God does not exist

Prove me wrong.

And it wouldn't take much to prove that God is real. We could have believers pray that God regenerate the limbs of all amputees, cure all cancer patients, and end poverty, and actually see it all happen before our eyes. Though, surely that has already been attempted (I mean, who wouldn't want that?), and yet, there are still amputees and all that, and believers won't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to think that this might mean their God is nothing but a myth. Heh... and they call us non-theists "closed-minded". Oh, the irony...

>>121
see, i look at this, and i say "well, that would show that prayer doesn't seem to be a reliable way of getting this particular arbitrary thing done."  i consider this both a rational and a scientific conclusion, and consider any further conclusions to be an unjustified leap and insult to the scientific method.

you know, unless that god necessarily had the feature that it reacted to prayer in a way contradictory to our findings.  then you can say that there is not a god who necessarily has that feature, since that feature doesn't seem to coincide with our findings.

but then you'd have to know that god necessarily has that feature, ***and it would be a bit hypocritical of you to get that information from the bible or christian teachings, since you've apparently just rejected other aspects of it yourself.***

>>120
>>120
Point is, they can't prove their beliefs true, so they have no business letting those beliefs dictate everyone else's lives. It's not fair to us, and you can bet they would be up in arms too if it was the other way around. If I wanted to go out and buy beer on a Sunday, I should damn well be able to. If they want to stop me and say, "God doesn't approve of that!" I'll say, "Tell ya what. You prove God exists, and I'll turn around and go home. But if you can't, then get out of my way. It's that simple." And if my gay friend wants to adopt, but they tell him he can't because "God doesn't like fags," I'll say, "Okay, prove God exists, then you can deny him service. Can't? Then that's discrimination, and I will not stand for it."

Religious assholes have no business whatsoever dictating our lives with their stupid beliefs. And you want to speak in their defense; to play Devil's Advocate? What for? What's the matter with you?

>>112

Compare this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

to this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divine

and please show me where religion necessitates divinity.

>>115

Your point about religion necessitating divinity sure is wrong; thus your claim that your points are always right is wrong.

>>117

"... and by "sense" I can ONLY mean:  sight, sound, touch." You want someone to prove that God exists by using his or her senses? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It is tantamount to saying that one must provide evidence of electrons by use of sight, sound, or touch. You simply can't.

P.S. I'm an atheist and you seem to be one as well, but try not to make a complete ass out of yourself. Some theistic sterotypers might see your attitude as an indication of all of our attitudes.

>>123
the point is, you're voicing political theory.  you can move this to another thread if you want. there we can discuss individual liberties related to toxic substances, qualifications for adopting a child, the government's ability to regulate business, any civil rights you'd like really, the role of religion in government, the role of government in cultural values, and the pros and cons of a representative republic or similar form of government.  you'd better bring some good arguments or evidence for whether things are beneficial or detrimental though, because otherwise there's no good reason to change from anything we've got now, regardless of how shitty you perceive it to be.

  i have a habit of playing devil's advocate because i try to remain objective when discussing topics of interest to me.  or might you prefer i blindly cast off their views because i disagree with them?  i would find that unforgivably ignorant.  what's the matter with you?

>>125
You don't seem to understand *what* I'm saying. What I'm saying is Christian dogma doesn't belong in government (nor in the science classroom, for that matter) because it is not established fact; it's far-fetched and unsubstantiated, so it shouldn't dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do, and should not be taught as fact in schools. Don't you agree? I thought you said you were an agnostic; a non-theist. You're defending theists an awful lot for an a non-theist. These people have imposed their superstitious lifestyle upon you; dictated what you are and aren't allowed to do, based on their irrational beliefs. Are you going to stand for that? Doesn't it bother you? The way I see it, these people do not deserve our support. They are in the wrong, and they need to be reminded of that. By speaking in their defense you only reassure them, in their minds, that they're right, so leave it to them to defend their own faith. If they can't, well then they ought to do the sensible thing and discard their superstitions and get them out of government. I guarantee Christians would not let people of other worldviews get away with the crap they're pulling right now. So why should we let Christians get away with it? Screw "religious tolerance" and all that. They would NOT show us the same courtesy that we are expected to show them, if it was the other way around.

