There is no god of anykind.
No kind of god exists. Ra, Odin, Isis, Saturn, Venus, Baal, the current Judaeo-Christian god have never existed and are completely phonies bought into by gullible people to try to explain the things, good and bad, that happen in their lives and the lives of their loved ones. All are equal and all are equally mythical.
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
The very idea of a god is a myth. There is not now and ever has been any kind creature or creator or concept that fits any conventional, understood today, definition of a god. The whole concept is absurd.
Absolute, so-called "strong" atheism is correct. Period.
Do you consider yourself an atheist or an agnostic? To call yourself a true atheist you should have absolute proof that God does not exist. I doubt that anyone has that proof. If you have no proof either way then you are an agnostic.
So there's no such thing as an atheist?
I didn't say that.
"To call yourself a true atheist you should have absolute proof that God does not exist."
You're saying that nobody should call themself an atheist unless they have proof that is impossible to obtain. Effectively, you are saying that true atheists don't exist.
That is it exactly. They set a standard for atheists that is impossible to prove and then say that means atheists, true atheists, can not exist. Well, I am a true atheist.
Except the The Flying Spaghetti Monster of course.
Fair is fair. Atheists set a standard for believers that is impossible to prove. You do that youself to arrive at your conclusion.
As you said:
"It is up to those who claim there is a god to prove it. I know that there is not."
And I was and am right. If a person said that "There is a tooth fairy." It would be up to that person to prove it. It would not be up to me to prove that there is not. One can not prove a negative. I am not the one making the claim that something exists. The burden of proof is on those who do.
"One can not prove a negative."
That's right. That's why you can't prove that there is no god.
Bingo, I have to go with you on this one, Buzz.
I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist either, because one can't prove something is there that is not. It is those who are making the claim that a god exist who have the burden of proof. Not those who say there is not. I have no burden of proof to prove something does not exist. The claim that something does exist brings along the burden of proving it.
So if I were to say you don't have a brain in your head, I don't have to prove it.
Go ahead and split open my skull to check. If you think you can.
If you can't prove god doesn't exist, you probably should not have said that no God exists. You made a claim. The burden of proof is yours. So far, you have failed.
" Effectively, you are saying that true atheists don't exist."
In actuality, nothing we believe exists actually exists-- its all an illusion. A dance of energies. Maya. Don't believe me? Ask the Hindus. (Factoid: Hinduism is the oldest extant religion. So they should know).
About Maya
Hinduism is a funny thing. On the one hand, it is a very complex enlightenment. On the other hand, it's a caste system that forces some people to clean toilets while others are not even allowed to clean toilets - and don't even get me started about the gender discrimination.
I didn't say that.
Yes. You did.
"To call yourself a true atheist you should have absolute proof that God does not exist".
Well, sort of. Atheists don't have absolute proof-- they only think they do. Agnostics aren't sure either way-- they want to find proof of her existence or not.
It is impossible to either absolutely prove or disprove the existence of god-- so both of these groups are foolishly wasting their time thinking about it, while what they should be doing is making better use of their time by doing much smarter, and nobler (and more worthwhile) things with their time. Like, for example, participating in pseudo-intellectual discussions online, and spending hours engaging in extremely childish personal attacks on other participants. Now that would be a truly worthwhile use of one's time!!! (Perhaps we should explore ways to get more people to spend more time engaging in that sort of thing...?)
The burden of proof rests with the person claiming something does exist, not the person claiming that something does not exist. People who claim the existence of god are making an extraordinary claim. They are saying that an entity exists that created the universe and the Milky Way galaxy and the solar system and the Earth and all of the creatures that live n this speck of dust. That is an extraordinary claim and they have the obligation to prove it. Not the person who says they are wrong. To try to shift the burden of proof to the person who says there is no god is an incredible lack of faith on their part and a pile of distracting bullshit because they know they are wrong. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap.
That was beautiful Hal . Not to be a killjoy but what you posted already makes you an idolator in several religions . And one of those religions would put you to death for expressing such beliefs . Some people have no sense of humor !
Did you wake up in the middle of the night with this vision Randy ? Lol. Maybe , like Scrooge thought of Marley's ghost, it was the product of an undigested piece of beef.
No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. It is a matter of faith on both sides and probably always will be. We don't know whether existence was created by a "super" natural force or has always been. It is beyond silly to "declare" that there is no God as if that declaration means anything.
I disagree. It is up to those who claim there is a god to prove it. I know that there is not.
It is up to those who claim there is a god to prove it.
THAT is a myth.
John is right Randy (did I actually say that????). Work out the odds. It is a question with only two possible answers (there is or there is not). There is no credible evidence for either side. Therefore, the chances are 50/50 for each side.
That's why I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist.
When people try and debate the existence , or not, of God, it all comes down to the default position, because neither side can "prove" their case.
People like Randy try, always, to claim the default for the atheist position, I guess because they were brought into atheism on the basis of the claim that believers cannot prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist.
More seasoned "debaters" on the topic who are "believers" do not relinquish the default, nor is there any reason for them to.
I hear all the time that atheism wins by default – in other words, if there aren’t any good arguments for God, then atheism automatically wins. So many of these fellows don’t offer any arguments for atheism; instead, they just try to shoot down the arguments for theism and say they win by default. In reality, however, the failure of arguments for God wouldn’t do anything to establish that God does not exist. The claim that there is no God is a positive claim to knowledge and therefore requires justification. The failure of arguments for God would leave us, at best, with agnosticism, not atheism.
William Craig Lane
The presumptive atheist commits a rational fallacy best represented by the aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." 4 As atheist Kai Nielson recognized, even if all proofs for God's existence fail it could still be the case that God exists. 5 The only way to rule out God's existence is to present positive evidence against it. This being the case, it does not follow that if the theist cannot present positive evidence for God's existence that one is justified in presuming God does not exist.
"The presumptive atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist-whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. Atheism, however, is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence." 6 It is an error to conclude that the absence of evidence for God's existence is positive evidence against His existence. One may be epistemically justified in not believing God exists if there is no evidence for His existence, but a lack of evidence for His existence does not rule out the fact that He may indeed exist. That possibility cannot be ruled out until positive evidence against His evidence has surfaced. In the meantime we should remain agnostic on the question.
"The claim that there is no God is a positive claim to knowledge and therefore requires justification. "
I claim that the core of the sun is not made up of ice. However, according to that logic, the theory of a sun with an icy core must be given equal consideration to any other material - until such time that someone travels to the core of the sun and provides justification that it is not composed of ice.
That's silly ... according to the laws of thermodynamics .
So we've discovered everything there is to know about our universe?
We have quite a lot of knowledge about thermodynamics ; enough to rule out certain distributions of temperature difference . But don't let your ignorance of thermo bog you down !
You are missing the point Petey (again). We also have an enormous amount of knowledge about the natural world around us, which makes the concept of gods at least as ridiculous as a sun with an icy core.
For starters, how did an entity as complex as god originate? Did it make it self from nothing? It would be one thing if it was a real thing that that we could observe, and wonder about its origins - but we can't even do that! It's an invisible, undetectable, and non-communicative thing that supposedly is also the grandest thing in nature (or SUPER-nature as JR insists). How absurd is that?
Hal ,
For starters, how did an entity as complex as god originate?
You seem to be employing a simplistic linear view of the universe to formulate your questions . According to relativistic physics the laws of physics [and even the concept of time itself] that approach was not valid before the big bang event . Try expanding your thinking .
Also try putting labels on your comments to explain what you are getting at instead of assuming the rest of us can read your mind . The icy cored sun should be described as an attempt to disprove god [but a hopeless failure at same] .
I think scientists know that the core of the sun is not ice.
We have been through this before. We have passive atheists who believe God doesn't exist, and aggressive atheists who KNOW God doesn't exists. When you claim to know something, and say so in public (as opposed to knowing it in "private"), you have to be able to demonstrate your argument is correct.
