God does not exist

Prove me wrong.

>>37

I find that agnostics are easy enough to just ignore, since without any particular set of beliefs they can't go around making idiotic, political decisions based on what their god told them to do.  It's like asparagus pudding: it's illogical and unappetizing, but it won't force you to eat any if you just ignore it.

>>38

I believe he means to say: "science has found the assertions of many religions to be incorrect."

>>40

you dont make any fucking sense

>>40

Spoiler: none of them exist.

>>42
no, you simply fail to understand english. I admit the last sentence wasn't worded that well, but I'm pretty sure anyone could understand what i meant.

spoiler: define your terms

>>38
I mean many fundamental things about all mainstream monotheistic religions have been shown to be wrong by science. Shit like evolution is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of other things for people who hypocritically pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.

For example, these Gods are supposed to occasionally respond to prayer. If you're sick, you pray, and if God feels like it he'll help. Take 500 sick people. Have half do no praying whatsoever, and have people pray for the other half. LOTS of people. Have entire congregations organized to pray for them. Guess what will happen? Sorry to spoil the ending, but these studies have been done to death: no effects.

There are lots of things these Gods promise. Like when a priest blesses something, it's looked favorably by God, and makes you healthy/wealthy/happy/whatever. All nonsense, all tested by science.

Science has also shown there's no such thing as the soul. Everything we do is just chemical reactions in the brain. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole free will and afterlife business.

>>39
Wow, my whole post flew completely over your head. You're exactly the type of agnostic I'm talking about.

Of course I've considered that some superior being created the universe, or that we're all living in a big computer, or dozens of other possibilities. The point is that these alternatives are all unfalsifiable; since we're stuck in the universe, these all predict the same physical results, so there's no difference between them. Saying one of the other is correct is nonsense; saying you believe or don't believe one is nonsense; and most importantly, saying you don't know which one is correct is also nonsense, because it's not a knowable thing.

lol you want a rational proof of God?

here ya go

[img]http://www.lazygirls.info/people/stacy_keibler/stacy_keibler_stacy_keibler_stuff_mag_01_XhFYwGI.sized.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/Mansewerz/SKS_WWEDivas_2004_StacyKeibler_007.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.lazygirls.info/people/stacy_keibler/stacy_keibler_stacy_keibler_stuff_mag_08_J9qaaml.sized.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/Mansewerz/stacy_keibler_09.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/Mansewerz/5_1383.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.tshirtwatch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/stacy-keibler-devil-tee.jpg[/img]

>>10
Why do people say this? It's the fucking opposite.

There's no evidence of the existence of giant pink dragons. That means there is evidence against the existence of giant pink dragons.

That's why people are innocent until proven guilty. If the phrase "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is true, then people could be sent to jail purely because they've been accused of a crime, regardless of whether or not there's any evidence to prove that they've committed said crime.

Then you'd have to accept the existance of a god just because there's no evidence to prove that there ISN'T a god, and then you'd have to accept the evidence that my fucking pink dragon exists, just because you can't prove that it doesn't.

>>46
You're trying to prove there's a god by posting girls?

Fucking ridiculous.

>>48
no the existence of hot girls ...


owriiiiiiiite!

>>47

No.

There is something called the "argument from ignorance".  It has this format: x has not been demonstrated, therefor x is false.  This is a logical fallacy.  You can look it up.  People say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" because it is correct, and mildly cute.  It doesn't mean you have to accept the truth of something that hasn't been demonstrated true; it means you don't have logical justification for denying it simply because there's a lack of evidence.  This is unrelated to assumption.  In the American judicial system, we assume someone is innocent until proven guilty.  Assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty does not mean they actually are innocent.  If OJ murdered Nicole, and is never proven guilty, he is assumed innocent by the system, but that doesn't mean he is actually innocent.  Courts err (and I use "err" very purposefully) on the side of caution, because we'd rather not imprison innocent people.

Also,
>>44
Fucking retard.

>>50
care to elaborate why its retarded to specify what definition of 'god' you are arguing against?

"Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. " (wikipedia)

i was simply pointing out, that instead of lumping all definitions of god into a single word, it would be better to specify which definition of god you're arguing against. There are far more arguments that can be made against the existence of a theistic god, than say, the concept of 'god' that einstein had or even some forms of god in hinduism.

>>45
Oh, I agree, absolutely. It's why I strongly suspect that gods don't exist, but can't be certain because the religious have all these annoying little excuses for everything, like "the ways of God are mysterious" and "God is testing our faith". Apologetics, in other words. Of course they sound like total cop-outs, no doubt about it, but they are valid, unfortunately.