Hi
I'm deeply religious. I have strong faith in my belief. I don't need proof, I trust my belief, this feeling. I love my religion. I'm an atheist.

Hi
I am an idiot who doesn't get it. I think probability is not a valid argument. In fact, I didn't even know that was there argument in the first place. Not that I care, because I'll disregard anything they say blindly anyway. I'm an idiot.

their

>>126
no, i understand what you're saying, and i agree with most of it, but those are political issues.  i think it would be wrong to discredit or ignore certain aspects of their position in philosophical discussion specifically for political ends, which is what i feel you are asking me to do.

i don't feel i've really defended them in the sense of arguing from their side either.  rather, i've pointed out what i don't find to be a convincing or valid argument against them, which is defense, but my goal was not to protect them, but to look at whether arguments were actually meaningful.

sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage

niggers

>>24

kindly shut the fuck up. agnosticism is not the idea of "not knowing" at all, and i'll personally KILL anyone who says that. it is the belief that there is no evidence either way. saying you're agnostic about god is saying that you believe we can neither prove nor disprove god's existence; it's the belief in non-falsifiability.

>>27

you forgot Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism.


at the expense of sitting here and reading the entire thread, i'll simply say this: the scientific method does not provide facts, and it does not provide so-called laws. they are nothing but hypotheses which are subject to change. that is the scientific method. anyone who claims that science has proven anything has not, on any single occasion, looked up the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

No proof = no god.

>>133

wow, you could not be more wrong.

>>132

And you also forgot about implicit and explicit atheism.

Oh and about the scientific method not providing laws, that's false... Through the use of the scientific method, hypotheses and theories are created. "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. In practice the terms are often interchanagable, though scientific theory can be a systematically integrated set of related scientific laws that leads to greater insight and further predictions than the laws alone would." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

So, in fact, the scientific method can and does provide scientific laws because the theories it generates are laws or are composed of laws.

>>133

Rather, it's illogical to believe in something without evidence. Though the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Forgot who said that...

>>124
I would also like to add that the senses he mentioned are very inaccurate.  Optical illusions are all over the place, as are hallucinations.

>>132
"we can neither prove nor disprove god's existence" doesn't that mean "not knowing" (wrt divine entities)?  If not, then what do agnostics know?

>>135
What is implicit/explicit atheism?

>>135

Do you realise that by quoting that, you just backed up what I said? You demonstrated it was true. A scientific "law" is not a truth. These are very distinct things. To use the classic example, if we see a sheep in a field that is white, we could provide a scientific "fact" that all sheep are therefore white, but it is just a theory, a hypothesis, which is tested against future cases of sheep and whether or not they're white. It was once scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it. However, the only true fact that can be said from viewing this one sheep is that there is at least one sheep in a field, one side of which is white.

To quote what you quoted: "In practice the terms are often interchanagable [sic], though scientific theory can be a systematically integrated set of related scientific laws that leads to greater insight and further predictions than the laws alone would."

Cutting out the crap in that sentence, it says that a scientific theory is a set of scientific laws. That doesn't justify the truth of the so-called laws. And what you said about "through the scientific method, hypotheses and theories are created," That's exactly right -- I'm not disputing that -- but these theories are not universally true, they are things to test over and over. That's my point.

tl;dr -- wikipedia/inductive reasoning

>>137

It's a very subtle difference. If you said to me, "do you believe that god exists?" and I said "I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm just sitting on the fence, because I'm undecided," then that is very different to saying, "I believe we can't prove it either way." The point is that I can be either theist or atheist and still be agnostic. I can believe that god exists but that we can't PROVE he does or he doesn't from evidence. Similarly, I can believe he doesn't exist but be agnostic.

Hey guys, it's me again.  I'm just checking back to see if the religinuts have proffered any proof for the existence of whatever giant alien space monster they prefer.  And from what I can see, again, as it has been for centuries, no proof comes forward.  So it looks like the giant alien space monster -- the evidence for which should be laying around in great profusion -- doesn't exist and instead we should devolve the explanation to "some people are fucking nuts" and leave it at that.

Of course, if any evidence for giant alien space monsters DOES show up, we'll be receptive to it.  My calendar is free for such an event.  Let me know.

Until then ... ciao, religifucks!  (BTW, please get some serious psychological help.)

>>138

Oh well of course. I thought your point was the scientific method doesn't involves scientific laws. Forgive me.

>>137

Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God or gods because you aren't aware of such ideas. The opposite, explicit atheism, means you have an absence of belief in God or gods while fully aware of them.

I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my bitchtits are so big it's like you could squeeze 'em and milk would come out. WOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO!

>>138
I see the difference between "undecided" and "can't be proven either way", but don't both imply "not knowing if a divine entity exists"?  Just to be sure, are we using the same definition of "knowing"?

>>139
No such proof has been proffered since your last appearance.

When he does show up, we'll be sure to give you a good dose of hallucinogenic chemicals so you will not believe your own senses, and all of us will be a giant conspiracy of lying religitards.

On a moar realistic note, I don't think anyone in this thread is a religi*.

>>141
You have not proffered proof of your existence, and hence I refuse to believe that you exist.

I exist. I believe in god. Therefore god exists for me and thus god exists.

#143, your "proof" is sophomorically flawed.  Just because you assert that something exists to you, doesn't mean that it has universal applicability.  In fact, if "god exists" as a result of existing to you, then when you die, this god-thing dies.

Real evidence can be demonstrated to others, and repeatably so.  You haven't demonstrated anything except a mental illness.  Get help.

isn't 143 a sort of reverse sophisim? 

>>140

Interesting. So you could be an explicitly strong atheist, or explicitly weak atheist..

>>142

"Not knowing if a divine entity exists" is not really the issue here, it's the BELIEF, since there is no proof, no-one can really know. Being undecided and using the phrase "I don't know whether god exists" is a bit of a butchery, and it's actually saying "I don't know where my beliefs lay in relation to god's existence". Saying that you believe we can't prove it is a lot like saying "I believe we'll never ever KNOW, because we'll never be able to get evidence for either side".

>>146
I think I understand you better.  You seem to be using a slightly different definition of agnosticism from what I had been expecting; I was making the mistake of equating uncertainty with indeterminability (former a logical consquence of the latter, but not the other way around).

>since there is no proof, no-one can really know
So your claim then, is that no human really knows (now), and the definitions of (a)theist/agnostic completely regard one's belief?

>>147

If any human knew, they would have to have proof, which would be splattered all over the news, or at least would have been, long ago.

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism do indeed regard one's belief. Atheism should itself be crystal clear, in terms of it regarding belief. Agnosticism is.. well, at the risk of repeating myself, a dictionary definition:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

It would appear that there is in fact a strong and weak agnosticism, as with atheism:

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity.

Learn something new, every day, etc.

Whatever the type of agnosticism it is still more logical than atheism.

>>149

How is atheism illogical? Are you saying that if someone comes to you and says "I believe that god does not exist?", you call them illogical? That's like saying that "I like orange, not blue" is illogical.

>>150

He didn't say atheism was illogical, he said agnosticism was more logical than atheism.

>>151

It comes off as derogatory against atheism, to be honest, but perhaps I misread.

>>152

Presumptions aside, he said what he said.

My dick is so long & hard, I could do a somersault and split the world in half with my dick!

>>148
Thanks.

>>1

Gilgamesh exists.
Gilgamesh is God.
God exists.

QED.

>>154
Yum

Please define God before trying to argue about its existence. God has many meanings in different languages.

>>158
""GILGAMESH"" ALSO GRAB A BOOK AND SEARCH FOR THE DEFINITION OF GOD FAGGOT

>>159
doesn't understand how a logical argument has to work.