I have many reasons to believe god does not exist. I would type them all, but Im lazy. I look at it like this. Every single to good to be true thing in life, usually is. For instance, ever since I can remember I have been bombarded by things like Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and a whole slew of other mythical junk. As the years passed, all that I discovered was that, nothing that sounds wonderful ever is. Even if it does exist, it's never as good as advertised. The one last mystical, wonderful, and to good to be true thing I have heard of, that I don't already know is bull****, is the existence of god. Something that no one can prove unless they are dead. So they say if I believe, that when I die I will go to a wonderful place. Where I can spend the rest of eternity with my loved ones, and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, whatever. We die, we become maggot food, end of story. No one wants to think of their deceased loved ones as maggot food, so we manifested god, which helps us deal with the fact our loved ones are dead, in a six foot deep hole, just rotting away. Any way aside from the whole god doesnt exist thing, just because Im athiest doesnt mean Im not a good person. I have good morals, better than a lot of people I know that go to church. Maybe Ill ramble a little more. You know I love going to funerals and watching my "Christian" family members cry over a deceased retaliative. Im always like, what are you crying for theyre in a better place right? And then they give you the "I miss them, it just wont be the same anymore..." thing. And I look at them like, you selfish f#$%, if you believe in god and heaven, then arent they in a better place? Why would you want them here in this selfish, evil, unforgiving world, when they are supposedly in paradise? You believe in the after life, come on aunt Wanda, youre 78 years old. Heck you may see her tomorrow. I just dont get why religious people cry when others die. Like recently when the pope died. Oh and for the record, the pope lives like a king, anyone who gives their life to god like the pope does, you know no "fun". Should live at the bottom of the barrel, because you know if heaven is real, the pope has a guaranteed seat in gods cabinet. Hes at least gonna be a secretary of angels or something. They live like kings and when they die they are immortalized on earth and they will be celebrities in heave, so stop crying for them. Cry for me, Im broke. I cry at funerals. I see a dead person that worked hard their whole life, with no appreciation, or recognition. That is now just, fertilizer. When my parents die I will cry for weeks. I dont cry much, but when some one that is important to me dies, it will hurt so much to know that all they are is glorified road kill to the rest of the world. Just decomposing, being fed on by whatever, just like that dead deer you saw on the side of road on your way to work this morning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question to Athiests.
- Thread starter hadeka
- Start date
Quite simple. How exactly does one go about proving something which has yet to be proven?
It cannot be done - and more importantly, doesnt need to be done. The onus is on Theists to demonstrate phenomena which can only be explained by the existance of God. This doesnt mean there isnt a God.. but im not about to give up my sunday mornings for a shot in the dark.
For example, if I were to suggest that there is a big purple monster living on the far side of the moon called Geoff and then I asked you to prove he doesnt exist.. you'd call me crazy and say he obviously doesnt exist and if he does - prove he does.
I know this is a ridiculous proposition. It is an infantile silly suggestion, obviously something I have made up from my imagination. However, understand this: This is how many Atheists view the idea of God. "God is an absurd, infantile, silly idea, obviously made up in peoples imaginations." If you think thats not true, then prove otherwise.
Of course it isnt really an absurd idea as such. There are very valid sociological and psychological reasons for the idea of God. People need to be able to explain the world.. and 2k years ago they didnt have an understanding of atomic theory to explain thunderstorms. Additionally, religion creates social order. It creates the idea of a higher authority who will punish those who commit crimes.. thus people do as they are told and anarchy is averted. Civilization today would not have been possible without religion.
The question is: Do we need to continue living this white lie? ..and is this white lie still white or has it become a shade of grey?
Im convinced that we no longer require religion in our lives. Perhaps some people need a little spirituality to cope with personal crisis - but this in no way sanctions the continued existiance of institutionalised religion which interferes with politics and peoples lives.
It cannot be done - and more importantly, doesnt need to be done. The onus is on Theists to demonstrate phenomena which can only be explained by the existance of God. This doesnt mean there isnt a God.. but im not about to give up my sunday mornings for a shot in the dark.
For example, if I were to suggest that there is a big purple monster living on the far side of the moon called Geoff and then I asked you to prove he doesnt exist.. you'd call me crazy and say he obviously doesnt exist and if he does - prove he does.
I know this is a ridiculous proposition. It is an infantile silly suggestion, obviously something I have made up from my imagination. However, understand this: This is how many Atheists view the idea of God. "God is an absurd, infantile, silly idea, obviously made up in peoples imaginations." If you think thats not true, then prove otherwise.
Of course it isnt really an absurd idea as such. There are very valid sociological and psychological reasons for the idea of God. People need to be able to explain the world.. and 2k years ago they didnt have an understanding of atomic theory to explain thunderstorms. Additionally, religion creates social order. It creates the idea of a higher authority who will punish those who commit crimes.. thus people do as they are told and anarchy is averted. Civilization today would not have been possible without religion.
The question is: Do we need to continue living this white lie? ..and is this white lie still white or has it become a shade of grey?
Im convinced that we no longer require religion in our lives. Perhaps some people need a little spirituality to cope with personal crisis - but this in no way sanctions the continued existiance of institutionalised religion which interferes with politics and peoples lives.
skills101
Vicar of Christ
There is none. I'm going to try to define what atheism is for you. The term "atheism" is divided into two parts: "a," which means "without," and "theism" which is the belief in gods. Therefore, atheism is quite literally the absence of belief in a diety or dieties.hadeka said:
With that being said, it is clear that atheism holds no beliefs. We don't reject a god's existence, we simply do not have a religious belief. There is a clear difference. For example, there are some people who say "ALIENS DON'T EXIST." Rather, atheists (in an analogy to aliens) say "I don't hold any beliefs entailing the existence of aliens." The difference is that one clearly rejects a belief, and the other does not.