>>46
There is a Goddess, after all!

>>51

I was simply pointing that out when I said, "The first thing we should always do when debating 'god(s)' is to clearly specify what kind of god we're talking about."

You started talking about random shit and rewording what I'd said.  I'm saying you're a retard.

>>54
touché

Antitheism > Atheism > Agnosticism >>> Deism >>>>>> Theism.

>>52
Of course they sound like total cop-outs, no doubt about it, but they are valid, unfortunately.

No, they're not. They are absolutely not.

In our prayer test, there was no difference in the condition of those 500 people who died. Either God doesn't exist, or he chose to let all those people die *just to confound scientists*. Just to keep us on our toes, to leave us without evidence, to require faith from us. Does that sound like the loving, caring biblical God?

At this point in our technological development (or in the very near future), census programs combined with the computerization of medical records will allow trivial state-wide statistical tests on the effects religion has on medical health. In other words, if He wants to stay in the dark, he's going to have to stop answering prayers. ALL prayers.

At some point, "God works in mysterious ways" means "God has no observable effects on the universe", in which case the whole point is moot and the question of whether he exists is nonsense.

You can't respond to the existence of million year old dinosaur fossils with "God planted them to test our faith". You can't respond to your God letting hundreds, thousands of people die just to hinder the advancement of knowledge with "God works in mysterious ways". Sorry, that's not valid; science does not work that way, and reality does not work that way.

>>57
Well, they say God is far beyond our ability to comprehend, and that we don't understand his motives, how his mind works, and such. It's impossible to argue with that. The tests are only enough to make us strongly suspect that there must be no God.

Of course, it doesn't matter how often they say "the ways of God are mysterious", because we all know that they have no proof that this God character even exists in the first place.

And they can say things like "God planted fossils to test our faith," it just sounds totally conspiracy-theorist-like. But it is valid, nonetheless. I mean, he's omnipotent, so it is within his capacity.

>>58

I agree, you can hide anything behind omnipotence. There's no argueing it.

>>58
And they can say things like "God planted fossils to test our faith," it just sounds totally conspiracy-theorist-like. But it is valid, nonetheless. I mean, he's omnipotent, so it is within his capacity.
Yes, it is within his capacity. No, it is not a valid argument for the existence of the Christian God. You still don't understand my argument.

If all the evidence *is* planted just to test our faith, then God is not falsifiable and has no observable effect on our universe. This means it is nonsense to wonder whether he exists, and it is nonsense to say that you don't know whether he exists.

The most fundamental requirement to behaving rationally is the assumption that what we observe is in fact objective reality. We have to assume this because if this is not reality, we wouldn't know the difference. We can't know whether our brains are in jars in the Matrix, or whether a God created the universe yesterday and planted our memories, or whether this is indeed all real, because they all predict the same physical results. We're trapped in our universe, so we can't say any of the above is true.

But the gods of mainstream religions DO affect us. They're falsifiable. That's why it's not a valid argument.

I sound like a broken record here, because YES, I AGREE you can hide anything behind omnipotence. I've said it a dozen times in this thread, stop fucking telling me this, I AGREE with you. The point is that saying whether these Gods actually exist is nonsense in the first place. Calling yourself 'agnostic' simply because you realize this is a pointless use of the term, and it's elitist; you imply that atheists don't understand this, when in fact it's quite the opposite.

The 'possibility' of unfalsifiable Gods is not a matter of opinion; it is a fact, just as sure as 2+2=4. Terms such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic' refer to the possibility of gods who recognize humans as a species and meddle in our affairs. That's why I'm an atheist; science has shown that there are no such gods.

>>60
I agree that it's nonsense to say whether gods exist. Absolutely. But I still think it's better to take an agnostic approach to theists and their claims, that way they can't accuse us of arrogance, or say things like "it takes more faith to be an atheist..." all the while ignoring our points.

We're anonymous, we are god

>>61
Alright, I don't know why I worded that the way I did; I sound like I'm no longer an agnostic, when in actual fact I still am.

What I meant when I said that statements like "God works in mysterious ways" are valid is that they are valid responses -- or excuses, if you prefer. Not arguments for the existence of God. Obviously they aren't.

But remember, we're talking about a being that knows everything. We don't understand why he does what he does, but then again we don't know everything. We couldn't hope to be able to wrap our minds around the supreme thoughts of an omniscient being any more than an ant could hope to comprehend our motives. God's motives are way beyond us, and as such, if we say that he must not exist just because he doesn't do what we expect him to do, we're just talking out our asses. We don't know how he operates,  but then again we're not nearly as smart as him.

