There is no God...???

Pushtrak

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I think you may have slightly missed the point of the question.

No, I don't think I did. I stated instead of no god, no personal god, and elaborated on why I feel confident to state such a thing. Or, am I missing something else that happened later in the thread that changed the focus?

Improbable

deise go deo wrote: »

God exists for me. You dont speak for everyone. You cannot claim god dose not exist for Humans. Quite alot of us would disagree with you.

Apparently now atheists are more 'Self-aware' than religious people. As you seem to be the masters of evidence based reasoning I would like to see your evidence for this argument or else I refuse to beleive it exists.

This really is getting quite tiresome. To much rethoric. To little logical argument:rolleyes:

Saying that god exists for you is just saying that you think god exists. It has nothing to do with whether god actually exists or not.

If I were to tell you that there is a 4 foot tall alien with telepathic abilities hovering outside my window, would that make it true? No, of course it wouldn't. The onus would be on me to provide proof of such an outrageous claim.

By the same token, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that your mystical, magical, imaginary friend in the sky exists because you are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof lies with you, not with us. Until such proof is provided (and don't give me any more examples like "I don't know how the universe works, therefore god must do it") then I will simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a being just like I do with unicorns.

Zombrex

I think saying there is now Go is as valid as saying there is no Darth Vader

I can't prove Darth Vader doesn't exits. Heck I am sure some where people believe he does

But all evidence of any worth or standard point to the conclusion that Vader is an imaginary character created by George Lucas as part of his Star Wars movies.

That does not prove for absolute certain that he is. It is possible but very unlikely that Vader actually exists.

But i'm very confident in saying Darth Vader is a fictional character.

I am as confident in saying God is a fictional character. All evidence supports the conclusion that humans invent human like agents in nature and that God is a product of that.

can i prove it? Nope. But I can't prove Lucas isn't Luke sky walker either

deise go deo

Pushtrak wrote: »

Chrisitanity (unifying all the "I'm right" camps into one banner) is the largest religion I believe with about a third of the population. So, supposing them as right, and by extension there is a hell. So, 2/3 of the current population has gone to hell?

Thats a bit old school, I beleive the current stance is that if you live a good life you get in. I think you are safely inside an ''I'm right'' camp of your own.

There is a point made about how perfect the planet is for life. Considering how many planets there are, surely some would be capable of supporting life just by sheer chance. A big song and dance is made about how much of the planet is water. Yeah, mostly undrinkable salt water. Intelligently designed, yeah right.

I think that is aimed at me. I never mentioned this planet. I think your right, out of all the planets there are It is certainally plausible that one of them would be capable of sustaining life, I also dont think there is any reason to assume there is no life elsewhere. My point concerned the Universe and how I understand it to work

Religion is nothing but useful to those who wish to exploit it for power, and a sad exercise in back peddling for the rest. Oh, something is literal until it is utterly debunked, then it is metaphor.

You fail to see the positive effect it has had on the lives of many people.

There are probably other stuff floating away in my head that just aren't coming to me at the moment. I'm sure the point is made well enough. Religion is the perfect answer for those who don't want the right answer, or minimum effort, maximum feel good.

And there we are. This, my opinion is more valid than yours attuide is the exact smug, arrogent thing I have a problem with. I dont like it in religious people who cant accept any view but there own and I dislike it in athiests with the same problem too.

Some athiests concider people who beleive in god to be lazy, weak minded, illogical, stupid etc etc but it dosent make them any better than the religious people they belittle. Actions speak much louder than words and belittleing someones beliefs because they do not correspond with your own is pritty low as far as I am concerned.

deise go deo

By the same token, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that your mystical, magical, imaginary friend in the sky exists because you are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof lies with you, not with us. Until such proof is provided (and don't give me any more examples like "I don't know how the universe works, therefore god must do it") then I will simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a being just like I do with unicorns.

No, my point is that from what I know of how the Universe works I beleive god is responciple for it. You dont have to beleive it, But you dont have to try to shove your beliefs down my throat. I have no problem respecting your beliefs, why cant you respect mine?
Is there anything which shows the existence of god to even be improbable?