"God does not exist" is not proved by the statement "you can't prove God exists"
There is EXACTLY as much evidence of God's existence as there is for the deep interior of the sun. In fact, the God you have faith in is far less probable than an unknown phenomena that could cause the core of the sun to be made of ice. If your God does exist, and it has any sort of intelligence, then I pity it for having no choice but to exist in eternal isolation. That sounds more like a description of hell.
Apples and oranges. It's directly observable that the core of the sun is not ice. Poor analogy. Very poor.
You've directly observed the core of the sun? That's pretty bad-ass.
Thanks. Go outside and hold your hand up to the sun and then in the shade. You will feel the heat. Using simple thermodynamics, you can deduce that heat is flowing from the sun to the earth radiatively. If the sun was made of ice, that wouldn't happen.
And now you know!
No, it can't. I suggest taking some elementary science classes at your local community college.
Does community college science class teach us how things materialize from nothing? I thought they only teach that stuff in magic school.
if a god can create itself from nothing, then the sun can have a core of ice.
Yep. Either that or this so-called "god" is not all powerful and therefore a pretty cheap, carny side show of a god. In that case mankind got fucked with this "god".
De fault?
It be de fault of whom, exactly?
Why does it have to be 50/50 between no god or monotheism? Why can't there be a god for every galaxy? While I am like Randy in being 100% certain that there does not exist an entity which has no origin itself (by definition), I understand that many people are ok with accepting that line of nonsense. So by your logic, it should be 33/33/33, with monotheism and polytheism getting equal consideration.
it should be 33/33/33, with monotheism and polytheism getting equal consideration.
By Zeus ... you've got a point !
By definition there can only be one one capital G God.
Atheists get hung up on gods , it seems. gods are cultural expressions of human beings.
Bullshit. If space is as infinite as it appears to be, then it's pretty easy to conceive of an infinite number of adjacent god domains. If you agree with the premise of the Big Bang, and you believe in God, then you should be open to the clear possibility of the same kind of scenario that Banged itself into existence here, could Bang itself into existence at an unfathomable distance away from this one. That's a quality exclusive to infinity.
IF God exists , and created this existence from outside nature (SUPER natural ) , why wouldn't the same God be able to create another existence also ? I don't follow your objection.
But in any case God capital G is the ultimate Creator and if there are different gods for different existences they are not the ultimate God.
The universe is likely finite. Matter and energy almost certainly so.
Our universe - sure.
"But in any case God capital G is the ultimate Creator and if there are different gods for different existences they are not the ultimate God. "
But if god does indeed exist, can she create other Gods? Is god a living creature? If so, then she should be able to reproduce! (Sacre bleu!-- we've had enough trouble with one god. Imagine if we had several of those mo'fos floating around!!!)
By definition there can only be one one capital G God.
By definition there can be no god at all.
Except when you look up God in the dictionary there is a definition.
Was it written by a god?
"By definition there can only be one one capital G God.
By definition there can be no god at all."
By definition there can only be several gods. Many gods exist! (And lets not forget reincarnation. If those gods are all reincarnated we are all really gonna be in deep ca-ca!)
I just realized-- polytheism is the only religion that makes any sense. And idol worship. Yes! Very cool. (I wonder if I can find any books on Amazon that tells you how to do it?)
" I just realized-- polytheism is the only religion that makes any sense. And idol worship. Yes! Very cool. (I wonder if I can find any books on Amazon that tells you how to do it?)"
Maybe i could find a used copy of something like "Idol Worship for Dummies". I bet idol worship is gonna be "the next big thing" with the Millennial crowd.
Hmmmm... I'm gonna have to check social media.
Several gods. All reporting to a head god through a god hierarchy. Ra, Baal, Odin, Isis, judo-christain etc., all small gods that have limited powers and yet idiots still worship them as if they counted. It's a fucking god colony that rules the universe because they can not agree which one is really in charge so they have divided themselves into groups like in the Boy Scouts, with God Patrol Leaders and Assistant God Patrol Leaders with Tenderfoot Gods just starting out, Second Class Gods, First Class Gods all of the way up to Eagle Gods and then an Assistant God-master who turns all of us over to be molested by the Grand God Master.
Personally I think our current God on this speck of dust, if it exists, is a Tenderfoot God, looking to move up to God ladder.
It's all a ludicrousness joke, a bad comedy and a farce...this god some believe exists.
"It is up to those who claim there is a god to prove it."
Of course. Just as it is up to those who claim that there is no god to prove that!
"I know that there is not".
And I know that the Moon is made of Blue cheese! So what, if anything, does that prove...?
If a person claims that there are Leprechauns and another person says there are not, who has the burden of proof? The person claiming something exists has the burden of proof of course.
BTW. the moon is made of Brie.
Yet again you're wrong, it's made of camambert.
For me, the best explanation is:
...and as well, Frank Lloyd Wright's description:
Personally, I don't believe that either Albert Einstein or Frank LLoyd Wright exists. (And i've got the video to prove it! If you are well behaved I just might show it to you).
Of course they don't exist. Right now their remains have probably been digested by worms, but their legacies do exist. Wright in his buildings, and Einstein in his theories - one of which was just proven to be valid.
That is my favorite Einstein quote on G*d, should have been said by a pagan.
I can only wonder how Einstein's opinion would have morphed as a result of what we know about the natural world and universe today. My own opinion is that he would be slightly more inclined towards full fledged atheism.
There are people who are considered "spiritual" by themselves and others, maybe . What are these people experiencing?
Atheists , and others, tend to describe religion in terms of war, and sexism, and beheadings and child molesting. These people never describe religion in terms of mysticism and the spiritual experience. There are many many many people who do not use religion to try and oppress others, and not even to beg for considerations from God. These spiritual people just want to feel a unity with the divine. How does atheism explain this ?
You've taken LSD before, is that experience anything more than chemical reactions in the brain? Why is your spiritual awareness any more real than that?
Everything occurs in the brain. Your love for your wife and children is a chemical reaction. Your decision to tell the truth and not a lie is a chemical reaction. Appreciation of a sunset is a chemical reaction. Your conscious awareness of the big bang is a chemical reaction. Maybe God works through chemical reactions.
And when the last chemical reaction happens, you and everything you were or learned or ever felt dies too. You become a lump of slowly decaying flesh and bones and nothing more..
We don't really know that either.
But if it is true, it still doesn't disprove God.
I don't have the burden of proof.
Yes you do. Your proposition was that there was no god. Now prove it.
I think you're conflating natural sciences with abstract philosophical theories.
The mind is a miracle of itself. It can make you belief you see things that aren't there, it can make you feel you have the physical strength to accomplish something when in dire straits. I've no doubt that it can also make you feel like you are connected with the divine.
Like Perrie, I'm agnostic. I'm sure you're surprised to learn this since it's basically me sitting on the fence again.
For me, my mind can't reconcile those things you mentioned, child molestation, gender oppression even tithing, and I'm supposed to believe that these are things God allows to happen under the protection of his name. I can't accept that. It's too contradictory. I've said this in another post. I believe that the heaven and hell that the bible describes isn't something that occurs when you die and are judged. It's happening now. We are now choosing to either live in heaven or hell by our actions. Are we being seduced by the false profits that pit one faction of people against another be it through, sexual orientation, religion, personal choices or are we choosing to respect one another and treat each other with kindness.
PJ, many people do not understand religion. Because people say they are religious, even if they are religious, doesn't make them immune to human failings. If a Catholic priest molests a child, or a Protestant minister or a rabbi or muslim cleric for that matter, it doesn't mean anything about the truth or worth of that religion.
Religions on this earth are cultural expressions of belief in God. That is all they are and it is what they are. Some say they are divinely inspired and some say they are evil attempts to control the population. People see things in different ways. But they are human institutions. God is not Catholic or Methodist or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim . If there is a God , it would have to be literally incomprehensible to human beings. Our "religions" are the way the impulse to connect with God has been culturally developed on earth. Religion is neither right or wrong in itself. Right or wrong comes from what people do with it.
A cosmic God would have to have purposes and plans that are far beyond our understanding. That could explain the existence of evil and suffering. We just don't know.
Like Perrie, I'm agnostic. I'm sure you're surprised to learn this since it's basically me sitting on the fence again.
Ya know... I never thought of it that way before. I am a total fence sitter, LOL. But the truth is, I don't see that as a flaw. It means that we keep our minds open to all options and opinions. Things that I feel passionately about, I express... it's just that more than not, logic kicks in to direct me.
As for bad things that happen in the world, I don't view that as proof that there isn't a larger force at work (or not). If there is a creating being, I think that we are just not that important it to be concerned about us. Only humans actually can fool themselves that they are the be all and end all in an infinite universe and the sad truth is, we're not.
But for those of you who feel differently... this song's for you!
The future history of the world, and each of us, already exists . Time is the movement of this existence through whatever is beyond this existence, just as time can be represented by the movement of a pencil from your right hand, across your body to your left hand. The path the pencil takes through three dimensional space is time. Human beings have free will even though the future already exists and cannot be changed. That paradox indicates the mystery.
"It's happening now. We are now choosing to either live in heaven or hell by our actions."
Tell that to the 300 teenage girls kidnapped and forced into marriage with Boko Haram terrorists. Did they have a choice?
No, but I think it is representative by the actions of others and choices they have made to allow this to occur whether by indifference or lack of action to protect or save them.
What has happened and continues to happen is beyond horror for those young girls and their families.
I have zero spiritual awareness, but I am still an agnostic. You can't prove or disprove "god", whatever "god" may be. As said earlier, it's a 50/50 for me and actually has very little to do with how I act as an individual, as I try my best to be as moral and ethical as I can because it is the right thing to do with my fellow human beings that I share this life with.
"I have zero spiritual awareness, but I am still an agnostic. You can't prove or disprove "god", whatever "god" may be"
An easy question for a pagan.
What ever god may be, it is a concept. That concept exists in the minds of several billion humans. It is as real as any concept is... freedom, is a concept, it exists. Humans strive for it.
I don't believe in sky fairies, but I believe in the concept of a god.
kpr37 with a pagan's perspective.
If you (anyone) were to ask an evangelical Christian if they are 100%, absolutely no doubt about it, certain that there is a god, they would answer in the affirmative. Not believe there is a god, but rather are positive of it in every manner. You also would have received the same response from the followers of Baal, ISIS, Odin, etc. Why is an atheist told they are wrong for saying just the opposite? I submit that it is because the vast majority of people are fed the nonsense of a god of some kind from childhood and there lies the doubt some have. I say there is a bigotry against denying the existence of god that is put into children. Some of us out grow it.
To say something does not exist is not a radical position, in everything except a god and it's always the atheist who is told they are wrong. It's impossible to prove a negative, so the burden of proof lies with those making the claim of the existence of one. I am certain there is no god. Prove me wrong.
Randy, you can say whatever you want.
If you say that you "know" there is no God, just expect a lot of people to take issue with you, that's all.
I have no problem with many people taking issue with me on this. In fact I have come to expect it. I also have come to find many people who do not.
Religionists want you to believe something that goes way, way, way beyond the simple question of whether there is a creator. They want you to believe that they know what the creator is thinking, and they want to scare you into thinking that you are in for eternal damnation if you don't fall in line with their interpretation of 'His' (ie their) demands. It's all about control
I agree with you here.
It's sad to see such theophobia. I wish evangelical atheists could be more tolerant and embrace diversity. Their bitter anger can't be good for them.
Hillary is going to be so disappointed. As she refused to deny In the debate tonight, her campaign believes any woman who doesn't vote for her is going to hell.