>>61
But I still think it's better to take an agnostic approach to theists and their claims
Why? You're compromising science and the advancement of knowledge just to avoid offending religious zealots.

Look at it this way. Do you take an agnostic approach to evolution? There is a mountain of evidence against creation and for evolution; it's downright ignorant to believe it at this point. Are you one of those people who still says "we can't know for sure that evolution is true"?

If not, where do you draw the line? Why is there enough evidence against creation to declare it to be untrue, but not enough evidence against the biblical God? There doesn't appear to ever be a threshold to satisfy you.

If you do remain agnostic about evolution, by your logic, we can't know for sure whether *anything* is true. You've completely trivialized the concepts of truth and knowledge.

The fact of the matter is we're trapped in our universe, so if some being is changing the rules outside our universe, we can't know the difference because it doesn't affect us. What we see is what is true, end of story.

God's motives are way beyond us, and as such, if we say that he must not exist just because he doesn't do what we expect him to do, we're just talking out our asses.
Wrong. As far as the biblical God goes, He TOLD us what to expect Him to do. We should be able to see it in our everyday lives, but we don't.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If God operates behind the scenes, then he has no effect on our universe, so whether or not he exists is not something that can be true or false. Can we stop talking about this kind of God already?


Bottom line: Are you agnostic about the biblical God? Are you sure about whether or not the Christian God exists?

>>64
I do believe in evolution, but not because I've seen the evidence for myself or anything, but rather because I know how science works, and I trust it. So I have no problem taking scientists' word for it.

And yeah, I am agnostic about the Christian God. But who cares? Now I don't even know why we're arguing. Neither of us believe in gods, theists are the real problem, so can we just give it a rest? I've always approached theists' claims with as the same degree of scrutiny and scepticism as any other far-fetched, ridiculous idea. Isn't that enough? Why must you atheists shit on us in addition to the theists? The theists I can undstand, but we don't believe in an invisible Superman like they do. So who cares? Leave us alone.

According to Science, anything that can happen, will happen, even if it's in a parallel universe. Every scientists who actually graduated (ie: all of them) agrees that there is a chance, small though it may be, that god exists. Therefore God does exist, but just maybe not in this universe.

>>66
even if the many-worlds interpretation is true, shouldn't god be the god the whole multiverse? Otherwise he wouldn't be very omnipotent or omnipresent.

>>66
Yeah, a chance...

Are there 2 or 3 primary debaters?  I'm having difficulty keeping track.  If you're not willing to be namefags like myself, it would be helpful to at least label yourselves as A, B, C, or something.  Thanks.

>>64
You yourself said that these gods have no physical effect on our world.  Hence, there can be no hindrance on science/technology.  Science does not care if a god exists or not.

You seem to take a rather strong stance of throwing out everything that is not knowable as "nonsense".  It seems you're not very fond of philosophical wankery.  However, isn't the whole point of religion/its imitation products to ponder about what is out there/why we exist?  We might never answer these questions, but we can still wonder and put meaning (even if artificial) into our pathetic existances.  If you really want, we can just give up, not care, and chug a couple of bottles of vodka.

>>69
And yeah, I am agnostic about the Christian God. But who cares? Now I don't even know why we're arguing. Neither of us believe in gods, theists are the real problem, so can we just give it a rest?
Now that's awfully hypocritical. You say theists are the real problem, but you tolerate them by assuring them of the feasibility and rationality of their beliefs.

In any case, as I said before, if you're agnostic about the biblical God, you're just ignorant. There is a mountain of evidence against His existence, and as I explained time and time again, "God works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of this. Nowhere does the Bible mention God's intention to remain hidden, and everywhere does he have humans praise him for his wondrous (falsifiable!) accomplishments.

We might never answer these questions, but we can still wonder and put meaning (even if artificial) into our pathetic existances.
When you're wondering about unfalsifiable things, you're wasting your time. We're trapped in our reality, so pondering about two different causes for reality is meaningless; we end up with the same reality, so what's the point? These things make for great fiction, but it's foolish to take it seriously or to talk about believing one or the other. A rose is a rose is a rose.

However, isn't the whole point of religion/its imitation products to ponder about what is out there/why we exist?
No. The point of religion is most certainly not to ponder about what is out there or why we exist; religious people already know these things. The point of small-scale religion is to polarize humans into tribal warfare; it's to create a feeling of belonging to a group to the extent that you're willing to slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with you. This is a huge evolutionary benefit. We can see this in the beginnings of all religions; take a read through Genesis sometime and read about the endless stories of villages slaughtering each other and raping their women, all condoned by God.

