God FAQ

It seems that every time there is a debate over the existence of god, or the need for religion, theists seem to bring up the same (refuted) points over and over. I was thinking there must be some collection of arguments and rebuttals somewhere on the net? Could someone be kind enough to direct me to such a place?

god is superstition, nothing else.

Remember when Jesus made "miricles" due to the power of magic?

I dare your ass to do this same thing now and not be called a fucking moron...

lulz its all a matter of opinion. anyway, no one can disprove or prove the existence of God, or gods for that matter.

still confused how evolution can go from a state of disorder to a state of order. seems to go against the law of thermodynamics if u ask me.

>>43
entropy of the universe always increases, so even though it may seem that organisms are getting more and more complex, or entropy is decreasing, the entropy of the universe is still increasing and does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

from a state of disorder to a state of order. seems to go against the law of thermodynamics
lawl
Do you believe the computer you're using has existed since the beginning of time? (And the house you live in, the clothes you're wearing, etc.)

Closed systems, retard.

>>45
now, now, let's all play nice.

Dont worry Heaven is startin trouble on alot of threads lol i think they are lonely and want a friend lol. 

Just because science doesn't prove something yet means god is responsible for everything >> just because your dog is black, my dog is white. There, direct correlation. Same goes for the other way >> Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist. Equally lame.

But which way is the correct path to take on the way to find out whether god exists? Faith or skeptism? I choose skeptism.

>Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist.
YES IT FUCKING DOES

gb2/Formal Logic 101, Onus of Proof

also 2/spelling - skepticism.

>Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist.
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T

Scientific Method, experimentation to test your hypothesis

There's no way to test for the existence of god

>>50
There is no current way to test for the existence of god just like there is no current way to test for string theory. Doesn't mean either doesn't exist.

>>50
Anyway, God can just appear in front of humans one day. That should be enough proof for anyone.

>>52
How do you know it's not the devil/other malevolent divine entity/hallucination?

>>50
YES IT FUCKING DOES
FALSE UNTIL PROVEN TRUE
GO FUCK YOURSELF

rebuttals, more like rebuttholes

>>50 >>51
This is correct. I'm as atheist as the next guy, and I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god.

People often accuse atheism of being a religion for this very reason. As far as I'm concerned, we can't disprove a god exists just as we can't disprove my cat created the universe ten minutes ago and implanted all our memories. These gods have no physical effect on the world, and so the point is entirely moot; a rose is a rose is a rose.

So when I call myself an atheist, these are simply not the gods I'm talking about.

"I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god."

"These gods have no physical effect on the world, and so the point is entirely moot"

thats agnostic not atheist

>>57
No, it's not. I explicitly don't believe in gods who perform miracles, give us an afterlife, or even care about humans or recognize us as intelligent. I'm an atheist. But I'm telling you that gods that don't have a physical effect on the world are irrelevant; it's nonsense to even say whether you believe in them or not.

>>57
Agnostic = ???

Atheist = they could exist, but I don't believe them

>>59

Wrong

>>58
definition of most agnostics

>>59
Atheist = 'I lack positive belief in any god or gods.'
Agnostic = Some pussy on-the-fence bullshit because they're afraid of the stigma of just rejecting it all. Often (though not always) a subset of atheists.

>>56
>I'm as atheist as the next guy, and I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god.
That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. Luckily, all a negative needs to be true is the absence of any relevant true positives.

Also, 'atheist' is not an adjective.

>>61
Fail. We most certainly CAN KNOW whether the biblical god exists, because he's supposed to have created us, and he's supposed to perform miracles, respond to our prayers, etc. One good look at the world today is plenty enough to prove conclusively that he's not there.

These are the gods that agnosticism abstains from. As >>62 said, they're basically just afraid of being punished in the afterlife, so they say they don't know. They often term it to be unknowable to rationalize it; they're wrong.

Study after study has shown conclusively that prayer does fuck all to heal the sick. Study after study has shown conclusively that blessing food does fuck all for your health and prosperity (in fact, it often negatively affects you, because it makes you stupid). Study after study has shown conclusively that creationism is bullshit. Study after study has shown conclusively that we don't have free will; there is no existential consciousness.

He does not exist.

>>63
Because the concept of god only pertains to the bible? and we should base all of our spirituality off it? i don’t believe in any religion so does that make me atheist?

agnostic is not some middle road, in fact its more anti-religion then atheism could ever be. it does not mean im undecided, or that i don’t know. It’s more about abstaining from the question itself because sense experience will never verify it with a clear answer. The question “does god exist” hold no possibility of being true or false, it cannot be answered, any attempt to label it true or false will always be based off a leap of faith.

If you want to be atheist to certain applications of the concept of god that’s fine. Im atheist to the Christian god for instance, but im still agnostic to the concept itself.

Look at it this way

Example 1

“I have an infinity number of apples in my backyard”

obviously false, In application we can deduce a true or false statement while using the concept of infinity.

Example 2

“Infinity doesn’t exist”

 Go ahead an try to pull a try or false answer from this, it cannot be done. Without application this concept has no true or false answer.

The leap of faith atheists must take is assuming the application of god is never true. The problem is that unlike the concept of infinity, the concept of god is extremely subjective. Its futile to try to deal with statements like the second example when the concept at hand is god. The application of god could work and deduce a true or false answer, but we don’t even understand the concept enough to be able to deal with it. The only reasonable approach is to leave it unanswered in conception, but subject to criticism in application but never linking the two.