Her surrogate, fhe former secretary of state, Madeline Albright did.
clinton refused to endorse or condemn the statement when specifically asked about it tonight, which is exactly what I said in my initial post.
other then the fear of everlasting damnation, why else would someone support her?
She hadn't polled the herd yet. She didn't know what position she should take.
Thanks for proving your bizarre obsession with Clinton , Sean, dragging it in to a totally unrelated topic.
Speaking of bizarre obsessions, how many stories have you seeded about trump? Let's compare that to how many I have about Clinton and see who's obsessed.
at least 6 separate seeds from you in less than 48 hours focuing on Trump. Wow.
When I mention Trump in a seed about religion you will have a point.
Good answer!
Well, explaining how someone so incredibly unqualified for the job as he is retains popularity in the presidential race is a large task.
Could we please stay on topic. The topic is not politics.
There is not now and ever has been any kind creature or creator or concept that fits any conventional, understood today, definition of a god. The whole concept is absurd.
Absurd? Possibly; yet, I would describe it differently. Perhaps it is the reaction of humans to being too separated from the rest of the natural world. There was a time when the sacred was commonly acknowledged and interacted with as part-n-parcel of living in the natural world. We glimpse it today when we have those euphoric moments of pure realization and wonder: the warm embrace of a love, the unmatched beauty of a well known forest, our children's laughter, the way your dog sometimes looks you right in the eyes... The concept of experiencing something that seems to be of a higher resolution, than most of the rest of our human experience, doesn't necessarily need to be absurd.
Think of it this way. It would be very easy to imagine humans from a couple thousand years ago, upon somehow glimpsing even a mere moment of the modern world, to come away from the experience of that glimpse, describing something otherworldly or even deific. Yet do we not realize that the relationship that ancient humans once had with the natural world, would indeed be viewed today in the modern world, with the exact sorta amazement? Anthropologists have often wrote about indigenous humans ability to track, and accurately predict the movement of game, as bordering on the miraculous. I have heard accounts of Indian's grandparents speaking of waking up in the morning and knowing by the sound of the birds and woodland creatures where they were going to hunt that day, what sorta of weather to expect, if there were larger predators about... Truly remarkable skills that were once so well entrenched and enhanced as to allow humans to survive just like any other animal on the planet, and would be viewed by many modern people as being magical or even godlike. We are so far gone from that reality, that we are now instead the worlds most destructive creature. Ya wanna know how far removed we are from the reality of the natural world, the only reality that counts when it comes right down to it? Just take away grocery stores, gasoline, electricity, and modern medicine for one single 24 hour period.
So perhaps, just perhaps, the attempt to reconnect with the special, beautiful moments and realities that used to populate our everyday experience, has been historically expressed as belief in other beings. Just look at the history of religion. We have moved further and further from gods that look and act like other earthly creatures in many ways, to an ultimate "Other" that is all knowing and powerful and completely separate from us as a species. The movement from polytheism to monotheism is almost understandable when viewed from the perspective of moving further and further away from the natural world.
This whole topic is a joke, because, you see, I AM GOD!!!!
Are you Nathan Brazil?
No, perhaps I'm Moa'dib.
The quiwsatz haderach?
Spice whore.
;^)
He who can destroy a thing controls a thing.
Fear is the mind killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
The sleeper has awakened.
Yep and I'm a Bene Gesserit witch.
Sweet; NTer's needs one!
"The Bene Gesserit witch must leave."
I'm so ..........CONFUSED right now!!???????
Here PJ . Maybe this will help :
Petey - I just wasted 2:55 minutes of my life and I didn't see ANY spice whore. I still don't know what a darn spice whore is. harumph
Sorry PJ, it started with Buzz's Dune reference above...
:^)
Oh......I should have looked back at the conversation thread. Now it makes perfect sense.
That's okay, just don't drink the water of life.
I thought this was about the G-spot but it turned out to be about a G-wave . Oh well ...
hahahaha - if that were the case, it wouldn't have been a waste of time!