The point of large-scale religion is simply to enslave the masses. You've got your billions of people brainwashed by your teachings; now you can do whatever you want with them. For a thousand years, the entire world was run by the Christian clergy (and they didn't call it the Dark Ages because it was dark). Even today, for over a billion people, what the Pope says goes unconditionally.

One aspect of philosophy is to wonder about what is out there and why we exist. As I said above, this is pointless; these people should be called authors and writers, not philosophers. Philosophy is a much stronger field of study when it leans towards anthropology.

If you really want, we can just give up, not care, and chug a couple of bottles of vodka.
This fucking pisses me off. It's downright insulting. It's one of the most elitist arguments against atheism: the notion that atheists just want to sit around and get drunk, and not care about anything.

There is so much to learn that CAN be tested, and that IS falsifiable and knowable. We shouldn't waste our time with philosophical bullshit when we can perform real science and learn the real physical laws of our universe. Way to trivialize science, dickhead.

I have a hypothetical, prove that greek g-ds do not exist. Cite specifics. Thanks for delivering in advance anno

>>70
I meant theists are the real problem because of things like the 26 million dollars spent on a Creationism museum, the attempt to get Creationism taught as science in schools in the U.S., gay couples being denied the right to adopt from certain orphanages on the basis of nothing more than "it's against our religion," and so on.

The thing is, I was just thinking about those problems (I guess I was forgetting about them before) and they made me wonder why we are two non-theists arguing amongst each other when there's all that theistic BS going on in the world today. I mean, really, what's the point? It's not like I believe in gods any more than you or any other atheist. I mean it; I'm no theist. But, what does it matter if I don't take that extra step and say, "there is no God"? The mere fact that the theists haven't got a shred of evidence backing their assertions should alone be enough for us to be able to say to them, "Hey, now just you hold on a minute..." if you know what I mean. Don't you think?

Crazy zealots are the problem. It's much less the bible, and more the misinterpretation of the bible that causes so many of the world's problems. One of the ten commandments even states that you should not create an image of God. And yet, the stereotypical Christians imagine God as man-like, against the wishes of the bible.

There is no philosophical proof for God's existence. However, non-existence of God also can't be proved.

It is unlikely that God serves and reponds to human desires - that's a very human-centric view.

However,science does not, and cannot, explain everything. Many scientists believe in a higher power. Einstein's views are particularly interesting and often cited. Although he didn't believe in judeochristian religion necessarily, he felt that belief in God was a direct result of being a scientist. He was also repelled by atheists who rebelled against religion because of earlier bad experiences.

first im gonna slice your balls

"There is so much to learn that CAN be tested, and that IS falsifiable and knowable. We shouldn't waste our time with philosophical bullshit when we can perform real science and learn the real physical laws of our universe. Way to trivialize science, dickhead"

Why bother if there's no afterlife and in a century you're gone and none of it matters.

>>75
Go back to cutting yourself, emofag.

>>75
To satisfy our curiosity, and to increase our odds of perpetuating the species are two reasons I can think of.

But if you're a theist who intends to play the "Why? Why? Why?" game, I would ask you, "Why bother even if there *is* a god and an afterlife? To worship this god? What for? Because he said so? So what?" Eventually you'll come to a point where you'll say, "Well, that's good enough for me." And, well, satisfying my curiosity and increasing the odds of perpetuating the species are good enough for me. :)

By the way, does anyone here go on atheism forums like atheistnetwork.com?

>>76
im going to bet youre the emofag.

>>77
why would you want to perpetuate a species?  its a hopeless goal, eventually everything will die anyway, why prolong its death?  why is life better than death?  what point is there in any of that?  do you just do pointless things because you like them?

i don't get the "why bother worshipping god just because he said so" thing.  if there is a supreme being with the power to eternally torment or eternally grace you with bliss, i'd want probably want to be on the bliss side.  i mean, i guess you don't have to (even if he exists) but if he would punish you, why?  people rebel against an oppressive government because they feel its wrong and they hope for change one day even if its far after their death; why would you rebel against an omnipotent god?

>>79
I'm going to bet you failed high school English.

A good portion of the world's population - the intelligent portion - lives for the present and short-term future (short-term meaning within our lifespan, or the lifespan of our children). You, on the other hand, would apparently shit your pants and commit suicide if you did not have some eternal goal to reach for. Yet the fact that you are posting here indicates that you do not apply this idea to other aspects of your life: this thread will be deleted not too long from now, and you still insist on posting in it. Either quit ranting about the "without god nothing matters!!" bullshit or preach what you practice and stop posting altogether.