Atheism Isn't Science Based

[Mi2mi2a]

Yes, atheism is as far from science as the earth is from the sun, that you can even say it has the same characteristics of the religions they despise . Why? Here is my set of reasons:

Instead of worshipping a ‘God’ they worship humans

It’s the first rule of an atheist, giving humanity a superior meaning, while humans are fickle beings under the great powers of at least nature, least other powers.

Or as some say they worship science. And the irony is most of that science they put their faith on is made by RELIGIOUS scientists, not atheists.

It’s all just a set of beliefs nothing scientific about it

You know how they always call believing in ‘God’ is dumb and they are so smart, so they don’t. Well, to this day I’m waiting for one single scientific fact that proves God doesn’t exist! Just one!

For all their supposed rational arguments about how science is on par with atheism, and how religion abolishes science, they never themselves proved their ‘Beliefs’. All it is about is attacking other religions and finding the fault in them.

The thing is religion and the belief in God are two separate things!

A ‘religion’ is believing in ‘God’ and whorshipping him based on that religion, so if you want to prove God doesn’t exist maybe start by actually doing it not attacking the WAY TO WHORSHIP GOD.

Attacking other religions

You would think that these atheists who gave up on religion because it creates fanatics and wars, they themselves aren’t innocent of doing it. As I said before, instead of actually proving God is wrong they attack other religions.

At least most religious people mind themselves and their belief, however most atheists insult religious people! What they accuse religion of doing they are too.

They lump all other religions under Christianism’s beliefs

Again, if you want a rational debate over how atheism is the truth, maybe get your facts right.

The first argument that an atheist can give you is how religion abolishes science. My ususal response is: Hello? Christianism in the Dark eras did! Islam brought back science when it emerged, and Christians after the dark era brought back science to Europe. It’s not your supposed atheists.

And again, there is no religion in the world who is against science, it’s some practitioners who are against science.

Moreover as I will repeat over and over, believing God is one thing, following a religion is another and since atheists don’t believe in God their arguments shouldn’t be about how religions are wrong, it should be about how God doesn’t exist.

They shove down your throats their BELIEFS as much as religious people do

They accuse religion about how it tries to force them to take into their beliefs while they do too. This is the main reason I’m writing this. I’m tired of always being asked if I believe in God and what my religion is to insult it.

If they want to have a debate about it they are welcome, while it is still intrusive, the only thing I hear is insults and not one rational fact. And those insults no matter how much I prove them wrong, they still claim them because they supposedly know better.

When they go into debates, they don’t go open minded so you can have a real rational discussion, they go fixated on one thought and it is that religious people are delusional.

Science wasn’t created by atheists

If you take most known scientists throughout history, they usually are religious. So please don’t claim science as yours. That’s what makes me crack.

They twist logic much worse than some religious people

Let me give you the first example:

- If God is real, why won’t he show he exists?: Hmm really! If photons are real, why won’t they show they exist. Just maybe because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t it exist, that’s the first rule of science!

So I should just believe God doesn't exist because you told me to, well that's way worst than what religious people do to make you believe their religion. At least they try to convince you.

And more and more, I’m not going to list them because each one has a paragraph of arguments, and I will end up writing a book.

Logic actually proves God exists

Why? Maybe because the belief that nothing made by nothing actually turned by sheer coincidence into matter witch arranged itself into a meticulous system that created the universe and planets and dinosaurs and animals and humans.

Yeah right!

For all the atheists that I offended, ask yourself the first question what is your argument that God doesn’t exist and analyse it, instead of attacking religion especially Christianism as your argument.

Just because you think some religion is wrong in its principals has nothing over the existence of 'God'. Because what is the opposite of Atheism is not religions ( christianism) it is the belief in God.

[ladsin]

I hope you're not being serious, but unfortunately I believe you are, I come from a place where most people believe like you so this is frustrating because just about everything you said was wrong, but I'll do my best and educate you on what you got wrong, and what I think you got right.

You are right, atheism is not based on science. Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is because atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenets, no creeds, no authorities, nothing that makes a worldview a worldview. Atheism is a position on one claim and one claim only. Theists make a claim, "some god exists" and atheists say, "I've not been convinced of that." An atheist can believe in anything except for a god. They can believe that aliens are coming and abducting people, they can believe in magic, leprechauns, talking shoes, and hold all other sorts of woo woo belief, just not a god belief. Once you understand this I think most of the other things will fall into place, but I'll address them as well so you can't say I took the easy way out.
1.) They worship human beings, or science! While that may be true for some, I know for a fact it isn't for most. This is nonsensical. Science is demonstrably the single most reliable pathway to truth, but it's a methodology, not a thing to be worshiped.
2.) It's not a SET of beliefs, it's one belief, that a theist has not yet met their burden of proof. Theists have a burden of proof because existence is something that has to be demonstrated. You can't just believe every claim until someone proves it wrong, because then you would be forced into believing hundreds or millions of contradictory things. You've gotten this entire issue back asswards. I can't prove no gods exist, just like I can't prove leprechauns don't exist, or there's no teacup orbiting mars.
3.) Most religions mind themselves? If you took an objective look at the world you could not possibly say that. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, like I at one point, am just speaking off the cuff, and have never looked at what actually happens in the world. That said, look at Uganda where they passed a bill allowing them to kill homosexuals. Look at Chechen where they're currently rounding up, torturing, and murdering homosexuals in the night. Look at Saudi Arabia where women are being beaten and murdered for inconsequential crimes. These are all religiously based laws. Not to mention the millions of people in antiquity. People burned at

[ladsin]

the stake.
4.) Some random atheist might, but I worry what you may be thinking is that if someone says "You have no right to legislate your religion on me!" You think that they're encroaching on relgious liberties and that is simply false. Standing up to an oppressor is not oppressing them.
5.) It's true that many scientists of antiquity were religious, it's also true that today most scientists are not theistic. That doesn't men anything either way.
6.) We can see protons and their effects, the point here is that if god wants people to know about his existence he's doing a really poor job of it.
7.) Ugh are you trying to make a creationist argument at the end here? I can't really tell what you're trying to get at.

[just_tired]

Seconded!

[jacquesvol]

In California
Mar 20 2015, 12:27 pm ET
Matthew Gregory McLaughlin, California Lawyer, Proposes Ballot Measure Allowing Execution of Gays: www.nbcnews.com/.../lawyer-proposes-california-ballot-measure-allowing-shooting-killing-gays-n327196

It was defeated.

[jacquesvol]

Logic actually proves that @Mi2mi2a thinks God exists.
That's not enough to prove anything but the gullibility of @Mi2mi2a

[ladsin]

@jacquesvol Yeah, I heard about that. I ran into a character limit so I had to cut out a few XD
I chose to cut that out because it didn't pass, and because I don't think it'd ever pass in America, although I am worried that parents will be allowed to have their children, tortured in my opinion, for their sexuality as this administration panders more and more to the defense of allowing religious belief to suspend other's rights. For example the last piece of legislation passed about doctor's not having-- Via email, Planned Parenthood Federation of America said the rule could mean that a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for birth control, a transgender patient could be denied hormone therapy, or a pediatrician could refuse to treat the child of gay parents. “Under the new rule, you could have translators who refuse to translate for a woman undergoing tubal ligation,”

[jacquesvol]

Trump wanted to do a favor to the deep south and the middle west Bible thumpers

[ladsin]

@jacquesvol I'm from the deep south you know!

[jacquesvol]

@ladsin you don't seem to be a Bible thumper :)

[ladsin]

@jacquesvol At one time my friend, at one time.

[DiogoRibeiro]

Thanks. You saved me a lot of time. Completely agree with your opinion. 👍

[ladsin]

@DiogoRibeiro haha glad I covered it for ya

[Political_dude]

Influencer for a reason 8)

[ladsin]

@Political_dude I'm a very influential man

[Political_dude]

Thank God you're atheist ;)

[EpicDweeb]

With all due respect your statement as to what an atheist believes is faulty."I'm not convinced of that" (referring to the existence of God." That is NOT the belief of an atheist. That is the belief of an agnostic. You don't know that God isn't real but you don't actively believe that he IS real. An atheist isn't just someone who doesn't believe in God. An atheist is someone who BELIEVES that God DOESN'T exist.

[jacquesvol]

@EpicDweeb Do you believe the Easter Bunny exists?

[EpicDweeb]

@jacquesvol I believe the Easter bunny does NOT exist.

[jacquesvol]

@EpicDweeb If you understand why you think that, you can also understand why atheists hold the same view about gods.

[EpicDweeb]

@jacquesvol Many atheists try to make it seem like they don't BELIEVE anything they just don't actively believe in God and could be convinced if shown proof. If that were true they would be classified as agnostics, people who are undecided as to whether or not a God exists. They don't believe he exists, but they don't believe he DOESN'T exist either. On the other hand atheists BELIEVE that there IS no God. I'm cool with people wanting to be atheists or agnostics, that's their business... but don't say you're an atheist and then try to make it not sound as dumb or try to make me sound dumb by saying what that you're really just an agnostic or that I'm simply incorrect in my definition. Whether a technical definition gives you the argument or not, everyone knows what's meant by "atheist." Perhaps the word itself simply means one who doesn't believe in God, but that doesn't change the fact that it is meant to convey, an atheist is one who BELIEVES that there IS no God.

[just_tired]

@EpicDweeb You are using the less used definition of atheist, it is simply not what it is meant to convey. If you read about the etymology of the word, it's meaning has been lack of belief since the 19th century. Lack of belief is the definition that majority of atheists use. Agnosticism says nothing about one's belief or disbelief, it is just the stance that deities' existence is unknowable. You can be agnostic and an atheist, theist or deist.

[ladsin]

@Political_dude I don't know, I miss the pulpit occasionally!
@EpicDweeb you shouldn't take your definition of atheism from theists. It's bound to get you in trouble. Additionally you shouldn't just make up your own definition for agnostics either. Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge, not belief.
@just_tired thanks for getting my back homes

[Mi2mi2a]

@EpicDweeb Yes, when you put facts in front of them. atheist as I see totally change to agnostic.
@ladsin
1- I'm not talking about one atheist is thinking. I'm talking about what I read and heard from atheists.

2- it is a set of beliefs:
a- God is a materialistic being for atheists if God exists.
b- God follows the laws of nature too that he created
c- God from the first point doesn't exist.
the burden of proof is on the atheist as much as the theist, the one who doesn't have the burden of proof is the agnostic.
3- As a theist of a specific religion, the ones who don't mind their beliefs the most are atheist. The majority of theists accept that there are other religions, while they don't accept these religions ' principles. So in a social setting, the one to bash the most is your usual atheist.