So... the question is: Why should I even try to disprove a deity's existence? It's not like I go out and say I know one doesn't exist. I know this concept may be difficult to grasp, but try to understand what I'm saying, then say it clearer in your own mind.
I don't hold a belief currently. To say the least, I don't know, and neither do you.HelpMe said:
armageddon
Member
im not exactly a non believer but if you want to "disprove" god then always go into the sciences. lately there have been many "explanations" to the mysterious things that have happened in the bible and everything, in a scientific point of view, was made/happened not by god but by coincidence and over time.hadeka said:
linwood
Well-Known Member
im not exactly a non believer but if you want to "disprove" god then always go into the sciences. lately there have been many "explanations" to the mysterious things that have happened in the bible and everything, in a scientific point of view, was made/happened not by god but by coincidence and over time.
Coincidence?
Hmm.....
Coincidence?
Hmm.....
armageddon
Member
yes, some scientists do believe that some of the things that have happened in the bible were just coincidences. there was a documentary we had to watch about that in confirmation (like a class for those who want to prove their faith) and they were talking about how in the parting of the red sea, moses was just there by coincidence and that the red sea does part like that every million years or something like that.linwood said:
sondadareas
Member
Hadeka,
I want to answer your original question, WHAT IS THE PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Answer: read my threads!
Peace,
sondadareas
I want to answer your original question, WHAT IS THE PROOF OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Answer: read my threads!
Peace,
sondadareas
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I've never heard that line of thinking by any scientist - I would be skeptical of the video that you were watching. Is it possible that you were being shown a video that intentionally misrepresented the position of those on the other side of the aisle?armageddon said:
TVOR
PS - where did you get that avatar?
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
A true scientist would probably want to prove that Moses ever existed in the first place before they went out trying to find explanations for his supposed miracles.
I've seen that same video. The 'evidence' was gathered by Christian scientists who went out looking for a specific conclusion, how it would be possible for the Red Sea (although...wasn't it actually the Sea of Reeds?...hhhmmmm) to part naturally, and therefore add credence to their reveled faith. Whatever floats y'alls boat.
mr.guy
crapsack
To try to answer the original questions here:
As repeatedly stated, there is no possible way to disprove God. The all-powerful qualities ascribed to him/her/them make his/her perceived non-existence a breeze for him/her if he/she so chooses. The complications arise when specific canon, dogma or scripture is too strictly defined or interpreted to have any meaningful bearing on reality. One can safely say that few aithists have a problem with God; he doesn't exist, so how could we? The problem is a lack of shared rhetoric, but that isn't just an aetheistic perspective, obviously. Generally, an aethistic position is almost entirely relative that is to say, an ill-definition of one's philosiphy but a useful short hand definition that the religious can understand (to some extent). I find the best reason to be an aetheist is so when argueing you can ask a theist to stop waving his book at you.
Basically, this means that an aetheist really ought not waste his time proving the major reasons for the non-existence of God, unless he thinks its just fun, i guess. But arguing dogma is often nessesary if one wants to live free of what one might perceive as senseless and oppressive reasoning. This makes it possible for an aetheist to even believe in God, but said God might not be a benificial God. A God with no interest or favour in the human race can be safely ignored (presumeably) thus negating any reason to worship or obey him. What would he/she care? Interestingly, Camus writing is somewhat consistant with this particular view, often alluding to Prometheus as the first aethist; himself a demi-god.
Please note this shouldn't be construed as an admission that aetheists have somehow "failed" in their pursuit of the non-deity, or an apologistic front for the loose argument/perspectives lack in proving the illogical. There's just no way.
As repeatedly stated, there is no possible way to disprove God. The all-powerful qualities ascribed to him/her/them make his/her perceived non-existence a breeze for him/her if he/she so chooses. The complications arise when specific canon, dogma or scripture is too strictly defined or interpreted to have any meaningful bearing on reality. One can safely say that few aithists have a problem with God; he doesn't exist, so how could we? The problem is a lack of shared rhetoric, but that isn't just an aetheistic perspective, obviously. Generally, an aethistic position is almost entirely relative that is to say, an ill-definition of one's philosiphy but a useful short hand definition that the religious can understand (to some extent). I find the best reason to be an aetheist is so when argueing you can ask a theist to stop waving his book at you.
Basically, this means that an aetheist really ought not waste his time proving the major reasons for the non-existence of God, unless he thinks its just fun, i guess. But arguing dogma is often nessesary if one wants to live free of what one might perceive as senseless and oppressive reasoning. This makes it possible for an aetheist to even believe in God, but said God might not be a benificial God. A God with no interest or favour in the human race can be safely ignored (presumeably) thus negating any reason to worship or obey him. What would he/she care? Interestingly, Camus writing is somewhat consistant with this particular view, often alluding to Prometheus as the first aethist; himself a demi-god.
Please note this shouldn't be construed as an admission that aetheists have somehow "failed" in their pursuit of the non-deity, or an apologistic front for the loose argument/perspectives lack in proving the illogical. There's just no way.
Flappycat
Well-Known Member
Which one? Any of many that religious people spend much of their time believing in or the conveniently undefined entity that some try to hide behind when their beliefs are intelligently challenged? There is no logical foundation for the existence of such a thing. That the existence of something isn't precluded is not a logical foundation for belief in it, and it is ignorant to think so. I would require a powerful vested interest in believing in such a thing, and this is something which I lack. I would not favor an infinite term of existence, such as an eternal afterlife, because the very fleetingness of life is part of what makes it worthwhile rather than the parent of worthless, unchanging mediocrity. When one says something like "life is short," I say "that is part of what makes it wonderful."hadeka said: