religion. Yes there are reasons to despise Catholic Church, but religious people are all different.

[julianw]

There is no evidence proving the non-existence of God, as you rightly point out.  There is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, and that is why atheists say that they don't believe that God exists.

 

Something isn't true just because lots of people believe it's true, or because some great men believed it was true.  There are great scientists today who have religious beliefs, and great scientists and philosophers of the past who were atheists.

 

The question of why religions exist is a huge one, assuming you don't believe that they were divinely (or satanically) revealed.  I think religion exists because people have always wanted answers to the great questions of life, and religion has offered these answers.  It's a fascinating subject, that's for sure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All valid points though one must ask then why is religion able to offer those answers then? As you will certainly understand that no one could attain faith or understanding of God or religion through logic alone. I think perhaps that the very reason behind that is that the understanding of God must be done by something entirely different from logic or reasoning. If you want to search for evidence in logic that a personal God exists, perhaps there are none. But if religion is beyond logic, then why would you want its proof in logic in the first place? Do we require the study of science and reasoning behind beauty to appreciate beauty?

Edited January 6, 2006 by julianw