Improbable

deise go deo wrote: »

No, my point is that from what I know of how the Universe works I beleive god is responciple for it. You dont have to beleive it, But you dont have to try to shove your beliefs down my throat. I have no problem respecting your beliefs, why cant you respect mine?
Is there anything which shows the existence of god to even be improbable?

Exactly, 'from what you know'. As I have told you before, the argument from personal incredulity is not an argument for the existence of god at all. I'm not shoving my beliefs down your throat, I'm just trying to show that your reasons for believing are misguided. The reason I do not respect a belief in a sky fairy is because there is no reason to believe that such a thing exists and I'm not going to respect your belief in a god any more than I respect beliefs in unicorns.

As I said before, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Let me throw your question right back at you. Is there anything which shows the existence of god to be probable? Is there any reason for believing that a god exists?

deise go deo

Improbable wrote: »

Exactly, 'from what you know'. As I have told you before, the argument from personal incredulity is not an argument for the existence of god at all. I'm not shoving my beliefs down your throat, I'm just trying to show that your reasons for believing are misguided. The reason I do not respect a belief in a sky fairy is because there is no reason to believe that such a thing exists and I'm not going to respect your belief in a god any more than I respect beliefs in unicorns.

As I said before, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Let me throw your question right back at you. Is there anything which shows the existence of god to be probable? Is there any reason for believing that a god exists?

Well I'm sorry but I'm not trying to convince anyone of gods existence and I'm hardly going to base my opinion on what I do not know.

There is no burden of proof on me. Gods existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The Issue here is people going ahead and representing their opinion on the matter as fact when it isent.

Nemi

deise go deo wrote: »

Is there anything which shows the existence of god to even be improbable?

It depends, I think, on what you put forward as the god hypothesis.

If its a sort of hypothesis of god as a vague, impersonal initiator of reality, then there's not much to be argued against.

But I'd suggest if we took the hypothesis to be any individual religion, and we included in the hypothesis any formal beliefs that an adherent should accept, I expect we could identify improbabilities.

Is the prospect of the existence of any old god improbable? I've no basis to say.

Is it improbable that there is a God who fathered himself in some way so he was sort of simultaneously human, while not diminishing himself in any way, died a painful death, while of course being eternal, left the reins of his church in the hands of the Pope, and makes himself available for eating every Sunday? I'm inclined to feel there is much improbability in all that.

Goduznt Xzst

deise go deo wrote: »

God exists for me.

deise go deo wrote: »

I would like to see your evidence for this argument or else I refuse to beleive it exists.

I'm pretty confident I can provide you with the same amount of evidence for my argument as you required to believe in your Gods existence.

Here you go, I found the link:

http://tinyurl.com/asc6q

strobe

deise go deo wrote: »

Thats a bit old school, I believe the current stance is that if you live a good life you get in. I think you are safely inside an ''I'm right'' camp of your own.

Old school? Christianity is 2000ish years old. It's all about the old school man. Besides, Christianity, at least any of the mainstream versions, are very clear on the point that believing in Jesus and accepting him as your personal saviour is the only requirement on getting into heaven. Your current stance is in direct opposition to the stance of 99%+ of knowledgeable Christians. Don't believe me? Ask the question in the Christian forum http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333. I'm sorry to have to inform you on the stipulations, terms and conditions of your own religion but you do not get into heaven just by living a good life. I use to laugh at the suggestion that some atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians. But lately I am starting to think there is a lot of truth to that statement.

Improbable

deise go deo wrote: »

Well I'm sorry but I'm not trying to convince anyone of gods existence and I'm hardly going to base my opinion on what I do not know.

There is no burden of proof on me. Gods existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The Issue here is people going ahead and representing their opinion on the matter as fact when it isent.

Ok, if you wanna avoid the question, be my guest, I'll go along with that.

The thrust from the OP is:

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

Putting aside, the big bang theory, evolution and all the traditional arguments against the existence of an abrahamic god, I'd like to restate it like this:

Is it reasonable to say for a claim X, for which there is no evidence, that X is false until proven otherwise?

In example form, would you find it reasonable for me to claim that aliens hover outside my bedroom window every night, if I could provide no other reason for this claim than the fact that I don't understand how there could be lights shining outside my window?

deise go deo

strobe wrote: »

Old school? Christianity is 2000ish years old. It's all about the old school man. Besides, Christianity, at least any of the mainstream versions, are very clear on the point that believing in Jesus and accepting him as your personal saviour is the only requirement on getting into heaven. Your current stance is in direct opposition to the stance of 99%+ of knowledgeable Christians. Don't believe me? Ask the question in the Christian forum http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333. I'm sorry to have to inform you on the stipulations, terms and conditions of your own religion but you do not get into heaven just by living a good life. I use to laugh at the suggestion that some atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians. But lately I am starting to think there is a lot of truth to that statement.

The point I made was made by a preist dureing a debate on newstalk recently.

deise go deo

Improbable wrote: »

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

Maybe I'm blind but people keep talking about this evidence against thing. I have yet to see any such evidence.

Putting aside, the big bang theory, evolution and all the traditional arguments against the existence of an abrahamic god, I'd like to restate it like this:

Neither of those things are arguments against god. They are arguments that the Bible is not literal fact. I never proposed it was.

Is it reasonable to say for a claim X, for which there is no evidence, that X is false until proven otherwise?

Is it reasonable to be intolerent of others beliefs just because they are wrong in your opinion?

You beleive there is no evidence. I beleive there is.
Every known society in human history has had a belief in some form of god.
I beleive that the simplicity of some of the most basic bulding blocks of the universe that we have discovered such as E=MC2 point to design rather than random chance.
And just for fun, Explain Stigmata.

strobe

deise go deo wrote: »

The point I made was made by a preist dureing a debate on newstalk recently.

Ahh I see. Well a mechanic recently tried to tell me to shake a tin of brake fluid before topping up the reservoir. Humans huh? Probably best to read the bible again yourself so Deise. If you missed that fairly significant part chances are you missed one or two other things. Like the bit with the guy with the boat with kangaroos and polar bears on it. It's weird wild stuff.

Improbable

deise go deo wrote: »

Is it reasonable to be intolerent of others beliefs just because they are wrong in your opinion?

People can believe whatever they want, but that does not mean that there is any logical reason to believe that they are right.

deise go deo wrote: »

You beleive there is no evidence. I beleive there is.
Every known society in human history has had a belief in some form of god.
I beleive that the simplicity of some of the most basic bulding blocks of the universe that we have discovered such as E=MC2 point to design rather than random chance.
And just for fun, Explain Stigmata.

Where is this evidence?

People believing in a god of some kind is because they had no other explanation for what was happening around them and things like sun gods, rain gods, thunder gods have all existed for that reason.

I do hope you're not pointing to that as evidence for the existence of god because the ignorance of humans throughout history (through no fault of their own) and even in modern times is not evidence for the existence of a god.

The anthropic principle handles this quite nicely, and even if we don't have an explanation for why something is the way it is, that doesn't mean that god should automatically be given credit.

Maybe have a read of The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design by Leonard Susskind.

As for stigmata, I will admit to not knowing much about it. But a quick search gives a recommendation to read this:
The Bleeding Mind - Ian Wilson

MagicMarker

deise go deo wrote: »

You beleive there is no evidence. I beleive there is.

What you believe is evidence, isn't actually evidence. It's just you saying ''God did it'' when in fact you just don't know.

Now, can you please answer my question, is it arrogant for me to say ''There are no fairies'', ''There are no unicorns'', ''There are no leprechauns'' etc?

And while we're at it, why aren't one of these responsible for the creation of the universe? Or aliens from another universe?

seamus

The idea of "current thinking" in relation to religion always makes me wonder why people can't see for themselves when the mask has been exposed.

In science "current thinking" changes when the evidence does - when additional evidence is found which alters the facts.

In religion, "current thinking" changes arbitrarily. Unless I've missed something, there's been no second coming, no new visions from God, so any change to current thinking is the church (or the person) reinterpreting the existing evidence *for no reason at all*.

Which is equivalent to arbitrarily deciding that PI is exactly 3.

Pushtrak

deise go deo wrote: »

Thats a bit old school, I beleive the current stance is that if you live a good life you get in. I think you are safely inside an ''I'm right'' camp of your own.

So, the "true word of god" is really nothing but what you make of it. Funny I hear so much about objective morality when the whole book seems so subjective.

I think that is aimed at me. I never mentioned this planet. I think your right, out of all the planets there are It is certainally plausible that one of them would be capable of sustaining life, I also dont think there is any reason to assume there is no life elsewhere. My point concerned the Universe and how I understand it to work

So, what is it you understand? That god created the universe, billions of stars and galaxies, and then went and made us in his image. Why were other planets unintelligently designed? Why do so many planets not support human life? Instead of looking what we have and saying intelligently designed, how about looking at things more objectively? Whatever the case is, I find notions that there was some creative force that did this for us to be ridiculous when actually looking at things with a critical eye.

You fail to see the positive effect it has had on the lives of many people.

I wonder if you'd feel this way about things that can be better demonstrated to be false would you feel the same way or would you think the truth better.

And there we are. This, my opinion is more valid than yours attuide is the exact smug, arrogent thing I have a problem with. I dont like it in religious people who cant accept any view but there own and I dislike it in athiests with the same problem too.

For religion it's a simple "the book says so" and requires no further thought. In fact, thinking seems a hindrance to faith. Far better for the religious to be as you later say, lazy, weak minded, illogical and/or stupid.

To look at things in the other direction, which is really nothing but an argument from authority so I don't really like trotting out, but anyway, it's funny that those who work as cosmologists and evolutionary biologists are amongst the quickest to discard religious belief. You'd think those who examine these on a daily basis would see some grandeur of god were such to be found. No god turned on the switch for the big bang, or triggered the events for evolution as we know it.

And going from evolution, one knocks out the Adam and Eve story. So, whence came the fall? There was no fall. No god. No heaven. No hell. Just a myth that has long past lived the point of usefulness, and too many lives have been lost under its delusion.

Some athiests concider people who beleive in god to be lazy, weak minded, illogical, stupid etc etc but it dosent make them any better than the religious people they belittle. Actions speak much louder than words and belittleing someones beliefs because they do not correspond with your own is pritty low as far as I am concerned.

We are trying to talk about reality here. It matters little to me if it makes me look good or not. Just trying to get to the facts, express what I think they are to the best of my ability and hopefully to learn something new. Something I'm not likely to do from a theist.

Herbal Deity

deise go deo wrote: »

Is it reasonable to be intolerent of others beliefs just because they are wrong in your opinion?

Arguing against something isn't intolerance.. :S

No one here wants religion banned or to persecute the religious.

Debate isn't intolerant, no matter how heated it gets or how arrogant or smug either side may seem to the other.

Therefore I resent your accusation that atheism is intolerant.

deise go deo wrote: »

As for who created god, I beleive that god exists outside the physical realm of the universe and outside of time its self. As for the universe always existing in a simmilar way to god. I think the Big Bang is generally accepted as the starting point of its existence. (Except for some parts of America.)

No, the Big Bang is accepted as the beginning of the current formation of the universe. We don't know what existed before, but it's plausible that the energy of the universe existed in its original, singular form for an infinite amount of time before the Big Bang happened. It's even possible that there might have been previous incarnations of the universe beforehand, we just don't know.

Do you not see how dismissing the problem of who created God is a cop out, and that if we don't know how God exists, God doesn't actually answer any questions about the universe? "The universe just happens to exist" vs. "A being 'outside time' that just happens to exist created the universe". How does the latter explain anything about the universe any better than the former?

Zombrex

MagicMarker wrote: »

What you believe is evidence, isn't actually evidence. It's just you saying ''God did it'' when in fact you just don't know.

Now, can you please answer my question, is it arrogant for me to say ''There are no fairies'', ''There are no unicorns'', ''There are no leprechauns'' etc?

And while we're at it, why aren't one of these responsible for the creation of the universe? Or aliens from another universe?

+1

Is it arrogant to say there is no Darth Vader?

Because that is what we are talking about here. It isn't like we are in the middle ages where they had no idea either way if God existed or not. We have tons of evidence on the side of "imaginary character" and no evidence of any standard I would use on the side of "real deity".

People can say the comparison is silly, we know Darth Vader is imaginary because we know George Lucas made him up. But equally can't we say we know God is imaginary because we know humans make him up? That isn't proof, but we can't prove Lucas made up Vader either

The Mad Hatter

deise go deo wrote: »

Is it reasonable to be intolerent of others beliefs just because they are wrong in your opinion?

No.

And that's something, incidentally, seen in the religious every day, be it some loony preacher from Florida setting fire to the Koran, Muslims in Saudi Arabia stoning to death people who leave the faith, or the Pope announcing that homosexuality is an abomination.

But intolerant is an incendiary word, and it's not what we do here. We can tolerate religious beliefs just fine. (Well, most of us anyway.) But no-one's setting fire to anything here; no-one's stoning anyone to death. We're arguing. And there's no reason why your religious beliefs should be any more immune to criticism than your political beliefs or your taste in music.

sensibleken

Pookah wrote: »

Interesting question, OP.

There exists a branch of semantics, General Semantics, founded by Alfred Korzybski and expanded upon by David Bourland, which addresses the use of 'isness', or of speaking in absolute terms.

This lead to the invention of E-Prime, the use of English without any form of the verb 'to be'. It tends to bring language more in line with scientific thinking, especially since the discovery of quantum mechanics and the realisation that the notion of absolutes may have no basis in reality (esp. interms of the relationship between the observor and the object).

In short, it prevents the user from dressing up opinion as fact.

Even a statement as seemingly simple as 'the apple is red' can be challenged, since the apple may not only be some other shade of red and have a different colour internally, but it excludes other elements of the apple, it's taste, shape etc. In e-prime one would have to state 'the apple appears red to me' or 'I see the apple as red'

The same notion applies to the existence of God, as you've already put it in your opening post.

If e-prime were utilised more often, it could have the effect of lessening of conflict, since it tends to soften the 'facts' expressed by the user and may lead to less emotion being attached to one's notions.

If anyone disagrees with the above, could they please respond in e-prime.

wasnt that superceeded by U-Magnus

Dades

deise go deo wrote:

No, my point is that from what I know of how the Universe works I beleive god is responciple for it. You dont have to beleive it, But you dont have to try to shove your beliefs down my throat. I have no problem respecting your beliefs, why cant you respect mine?
Is there anything which shows the existence of god to even be improbable?

Did you check what forum you were posting in? Were you dragged in here to have our beliefs down your throat?

Your beliefs don't have respect because (1) they are have no evidence to back them up, and (2) most here find the Christian God story (angels, satan, original sin, human sacrifice etc) absolutely barmy and not in keeping with an entity supposedly responsible for the creation of the entire universe.

deise go deo wrote: »

You beleive there is no evidence. I beleive there is.
Every known society in human history has had a belief in some form of god.

The fact that every human society has had a belief in some different form of god surely suggests nothing except that humans are prone to inventing gods?

deise go deo wrote: »

And just for fun, Explain Stigmata.

Only if you explain the Muslim Miracle Baby.

sensibleken

Personally I would say 'i dont believe in god' or 'there is no god' when someone is preaching at me.

The reason is that since time began various acts were attributed to a god/gods. these have gradually been explained to have happened by other methods. so much so that we are back to one, the big bang.

where gods running on clouds used to explain thunder and everything else people couldnt explain, god is invoked now only to explain the beginning of the universe. well im sorry but wolf has been cried many many times.

we were also told that these acts were evidence of him being all powerfull. since these acts have been explained by other methods its quite reasonable o conclude, since all proof that god exists has been disproved that he doesnt exist.

If he shows up and winds mastermind i will gladly retract this

sensibleken

deise go deo wrote: »

Is it reasonable to be intolerent of others beliefs just because they are wrong in your opinion?

You beleive there is no evidence. I beleive there is.
Every known society in human history has had a belief in some form of god.
I beleive that the simplicity of some of the most basic bulding blocks of the universe that we have discovered such as E=MC2 point to design rather than random chance.
And just for fun, Explain Stigmata.

First, just because people always believed in something does not make it correct. for instance going out in the rain will not give you flu and stress does not cause ulcers.

second, you're correct every known society has believed in a god. But it has varied so much from place to place, from monotheism, pantheism, etc that do you not think that says more about the human mind than whats actually out there? why would god reveal himself as YHVH and Crom Cruach?


I dont see how E=MC2 points to a creator. anymore than god pushes iron toward the magnet? could you explain this?

Linoge

deise go deo wrote: »

As for stars colapsing in general, that is nessary for planets to be formed. Stars produce the heavy elements from hydrogen.

Neccesary eh.... Why didnt god just create everything neccesary for life in the first place? Why does he need all these collapsing stars, black holes etc for the goldilocks effect? Why is everything so elaborate?

Hmmmm.... oh yeahs, forgot the answer to this one.... god works in mysterious ways. Its ok people, found the answer!

MagicMarker

Not to mention, our sun will one day explode and destroy the earth and every other planet in the solar system.

Is that also necessary?

Pushtrak

And for whom are new planets being made? Our enjoyment? God Project #2?

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

If he shows up and winds mastermind i will gladly retract this

Here is an actual photograph of God Almighty sitting in the mastermind chair, and by his very nature it must be assumed that he won, so retract that statement.

deise go deo

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, what is it you understand? That god created the universe, billions of stars and galaxies, and then went and made us in his image. Why were other planets unintelligently designed? Why do so many planets not support human life? Instead of looking what we have and saying intelligently designed, how about looking at things more objectively? Whatever the case is, I find notions that there was some creative force that did this for us to be ridiculous when actually looking at things with a critical eye.

Your critical eye is no more qualiied to pass judgment than mine.

For religion it's a simple "the book says so" and requires no further thought. In fact, thinking seems a hindrance to faith. Far better for the religious to be as you later say, lazy, weak minded, illogical and/or stupid.

Some of Historys greatest thinkers were religious men. ''The book says so''? Well if you want to ignore centuarys of philosophy, be my guest.

To look at things in the other direction, which is really nothing but an argument from authority so I don't really like trotting out, but anyway, it's funny that those who work as cosmologists and evolutionary biologists are amongst the quickest to discard religious belief. You'd think those who examine these on a daily basis would see some grandeur of god were such to be found. No god turned on the switch for the big bang, or triggered the events for evolution as we know it.

Can I see your figures for this?

And going from evolution, one knocks out the Adam and Eve story. So, whence came the fall? There was no fall. No god. No heaven. No hell. Just a myth that has long past lived the point of usefulness, and too many lives have been lost under its delusion.

Wow is that really as much tought you have given to it?
Creationism not being fact means every religion ever is wrong?
Logic at its best.

We are trying to talk about reality here. It matters little to me if it makes me look good or not. Just trying to get to the facts, express what I think they are to the best of my ability and hopefully to learn something new. Something I'm not likely to do from a theist.

There is the point. Your beliefs are not based on anything other than your perception of the world around you, There is nothing wrong with that. But dont misrepresent yourself as right when you are no more qualified than anyone else to judge things.

Did you check what forum you were posting in? Were you dragged in here to have our beliefs down your throat?

Your beliefs don't have respect because (1) they are have no evidence to back them up, and (2) most here find the Christian God story (angels, satan, original sin, human sacrifice etc) absolutely barmy and not in keeping with an entity supposedly responsible for the creation of the entire universe.

I was invited here by the op to discuss this topic because we were draging another topic off thread in politics to discuss it.

Your entitled to your beliefs, you are not however entitled to belittle others for theirs.

We have tons of evidence on the side of "imaginary character" and no evidence of any standard I would use on the side of "real deity".

You claim to have evidence. So where is it. I have asked several times and the best I have gotten so far is Adam and eve dident exist.:rolleyes:

Arguing against something isn't intolerance.. :S

No one here wants religion banned or to persecute the religious.

Debate isn't intolerant, no matter how heated it gets or how arrogant or smug either side may seem to the other.

Therefore I resent your accusation that atheism is intolerant.

I never said Atheism was intolerant. I said ''some atheists''

Reasoned debate is not intollerent, however insulting the other side is.
Belittling people and claiming that they are weak minded because they dont see things a certain way is intolerant. This is what I have a problem with.