4- tell me where that creation logic fails. You want a logical answer to God existing. Since we clearly can't see God, or prove God through science. The way to go about it is to see the

[Mi2mi2a]

the consequences of God existing, that's where comes the creation logic

[ladsin]

1.) I don't care if you talked to 100 hundred atheists and they all told you they worshipped humans, or witches, or Buddha. That doesn't mean it's a part of atheism. Again, this is because atheism is not a worldview. It's someone disagreeing with you.
2.) atheism is not a set of beliefs. Atheists do not believe, "god is materialistic" atheists don't believe in god. That God follows any laws, or that gods do not exist. Again, existence has to be demonstrated. If you don't agree with this, try proving to me that santa clause isn't real.
3.) What society has existed in which en masse theists were murdered for their belief?
4.) god is a sufficient answer for where life comes from, that's because it was created to do so. Life creating pixies are also sufficient to create life. In order to claim "X exists" or "X did this" you need evidence

[Mi2mi2a]

4-Life creating pixies? really? well let's be irrational when it suits you. Life pixies give life not the existence of the universe.

1- What do you expect of me to do? talk to each atheist. Theist beliefs are different, why don't you talk to each theist? You talk to what is the genral opinion.

3- read history, not what you are told. It's not the theist who kill en mass, it's the leader who uses religion as an excuse so that he won't take responsiblity on his actions that kill en mass

2- Look at you reasoning about why God doesn't exist. It's a preknown according to your logic that if God exists you give a materialistic meaning in order to prove in its existence.

I'm not going to talk in the void: Tell me what is your reasoning to why God doesn't exist?

[ladsin]

4.) You can keep moving the goalposts back, and I can just do the same, "universe creating pixies." The point is that you can't prove that they don't exist. If your argument works just as well for universe creating pixies as it does for a god then that shows it's not really that good an argument, right?

1.) No you look at the specific tenets of the belief. Theism, is a belief that some god exists. A-theism is not having that belief. I am also an A-tooth fariy-ist that doesn't then hold that I believe leprechauns exist, or worship a shoe does it?
3.) (Why did you go in a crazy order with these?) I don't know how you want me to respond to this... the point is that there are many religions that explicitly command abhorent acts and that is where some of the terrible legislation I mentioned comes from. I was merely stating that the general idea "religions don't bother people" is false. Perhaps not all of them, but many do.
2.) What? I have no idea what you're saying.

Extra- I don't--

[ladsin]

believe the claim "no gods exist" I don't know how many different ways to say this. You have a belief in a god. I am asking you to justify that belief. Can you prove to me that universe creating pixies don't exist? As soon as you can do that then perhaps I could come up with an anti-theist argument.

[Mi2mi2a]

4- I thought that we would be rational but okay. life pixies die too, they give life and die, why would they they have power over life. Again you didn't answer who created the univers?

1- As i said a thousand time, I'm not addressing what a single individual is thinking. You stop any atheism criticism because it isn't what every atheist thinks, well how do you expect us to criticize atheism then?

3- Did you read what I say? it's not the religion, it's the practioner who uses religion as a shield to get away with abhorrant acts.

2- As I said, what is your reasonig to why God doesn't exist? is that so hard to answer to?

[EpicDweeb]

I can't prove with specificity a being which created the universe but I can provide evidence that a being of intelligence and order did create. Replace the word pixies with god or vice versa and nothing has changed. You can't disprove the existence of life giving or universe creating pixies either. You can give evidence as to why it doesn't make any sense seeing as how we can trace back myths and lore on pixies, what they are and what they do from the mythos of northern Europe. However, Gods and deities have no known origin as a concept. They've seemingly been around for as long as humanity. The simple clear fact of mankind's arrogence lends itself to the idea that God is real as it is not within the nature of man to think up someone more powerful than himself to whom he most devote his whole life, and especially in the instance of gods who demand strict moral codes in regards to sex and such. A man has nothing to gain from thinking of that. Saying man made up God is then illogical.

[EpicDweeb]

Furthermore there is evidence of an intelligent creator of some sort or other in the very clear balance of nature. The level of complexity in every molecule and atom, the fact that trees and birds and fish all grow in mathematical patterns of beauty which exist throughout all nature. The fact that so much of the world is clearly beautiful for the sake of beauty rather than for some natural reason of survival. The complexity of the human body, and the balance of the varieties of ecosystems are all evidence of an intelligent creator. If you need an example of just how delicate that balance is, if you look to history when people tried to bring rabbits to Australia they had no natural predators and took over basically everything. For any one thing to be out of place in a given ecosystem is to disrupt the flow of nature there. The fact that nature has a working, self correcting flow, the fact that it is self preserving despite the 2nd law of thermodynamics hints at the presence of a creator

[Mi2mi2a]

@EpicDweeb So you do believ God exist, you just don't know what form God it takes. Then that means you are not an atheist you are a theist, you just don't believe any religion is right.

[EpicDweeb]

ladsin is right in one regard, many religions to command abhorrent acts. The Aztecs and the Mayans offered human sacrifices to their gods, and the worshippers of Baal and Moloch in ancient Israel demanded similar things. Not all religions are equal, but not all are abhorent. While some claim we are to destroy the enemies of our religion, you have other who preach that we are to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors. (This was back when being persecuted for a specific religion got you torn apart by horses or burned as a nightlight for the Roman emperor.) No two religions are exactly the same but many have similarities. And yet, even these which have nothing wrong in and of themselves have been used for evil means such as Christianity in the time of the Crusades (note: during this time most Christians had no access to a BIble and poor translations relying exclusively on the pope's words for what the Bible said. So don't blame Christianity for the crusades, blame the pope). xD

[EpicDweeb]

In regards to atheism I think what ladsin is trying to say is that you're addressing atheists rather than atheism. You're addressing things a majority of atheists practice and or believe or have said but you're saying it's a result of atheism rather than a runoff of what atheists believe and no more than a personal thing for each atheist whether or not it accurately represents a majority. Which obviously he believes to be incorrect. Am I right in that @ladsin?

[EpicDweeb]

@Mi2mi2a I am a Christian, but I'm discussing this from as neutral of a perspective as possible. Which I admit is difficult.

[ladsin]

Ok, @EpicDweeb @QP one of y'all pick to talk to me on here, and one on messenger, or both on messenger I'm getting lost with mutliple conversations going at once XD

[Mi2mi2a]

@EpicDweeb Atheismis clearly not independant of their their atheists as religion. What I'm adressing isn't the individual, I'm not adressing astheism alone since that was a notion created by atheists. I'm adressing the general opinon. I know there are exceptions to evry rule. I'm adressing the articles, the shows.

I have nothing against atheists. It's a clash of logic, I don't know what is wrong about it. I criticise what I as a thiest see on the media, the shows, the internet, the articles, those are expressed by atheists and while people may say that is not atheism, that was what was made public, and their stances solid, so I can have a platform on wich I can debate, since individuals can change their stances according to their whims.

[EpicDweeb]

And I agree with you @Mi2mi2a the point being that ladsin is arguing for "atheism" as the word, a technical definition of simply not believing in a God. I'd argue that while that may be the technical definition that's not what it means. There are distinct implications that generally go with being an atheist, and most atheists are additionally Anti-God rather than simply being neutral but not believing in a God. Agnostics are those who just don't know whether or not there's a God which strongly implies that they neither believe there is no god, nor do they believe god is real as the the term believe implies a certain certainty to it. (At least in my experience).

Ladsin is claiming that atheism ISN'T a general opinion and is simply a singular belief or lack thereof rather than a worldview or belief system. The problem with that would be belief in a god dines a certain portion of one's worldview which is then narrowed down and specified by a given religion.

[EpicDweeb]

Of course likewise atheism implies lack of belief in a god which means you believe something about the world. If you don't believe in a god you can't believe God created the universe, therefore, unless you simply believe nothing, you must believe the universe came about some other way, Most atheists look to science for the "why" behind the world which is essentially the essence in my mind of world view. It's your answer to the why behind the world that affects the way you perceive the world around you. Atheism may only be "a lack of belief in any god," but due to the fact that everyone believes SOMETHING it tells us what what a person probably DOES believe about the world should they claim themselves to be one. Usually agnostics on the other hand are just curious and they want to know. They're essentially deciding whether or not they should believe in a god. Gnosticism is essentially "where do I go from here?" Not the definition, but it's what it means.

[Mi2mi2a]

@EpicDweeb I think what peole think about science is wrong. Science doesn't look for why it exists, it looks for the how. How do the universe work? when you use science as a tool when that isn't its purpose is where lies the first mistake

[EpicDweeb]

You are correct but people need a why so they look to science at times for the how see if the why exists.

[Mi2mi2a]

@EpicDweeb I know but that's a close minded view.
There is a 'science '' that discusses the why, wich is phylosophy. It seems to me people moved from phylosophy the mother of all sciences.

[Tanisha69]

Belief in God should be based on faith, not science or "proof". That's the whole point. I believe in God because I have faith that He exists not because I can "prove" it somehow. Faith can't be tested by science, proven or disproven by it. Faith seems like foolishness to those who don't have it. I say "live and let live". If you are an atheist, that's fine. Whatever works in your life.

[dragonfly6516]

This, I completely agree with!!

[Arne123123]

And faith is nothing but wishfull thinking. It's not in any way a method of figuring out if something is true or false. Add on that so many people belive contradictory things and justify it with faith, would necessarily mean most if not all are wrong.

[Tanisha69]

@Arne123123 Thats your opinion and that's all it is.

[Arne123123]

Well, it's demonstrable fact. But it's not like you know or care what that is.

[Tanisha69]

@Arne123123 damn you atheists are salty

[ScottieO]

Faith isn't enough for most theists. That's why they always insist things like science is on their side, which it isn't, or that Atheism is also a religion, which it isn't. Their faith is often too weak to stand alone so they go through mental gymnastics trying to prove that it's also *rational*.

[dragonfly6516]

Pot, meet kettle.

Why are you lumping all atheists into one basket if you don't want atheists lumping all religions, or all Christians into one basket?

Not all atheists think science disproves God, many simply refuse to believe in something that isn't physically tangible, and believe in science because it can and does prove the existence of tangible things. The Scientific Method states that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anyone who truly "worships" science would know this, which invalidates your argument.

Many scientists are *former* Christians, having discarded blind faith for sound reason. Many Christian Scientists refuse to work or study in fields that violate their faith, limiting their exposure to evidence that might question or disprove their faith. Many early Christian Scholars knew that Jesus never walked the Earth as a mortal man, because he was *never documented* by a single historian of his time, living when he is alleged to have lived.

But if Jesus had actually lived, there is a very scientific explanation for a few of his "miracles". It's called "Alchemy", or as we know it today, "Chemistry". Take a few "spoiled" grapes, toss them into a jug of water, particularly rainwater from an oak stump, and you have red wine. That's how you turn water into wine. Fish was traditionally served with mana. two fish, minced and blended with mana would serve a lot more people, because the mana would act as a base, expanding as it soaked up the oils from the fish, creating more food.

When these miracles can be explained through science, why should we believe that a being such as God exists? Because Jesus rose from the dead? Look up the exact year that comas were actually discovered. Then research how many trims a coma patient was "coaxed" back to consciousness by a distant relative coming to visit, one that would have been missed dearly by the patient. The "virgin birth"? Did you know, that it was the job of the husband to teach his wife what sex was, and how to do it with him? Until then, a woman had no idea what sex actually was. It's highly possible that she wasn't even a virgin, and the Joseph couldn't have been able to tell the difference.

[dragonfly6516]

The laws of that time would have prevented Mary from speaking out against a rapist, because she would have at fault under the eyes of the law, and stoned.

[Mi2mi2a]

I didn't say they 'lump religious people under one basket' I said ' they lump religion's belief under one basket'. Moreover, did you read the explanation under the title, really that so was not the purpose of that sentence.

Again, why are you disproving God through the disbelief of Christianism. You don't believe in Christianism doesn't mean not believing God exists. I don't believe Christianism priciples are right but I believe God exists.

Do you mean 'Not all' atheists believe science disproves God, as in most atheists believe science disproves God. I'm not going to talk about the exceptions, I'm going to talk about those who were for atheism what kind of arguments they used. and science was on top of that list.

second you are looking for the truth are you going to use one method ' science' to look for it, while knowing perfectly well that that method is lacking.

Why do people forget muslim scientists ot chinese (whtever their religion) scientists? You know that christians aren't

[Mi2mi2a]

the only scientists or the most of them?

[dragonfly6516]

WOW, are you ignorant!

Why are you assuming that I'm an atheist? That is why you claim that I'm "trying to disprove God".

I'm actually a Universal Unitarian with mostly Pagan beliefs, but I do believe that your God exists. I just believe the he is one among many.

And I meant exactly what I said. Science does not disprove God, because it can't. And science cannot confirm his existence either. Plenty of atheists know this. Their argument is NOT that science has disproved God, it's that science has not confirmed God. Stop twisting facts, or learn to comprehend what you read.

No one is "forgetting" the other religions that quietly respect the beliefs of others, unlike radical Christians.

The primary religion of China is "Han", which is where the famous "Yin Yang" symbol comes from, followed by Buddhism. I thought Buddhism was the primary religion, but I'm not lazy like you, so I did a quick search to fact check myself.

[Mi2mi2a]

Are you criticzing my facts or insulting me?

You insinuated I was a Christiant through your reasoning agaisnt christianism, and I didn't insult you for it. I assumed through your reasoning that you are an atheist so I talkied as if you are. What is wrong about it. and it mostly doesn't affect my arguments so I don't know what you are trying to prove.

Thank you about the new information about chines religion, but does that come into the debate. Again, I don't know what you are trying to prove.

I've read and heard my fair share of atheist arguments. The most important is science. If as you said science doesn't prove anything why would they use it? it shouldn't be mentioned since it brings nothing to the debate.

[dragonfly6516]

If you want to assume that I assumed that you are Christian, that's on you. I only ever hear radical Christians complaining about atheists, that is why I focused on them.

I called you ignorant, because you assumed that I was atheist, and because you YET AGAIN fail to see the flaw in you own argument.

Atheists are not going around claiming that science has disproved in the existence of God, they are saying that science has NOT proved that he does exist, therefore, they are choosing not to believe in the existence of God merely because of the fact that science has not been able to prove that he does.

And finally, I called you lazy, because you refereed to the Chinese as "whatever their religion is" when you could have easily performed a quick Google search as I did to learn this information for yourself.

If you feel "insulted" by truths and facts, them you truly are ignorant.

[Mi2mi2a]

I'm going to ignore your insults. Don't wanna give myself a headache, and fighting over meaningles things.

So you are telling me that they don't believe in 'God' because science doesn't prove God exists, or refute it. That is so illogical I don't even know how to start.

Here is what they think then.

Sciene doesn't prove God exist. But science doesn't prove God doesn't exist.------ The result: God doesn't exist.

[dragonfly6516]

NO.

Those that "science" as their reason, don't believe in him because science can't prove his existence. That is the whole reason.

But they do also know that science cannot disprove him.

I can't make this any more plain for you, so good luck!

[Mi2mi2a]

Why do they fixate on God not existing if they have no proof of his existence or non-existence? Are you acually reading what you write?
The logical answer to that is being agnostic, not atheist.

[dragonfly6516]

Not when they don't want follow a God. Betting agnostic means that you're open to worshipping a God if proof if presented.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Amazing Mytake!

Athiests good and well know a far smarter, brilliant, wise and all power being God creator exist over us who created the universe and life.

Intelligent design and life can't from a non intelligent source. It's impossible.

Athiests and agnostics just choose to ignore God because they are wicked, rebellious and prideful and it eases their conscience when they sin against God nor do they have to think about God.

Romans 1:18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Psalm 10:4:

The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God;
God is in none of his thoughts.

Psalm 14:1:

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Athiests and agnostics love to claim they love and want evidence, but when you give them the evidence they fight against and ignore it. 😂

Athiests Checkmate! God's Word Stands True. Bible Scientific Facts Before Modern Science Dear To Even Have A Clue.😂 ↗

[jacquesvol]

nd who created your god? Man or Satan? Since until now Satan has proven to be the winner , it's probable that god is just Satan's sock puppet.

[jacquesvol]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Psalms are a mishmash. Psalm 29, possibly adapted from an entire Canaanite hymn to Baal which was transposed into a hymn to Yahweh,[19] to others clearly from the post-Exilic period (not earlier than the 5th cent. B. C.)
Should we really be convinced by that nearly Babylonian 2500 yr old stuff?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@jacquesvol: I answered your same questions so many times. I'm done giving you the same answers.

Just die athiest.

[jacquesvol]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I'm not ready to die and I'm in good health. PRAY :D :D

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@jacquesvol: I'm not praying for a dang thing. Do whatever.

[Deathraider]

Geez, doesn't your deity advocate for love? And you want him to die. Kinda harsh.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Deathraider: I didn't say I want him to die. I just say he can die athiest. I'm done with this guy.

[Superduper555]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy

"Just die athiest"

wow dude again? You really are going ham on this. WTF is your problem? You act like a spoiled child, really telling people to die? You're 31 years old due.

"I didn't say I want him to die. I just say he can die athiest. I'm done with this guy"

Dude stop being a child, you know what you said, stop this "Ima say something but then technically spin it into something else" you know damn well what you are saying. If an atheist said "Die Christian" everyone would be calling him a fedora atheist. You act just like the atheist you criticize who can't hold a conversation without insults and basically "kys" being thrown

[Anonymous]

LOL, totally wrong...

1. Atheists don't worship anybody (including humans).

2. It's not "set of beliefs", Atheists don't have a "holy book" or any kind of atheist priests.

3, We're all waiting for one single scientific fact that proves God does exist, just one! Don't have it, right?
Using Occam's razor the actual existence of supernatural creatures like "god" is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven.
Basically, lack of evidence is quite sufficient proof for any rational person (of course, religious people are not rational).

4. Atheists don't "attack other religions" because Atheism is not a religion.

5. Wrong again, most Atheists know very well the distinction between various religions.

6. Not true, at least not for all the Atheists, but it varies from person to person. Every group of people have some extremists, even some noble movements, which were later twisted by sick minds of certain individuals, who created perverted versions of those movements - for example: militant vegans (vegan fanatics), femi-nazis (fake feminists who want female supremacy instead of equality), Stalinists (false communists who advocate totalitarian dictatorship, role-modelled by Joseph Stalin), etc.

7. LOL, science (in medieval Europe for example) was created by people who were afraid to say they are Atheists - because the Inquisition would have tormented them and kill them, the church killed more people than nazis, fascists or any other kind of totalitarian dictatorship. The Crusades, the Conquistadors, collaboration with Hitler and Mussolini, and many other criminal acts by the church.

8. Are you pretending to be dumb or what? The photons are particles, not conscious creatures, unlike your alleged "god" (fairy tale character). So, you hav no argument, only religious mumbo-jumbo.

9. Religion has nothing to do with knowledge or logic, it's actually quite illogical, because it's impossible to be omnipotent, or to have "infinite knowledge".

[Deathraider]

Just false. For one atheism is the lack of belief in a God. An absence of a belief is not the same as belief of an absence.
" I’m waiting for one single scientific fact that proves God doesn’t exist! Just one!"
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. I want one scientific evidence that would disprove the claims of Last Thursdayism. Both of these belief are impossible to verify. And the burden of proof is on the person who asserts, not the skeptic. Otherwise, anything that anyone says is perfectly valid.
"All it is about is attacking other religions and finding the fault in them."
If you call criticism attacking, then yes. But you criticize the claims of pseudoscientists. Isn't that hypocritical?
"And again, there is no religion in the world who is against science, it’s some practitioners who are against."
Look, we never said for certainty that either religion or science was correct. It's just hypocritical to use the scientific method and questioning on pseudoscience, then go home and not apply that same critical thinking.
"When they go into debates, they don’t go open minded so you can have a real rational discussion, they go fixated on one thought and it is that religious people are delusional."
I'm open minded. Show me some evidence.
"If you take most known scientists throughout history, they usually are religious. So please don’t claim science as yours. That’s what makes me crack."
A common form of this usually come from the claim that Issac Newton was a scientist and a Christian. But what many people fail to realize is that Issac Newton also believed Alchemy was real. Look, now I can't speak for Newton and I don't know what would happen if he were a scientist during this day and age, but you need to realize he was already from a time period where people were more religious. Science isn't about the individual scientist, but the community as a whole. Science changes over time. By your logic, quantum mechanics is wrong because more scientist believed the classical laws before the 20th century than scientist today. It's both an appeals to majority and appeals to authority.

[Deathraider]

"If God is real, why won’t he show he exists?: Hmm really! If photons are real, why won’t they show they exist. Just maybe because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t it exist, that’s the first rule of science!"
But you need evidence. We can measure photons and confirm their existence. But asserting something exist and making it unfalsifiable is just as good as the assertion for Last Thursdayism.
"Why? Maybe because the belief that nothing made by nothing actually turned by sheer coincidence into matter witch arranged itself into a meticulous system that created the universe and planets and dinosaurs and animals and humans.
Yeah right!"
Anthropic Principle. Have you heard of that? Would we ever question our nonexistence? No, we would never exist to question it. Therefore, no matter how improbable it is, we will always observe a circumstance that allow us to exist, regardless if there is a creator or not.
I'm not arguing for my belief. I don't have a belief about God.

[Deathraider]

I'm criticizing bad arguments, not just religion.

[Tanisha69]

Some - and I am talking about only *some* - atheists have a strong personal belief that there is NO God. I have met some of them and they are super aggressive and militant.

[RolandCuthbert]

That argument makes no sense. Most scientists have religious beliefs. I dated a scientist for six years. She was as religious a person as they come.

[Mi2mi2a]

yes I'm shifting the burden of proof. don't I have a right of it. You assert to me God doesn't exist prove it. If you are skeptical, you will choose neither and keep trying to find the truth.

Did I say calling criticism attacking? I said caliing attacking attacking. If you want to prove a religion wrong, prove that religion wrong, but don't attack religious people: 'religious people are dumb' 'religious people have no sense of science' 'religious people are ignorant'.

What is atheism? look up its definition. It's a doctrine that believes God doesn't exist. Don't change a definition for your liking. If you are skeptical about God's existence, be skeptical not atheist

Yes, most scientists are religious, so science isn't for atheists only. I don't know what you are trying to prove here.

'But you need evidence. We can measure photons and confirm their existence. But asserting something exist and making it unfalsifiable is just as good as the assertion for Last Thursdayism.' One, photon

[Mi2mi2a]

are part of a theory to explain light, there is another one. Two, So you need at the end to see god or measure 'God' in some way to believe in it. As I said before, not being able to see it doesn't mean 'God' doesn't exist. I used that comparison to explain my point. So That's a way of twisting logic. I honestly don't know what you are trying to prove again if you are on par with my reasoning as a skeptical. That was the puropose of that example.

And last, You just acted like you didn't discuss the reason for why 'God' exists, the argument you used has nothing to do with the sentence beforehand. You just evaded the question.

[Deathraider]

I'm not asserting that there is no God, I'm criticizing the hypothesis that claims there is one.

I'm not using an ad hominem. But I am comparing religion to other pseudoscience.

Looked up the definition. This is what Google gave me: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." We can even look at the roots. The word A means without. Theism means the belief in a god/gods. Without the belief in God or Gods.

I'm saying that a status for something to be considered true isn't about how many people follow it, it's about evidence.

The thing is that when we explain a phenomenon that is previously requiring a deity, generally one of two things will happen. They'll deny this explanation or they'll make it so science can never verify their claims.

I haven't evaded the question. You need to realize as an observer, you are bias. You can only observe scenarios that allow you to exist. So asking the probability of you existing and attributing it to something high is like saying

[Deathraider]

that since it's statistically unlikely for your parent to meet, their lives must be predestined and they must've lacked free will.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert The thing is that these religious scientist creates a double standard.

[Deathraider]

@Tanisha69 Look, there are good apples and bad apples on both sides. So categorizing atheist as the description you put above is stereotyping.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't understand that statement. You claimed that science changes over time. That somehow Newton would not be religious today because of the advancement of science. Science cannot now, nor will it ever explain the origin of the universe. That is fact.

So why would Newton not be religious today and why would it be a requirement of any scientist to be an atheist? Especially given the undisputed fact most scientists today are religious?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I never claimed Newtom wouldn't be religious. I can't speak for him. What I can say is that he's from a time and place when religion was more influential and widespread. A time when that was seen as the most plausible explanation. A time when they did not know that the Big Bang or Evolution was real.

Science can explain it. We know the universe radius started off at zero and that it expanded. We know that the Big Bang was the beginning of space time. So yes, we know it's origin.

Not a requirement, all I'm saying is that it's hypocritical to use the scientific method on pseudoscience, but then never apply it to your beliefs. Religion is a socially acceptable pseudoscience. An there have been Pew research that shows most scientist aren't religious.

[RolandCuthbert]

I apologize. I misspoke. I should have said, most scientists are not atheists. Meaning they are religious or they simply admit to not knowing about the existence of God. As for Newton, I would just leave it at, we have no idea what he would think. But it is not logical to suggest just because religion had more influence then, he would be influenced by it. One of the weirdest arguments atheists make is that religious people are not logical. Which I will go into right now;

Here you are telling me that science explains the origin of the universe. It does not. The Big Bang theory simply offers up a theory and it only works up it a point. It cannot explain "what banged or why it banged". It describes the early universe as extremely dense and hot, which scientists describe as very small. But people don't really understand what they mean by that. They simply mean that there was "less space", hence the density.