I'm agnostic/atheist , the only god that I would even contemplate believing in is Nirguna Brahman, the formless, immaterial, ultimate reality.

>>63
Good ideas, but insufficient proof - God is an ill-defined concept, and since none of those properties are fundamental to him, knocking them off does nothing to show he doesn't exist. The dearth of evidence is enough to let you say that, though.

>>64
Every physical thing in the universe exists in finite quantities, so... yeah, infinity doesn't. Also, 'an infinite number', not 'an infinity number'.

>>65
Then you'd be no better than the fundies. The universe does not change because you find aspects of it uncomfortable.

>>66
Good ideas, but insufficient proof - God is an ill-defined concept, and since none of those properties are fundamental to him, knocking them off does nothing to show he doesn't exist. The dearth of evidence is enough to let you say that, though.
These examples were not to say anything about gods in general; it was just that, an example.

The point was that gods that have a physical effect on the universe are falsifiable, and so can be tested. Gods that don't are irrelevant.

>>67
However, no particular effect on the universe is central to God's character, possibly excepting creating it, which can go any number of ways.

How do you do that barquote thing?

>>66, you really believe that a personal belief and faith, that in no way affects you, is equivalent to being a fundamentalist? How can you justify that, and how can you claim to know the universe any better than anyone else?

On another note,
I recommend the book "Who Knows? A Study of Religious Consciousness" by Raymond Smullyan. A renowned mathematician and logician analyzing the concepts of god and afterlife, it is certainly worth a read.

>>68
so simple that when you find out, you'll shit a brick

what is the seventh term in this sequence:  >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>> hi, >>>>> hi,...

>>69
>you really believe that a personal belief and faith, that in no way affects you, is equivalent to being a fundamentalist? How can you justify that, and how can you claim to know the universe any better than anyone else?

I meant that in the sense of intellectual failure. Fundies do not necessarily blow themselves up or even make nuisances of themselves, but they do necessarily have massive fail at logicking.

>I recommend the book "Who Knows? A Study of Religious Consciousness" by Raymond Smullyan. A renowned mathematician and logician analyzing the concepts of god and afterlife, it is certainly worth a read.

You should know better than to be recommending books like that. Regardless, I, for one, can do my thinking for myself. If there are specific ideas from this person you want me to consider, please present them here.

>>71
Note to self: remember the space?

>>68
However, no particular effect on the universe is central to God's character, possibly excepting creating it, which can go any number of ways.
This is my point. If a god created the universe, that's *not* a physical effect on the universe. It's not something that's testable, so it's not something that is even knowable.

To call yourself "agnostic" simply because you realize this painfully obvious fact makes you elitist and distracts from the real issue. That was my point throughout this entire discussion.

>>72
Yes, remember the space, and also remember to not leave a blank line after the quote. It adds an extra blank line on its own.

>>73
So the Big Bang is also unfalsifiable, then?

(Not elitism... pussyism, and/or a refusal to make one's intuitions STFU and accept logical conclusions.)

>>75
So the Big Bang is also unfalsifiable, then?
What the fuck? The Big Bang is not unfalsifiable, shithead. Here, acquaint yourself with COBE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

The graph is data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history.

>>75
(Not elitism... pussyism, and/or a refusal to make one's intuitions STFU and accept logical conclusions.)
That depends. Some so-called agnostics simply refrain from the discussion on whether the biblical god (or other human deities exist). These are the pussies who are worried about the banhammer in the afterlife.

Some agnostics are smart enough to realize this is nonsense, but they also realize that deities that don't affect the universe are unfalsifiable. So they think they're all smart by calling it unknowable. These are the elitist ones; they think they're smarter than atheists because of it.

Before anything I'm going to say that I did not read the thread, nor do I intend to.

>>75
The Big Bang is not "unfalsifiable" so to speak. The facts it is based on on the other are (eg. >>76). There are some alternative theories to the 'Big Bang'. The most prominent one is probably the 'Big Bounce' talked about in string theory. In the mathematics of String Theory it is found that when space is squeezed to some level beyond the planck length it acts the same as if it's stretching (A space with three spatial dimensions 1/100 of the planck length has the exact same pysical properties as a space 100 times bigger than the planck length). Because of this we cannot know for sure weather our world is bigger than the planck length or smaller. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that before the 'Big Bang' the world was bigger than the planck length and getting smaller, causing it to expand once again after crossing this boundrary (hence the term 'Big Bounce'). This theory holds up in string theory much better than the 'Big Bang' does. Unfortunately it is still dependant on string theory which hasn't had much experimental supporting evidence (most experiments concieved to date cannot be run due to physical requirements (eg. the size of a particle accelerator required, the amount of energy required, the sensitivity of the sensors required, etc...). Either way, unless you're working in working on developing string theory there is really no reason to research it as it's not very applicable (unless you're just a lover of knowledge). To reitterate the point I was making the Big Bang is a theory that explains the observed facts reasonably well based on current well supported scientific theory. A better theory may come along at any moment.

note: I should say that in the above I'm not entirely sure if it's the planck length, or just another length near it (or even if it refers to the circumference of the dimensions of the diameter). I haven't looked at string theory in 3-4 years.

ITT, RETARDS.

ITT laymen discuss important things