First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply God does not exist. Get over it.
Posted 1/17/08 , edited 1/17/08
.....Neither does Thor, Osiris," The Great Spirit" of Native American folklore, Allah, Krishna, or the Tooth fairy for that matter. You cry-baby religious pussies need to get the fuck over it.

While we are at it, get rid of that bullshit,"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" ideal. Spiritualism is religion. It's not any different from so-called "organized religion" if you think about it.

Science is the answer. Religion only existed for the same reasons the Greek myths exist. Back then, people did not know the scientific answers for nature and the origins of the universe so they would fabricate stories to explain the workings of the universe. People used to believe the sun was a chariot of fire but know we all know it's a ball of various assortments of gas suspended in the vacuum of space. Those same people believed that Atlas held the heavens but now we all know that the sky is intangible and therefore can not be touched. We now know the sky is an atmoshere consisted of oxygen, nitrogen and the ozone layer and is divided in five parts. The bible claimed the Earth was made in seven days but in reality the Earth have been around for billions of years. This was proven by carbon dating and extensive studies of fossils of prehistoric animals. That being said,Christianity is no different then any other religion at its core concept.I'm adament in this belief

God does not exist. Get over it.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/08
Well, I wont argue that with you, but what do you gain from shouting this out except to spark further conflict between religious people and lead them to be more adamant. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Present yourself as a mature adult, rather than an overly-opinionated child if you want to achieve anything other than annoying intelligent people and offending stupid people.

2769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Monterey
Offline
Posted 1/17/08
what are you talking about? God does exist, i found it on the dictionary lol

(for those who don't get it, i was talking about the word -__-;; )

I be Agnostic =)
Posted 2/14/08
Well, to be scientific, you can't really say that something doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

It would be more scientifically correct to say that there's no empirical evidence that "God" exists, though some would claim that various anecdotal evidence exists, some of which is unobservable by anyone but them.
Posted 2/14/08 , edited 4/18/08

shibole wrote:

Well, to be scientific, you can't really say that something doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

It would be more scientifically correct to say that there's no empirical evidence that "God" exists, though some would claim that various anecdotal evidence exists, some of which is unobservable by anyone but them.


Well likewise you can't claim that God exists just because its impossible to prove he doesn't. Hell there is no solid evidence against my new theory (made up ten seconds ago) that Barney the dinosaur can in fact control time. Cos of course if he could control time we would never see him do it would we? But I unlike the Christians who go around saying that God exists because we cannot prove otherwise am not going to go around claiming that Barney the dinosaur can control time because I have common sense.
Member
175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / o_o For all you k...
Offline
Posted 2/14/08 , edited 4/18/08

Stickmania wrote:


shibole wrote:

Well, to be scientific, you can't really say that something doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

It would be more scientifically correct to say that there's no empirical evidence that "God" exists, though some would claim that various anecdotal evidence exists, some of which is unobservable by anyone but them.


Well likewise you can't claim that God exists just because its impossible to prove he doesn't. Hell there is no solid evidence against my new theory (made up ten seconds ago) that Barney the dinosaur can in fact control time. Cos of course if he could control time we would never see him do it would we? But I unlike the Christians who go around saying that God exists because we cannot prove otherwise am not going to go around claiming that Barney the dinosaur can control time because I have common sense.



I lol'd. I also agree. But still, the lols.
Posted 2/14/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:
However you would most likely claim Unicorns do not exist neh? Disbelief should be the default position for dealing with extraordinary claims. So it is fine to say god does not exist just as we say dragons, unicorns, magic, etc do not exist.

It depends on how you define "unicorn" and where you're talking about. I'd say it's unlikely that something fitting the exact mythical definition lives anywhere, or that something that looks like a horse with a single horn exists on Earth. However, the universe is a pretty large place and, if evolutionary patterns are similar everywhere, there might be some Earth-like planet where some sort of one-horned horse exists.

As for magic, well, you're using a magic right now! At least that's what it would look like to a primitive person. "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So again, it kind of depends on the definition.

Furthermore, these things do "exist" in a sense in that they exist in peoples' imaginations. (Un)fortunately or not, that can have a real impact.



Stickmania wrote:

shibole wrote:
Well, to be scientific, you can't really say that something doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Well likewise you can't claim that God exists just because its impossible to prove he doesn't. Hell there is no solid evidence against my new theory (made up ten seconds ago) that Barney the dinosaur can in fact control time. Cos of course if he could control time we would never see him do it would we? But I unlike the Christians who go around saying that God exists because we cannot prove otherwise am not going to go around claiming that Barney the dinosaur can control time because I have common sense.

Well, if you read back you'll see that I never claimed that God exists. Actually, since I'm a Buddhist, I'd say that some being like "God" might exist (perhaps there are several, if so) but that he can't be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. because that would be considered a "view." Furthermore, if he exists he can't magically free you from stress or impermanence any more than Bill Gates can (though he might be able to give you lots of money like Bill Gates, for all I know.)

Anyway, I think there's an important distinction between saying that anything vaguely resembling some definition certainly does or doesn't exist somewhere. It's better to approach things from the point of view that you don't have total and complete knowledge of the universe, and that the existence or non-existence of something may largely depend on the definition.
Posted 2/14/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

shibole wrote:
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist though! Though quoting him is always awesome. I used that quote in my paper for Soc. just about 2 hours ago.

Yea, but this quote isn't really about atheism.

Anyway, you might want to read this:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clarke_19_2.html


FI: Do you see any value at all in the various religions?

Clarke: Though I sometimes call myself a crypto-Buddhist, Buddhism is not a religion. Of those around at the moment, Islam is the only one that has any appeal to me. But, of course, Islam has been tainted by other influences. The Muslims are behaving like Christians, I'm afraid.

He seems to have a more positive view of Islam than I do.

(And note that he was into investigating the "paranormal" at one point, anyway.)
Posted 2/14/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:
I know that and I never claimed it was. Though just because it appears like magic does not make it magic if you want my opinion. Just because a primative might think this computer is magic is isnt-it was the product of understanding the laws of the universe.

Even in fantasy books "magic" is the product of understanding the laws of the universe. (It just turns out that the laws of the universe happen to resemble mysticism more than science.)

Anyway, my point is that, when evaluating something, you have to ask yourself if what you're looking to confirm the existence of is what you think it is.
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 3/20/08 , edited 4/18/08
fail to mention a very important factor about unicorns, even if they do exist in some earthlike planet, the fact that we can not prove they do or they dont, is not to the favor of the existence of unicorns..
no evidence that something does not exist is not equal to a 50/50 % that it could exist, in fact it would lower it drastically. the beauty of science is that it NEVER gives deffinitive answers, but considering the percentage to be so low in favor of unicorns it would no be weird to regard is as nonexistent, and be an atheist concerning unicorns..

Nothing can be disproven/proven completely 100%, but that doesnt make it suitable to be agnostic about everything..
because something as unicorns cant be disproven completely doesnt make me an agnostic about unicorns, i am an Aunicornist.. (wow that sounded terrible)
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/27/08 , edited 4/29/08

shibole wrote:

Well, to be scientific, you can't really say that something doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

It would be more scientifically correct to say that there's no empirical evidence that "God" exists, though some would claim that various anecdotal evidence exists, some of which is unobservable by anyone but them.


But you can prove that something does exist. So, you can prove that the the existence of God's nonexistence and then-in doing that, prove that God doesn’t exist. :p Just a logic game. I don't actually believe that, but it's fun.
Posted 3/28/08 , edited 4/18/08

saywhaat wrote:

fail to mention a very important factor about unicorns, even if they do exist in some earthlike planet, the fact that we can not prove they do or they dont, is not to the favor of the existence of unicorns..
no evidence that something does not exist is not equal to a 50/50 % that it could exist, in fact it would lower it drastically. the beauty of science is that it NEVER gives deffinitive answers, but considering the percentage to be so low in favor of unicorns it would no be weird to regard is as nonexistent, and be an atheist concerning unicorns..

Nothing can be disproven/proven completely 100%, but that doesnt make it suitable to be agnostic about everything..
because something as unicorns cant be disproven completely doesnt make me an agnostic about unicorns, i am an Aunicornist.. (wow that sounded terrible)


Right, to put what you said in a clearer way is that I cannot prove that there is not a magical, invisible and completely undetectable being right behind me. Of course i would not know he was there, he is completely undetectable. However just because I cannot prove that there is not such a being (bearing in mind the fact that it is its nature to be totally undetectable and hence its existence unprovable) is not evidence that this being exists is it.

I now ask all religious people to put yourself in our shoes for a second. When you say to us atheists 'prove that god does not exist' it is exactly like us saying to you 'prove that that child's imaginary friend does not exist (bearing in kind the child claims that only he can see or hear it)' You can't 100% prove it. However i suspect all you religious people do not believe that the imaginary friend exists, and now you religious people should understand the exact reason why we do not believe your own imaginary friend exists.
Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / California
Offline
Posted 3/28/08 , edited 4/18/08
Then comes the "dispproved exists factor".

Meaning, in the attempts to prove that something does not exist will eventually make it true and/or false. But you don't have to believe that.

"Subject A may or may not be false, but Subject B is proven to be false, Subject C is always true."

Sub A +/- Sub B = Sub C

It works for both atheists and (enter religion here). Only the problem with this equation (bysides the fact that it's made up) is the possiblility of anger that may follow. Since the equation can work for either side it will always prove or disprove any factor it is used for and will always stir up more heated discussions.

In short, it's the different sides of the same coin. People that believe in God are happy to believe. People that don't believe are happy not to believe. I don't try to convert people into atheism, specailly if they are happy to believe in Him. I don't see why this group of atheists are discussing heatedly about something that we all know is true. But i do like the fact everyone is talking about this and is showing their true opinion instead of just couching up what they read in a book.
Posted 3/29/08 , edited 4/18/08

saywhaat wrote:
Nothing can be disproven/proven completely 100%, but that doesnt make it suitable to be agnostic about everything..
because something as unicorns cant be disproven completely doesnt make me an agnostic about unicorns, i am an Aunicornist.. (wow that sounded terrible)

Well, the problem is, at what non-zero probability of something existing does it become worthwhile to acknowledge something as possible?

The more arbitrary details you add to something the lower the chance of that thing existing as it now needs to meet more and more criteria. But as you strip away details, the chances of something existing somewhere increases.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily bad to be "ultimately agnostic" about most unknown things as long as you can acknowledge that certain things "effectively" don't exist according to all the information you currently have. For example, even if there is some creature vaguely like a unicorn in some other galaxy somewhere, it effectively doesn't exist because we're never going to come anywhere near it. It makes sense to proceed with your life with the assumption that unicorns don't exist.

My main problem with people is that it seems like they stop asking questions too soon and too easily. They essentially decide that something doesn't exist without even first trying to figure out exactly what it is that they're saying doesn't exist, or in what way something has to exist (for example, an idea vs. a physical object) to "exist" for some practical purpose.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/1/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

However you would most likely claim Unicorns do not exist neh? Disbelief should be the default position for dealing with extraordinary claims. So it is fine to say god does not exist just as we say dragons, unicorns, magic, etc do not exist.


Yes, but if something arouses a curiosity it’s appropriate to investigate the questions therein engendered, if you wish to find the truth. Hints, science exists. The search for truth, after all, is the attempt to pull yourself from the plague of ignorance-and I’m sure you’ll agree that ignorance is a bad thing.

Also, you’re wrong-in my opinion. Disbelief shouldn’t be the default, agnosticism should be the default.

Moreover, what you said was a contradictory statement and circular arguement. You believe that it is extremely unlikely that these magical creatures exist. Why? Because you believe that magic isn’t real. But…then, you’re believing, and disbelief should be the default.

Next, your argument can be extended to generic fallacy-which, is a crime against the laws of modern scientific thinking. “The End Justifies the means." Most people in the medieval world believed the world was round, simply because they were told it was round-after all.

Lastly, I can actually give a historical example to show that this stance is flawed-when it comes to actually knowing the truth and being, therein, an educated person.

There’s an old story about the Greeks going to battle. They threw pots that exploded and burst into fire, and the fire consumed the enemy, and when the enemy doused it with water it exploded and grew and continued to burn through their numbers.

By your stance of disbelief for things that seem unlikely, you’d immediately assume this was false. But, then you’d be wrong. Research “Greek Fire,” it was a chemically induced flame that really did grow when smothered with water and it’s historical ‘fact’ that it was really used in war.


Okay, here’s another. A preacher of love and peace would create a philosophy that would ruin nations and lead primitive people to eventually develop massive devices that would eventually lead to the possible destruction of the world, and to use these devices. These devices will become a crucial part of saving Humanity.

Jesus Christ preached love and peace. His message eventually engendered the church. The church bred anti-Semitism, anti-semanticist in Germany started WWII, WWII created an arms race, the arms race created nuclear weaponry, the weaponry was used twice, and now the weaponry has been enhanced and we have enough power to obliterate the world.

Earth is subjected to the laws of thermodynamics. Eventually she’ll run out of resources. Humans will only be able to survive by moving to another planet. NASA has already developed a plan to use nuclear weapons to create mass-scale water/energy source on Mars, and-simultaneously, create green-house gas effects causing global warming. Global warming provides further energy, evolution takes this energy and begins to run, Mars begins to produce plants, plants become animals, and the planet becomes suitable for Humanity.

Thus, nuclear weapons are probably going to be a crucial part of a possible path for saving humanity.



Stickmania wrote:
However i suspect all you religious people do not believe that the imaginary friend exists, and now you religious people should understand the exact reason why we do not believe your own imaginary friend exists.


Imaginary friends -do- exist. They’re really imaginary. :p
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.