[RolandCuthbert]

'continuing

If we were present in that age, we would perceive the same thing we do now, according to the theory. That the universe is infinite. It is not logical to claim a theory does something that it simply does not do. You believe there will be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe one day. Leave it at that.

I have no idea what you are talking about with psuedo science. Religion is not psuedo nor is it science.

It is religion.

[Mi2mi2a]

@RolandCuthbert let's take things point by point: How do you critcize his existence?

[RolandCuthbert]

Criticize who's existence? Are you talking to Deathraider?

[RolandCuthbert]

@Everyone I am sorry, I posted in the wrong thread. Correcting my mistake now.

[Mi2mi2a]

@RolandCuthbert I'm sorry I posted too to the wrong person. It gets confusing. LOL :D

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert That depends on how you define atheist. If we were to go with what the word literally means, then Buddhist are atheist, spiritualist are atheist, a lot of agnostics are atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods. You need to define what a a God is. Is he personal? Is he energy? Is he a he?

To assert absolute certainty that it was a deity, let alone your's is an argument from ignorance. We do however have some more plausible explanation that works mathematically. The two most popular being that it was a singularity and the free lunch explanation. Another one that also is considered is an infinite multiverse. But we don't know exactly. Claiming you know is just as fallacious. So the best thing to do is not to create an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Religion in a way is pseudoscience. Some example include claims that miraculous are real, souls exist, and transubstantiation. We can test these so called miracles, but there isn't evidence for them.

[Deathraider]

These miracle healing aren't more than a placebo.
Explanations for life has not required us to invoke a soul, nor has it have any evidence.
As for transubstantiation, we could chemically test and we see that it's still wine.

[Deathraider]

Well one of the major issues is that any attempt on verifying if a deity exist only result in the proponent shifting their stance. Thus as a result, this first order of business is to do is start from the bottom. From there, we could test it. This God hypothesis should predict something that isn't explained better by science.

The problem with theism is that it fails to meet the burden of proof.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wrong. . . being a buddhist does not preclude you from being a Christian or being religious. Buddhism has no requirements for or against religious beliefs. Though I doubt an atheist scientist could accept the spiritual beliefs of buddhism. Agnostics are not atheists. Agnostics openly admit they do not know if God exists.

And I do not need to satisfy any scientific requirements for proving the existence of God. Especially when you do not practice science when it comes to your beliefs in atheism and the Big Bang. Belief that science will prove the origin of the universe or that is already has, it the very definition of having "faith".

Please stop confusing mathematics and physics. Having mathematical proof that an event could occur is not proving that it did. And the theories I have seen for getting around this singularity issue are borderline crazy.

None of these alternate theories are more plausible than the universe being God's creation.

cont'd

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Have you heard of agnostic atheist? That's what the majority of atheist are!

Define faith. Because you could be committing an equivocation fallacy.

It's up in theoretical physics right now.

So you think the universe is so intelligent and complex that it require a God that is even more so intelligent and complex?

[RolandCuthbert]

cont'd

That's the thing that is incredible about your position. There are hundreds even thousands of theories or variations of theories. Yet you insist there is some certainty in the scientific community. There is absolutely none. There is only the certainty by some people who believe there is no God. And that is again. . . just a belief. Just like the belief the universe was created by some supernatural force. Remember, natural law is based upon our universe. Anything you point to as a principle for its creation is by definition "supernatural".

No, religion is not psuedo-science. There is nothing scientific about religion. Hence, there is nothing psuedo. Religion makes no scientific claims. It tells people to believe. If anything psuedo science is claiming that science disproves the existence of God.

It does not.

And it never will.

[RolandCuthbert]

I have no idea about what you mean with miracle healings. Who are you talking to?

And you definitely could not be a buddhist. Buddhists believe in the soul. That the physical body is merely a shell for your true infinite self. Buddhist do not believe in reality as science does. As my instructor said, "there is no real past nor future. There is only now, the present. And even this moment is not real, but we seek to live in it always." He taught me the true nature of buddhism is to live in this moment at all times.

"The mind is neither physical, nor a by-product of purely physical processes, but a formless continuum that is a separate entity from the body. "

http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/buddhism-beliefs.php/

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Just as much as you claim to know I'm not an AI responding. You don't have evidence that suggest I am an AI and thus don't believe in the hypothesis I am an AI. In a similar fashion, there isn't evidence to suggest that a God exist. Therefore I don't think a God exist. A absence of a belief is not a belief of an absence.

Yeah, just as there is no scientific evidence that could disprove that your reality is an illusion. Burden of proof.

[Mi2mi2a]

Behind every machine, there is a mastermind.
Behind every house, there is an architect
But you find mindboggling that the universe was created just like that with its complicated machinations.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Atheism is only about one thing: Theism. The belief in deity/deities. That's it.

Atheism is a broad category. Claiming all atheist are scientist and don't believe in souls is just as accurate as saying that all theist are Christians.

[Deathraider]

So, your argument is that the universe is so intelligent and complex it requires a deity that is intelligent and complex to develope it? That meaning that intelligence and complex are things that require someone making it.

[RolandCuthbert]

@deathraider

If the burden of proof is not shared equally between science and religion then there is no reason to take you seriously. I must prove God exists. . . but you do not have to prove that He does not exist. I have to prove that the universe could not be created through some natural law but you do not have to prove it was. You are just another religious zealot claiming his religion should be taken more seriously because of facts and proof that simply do not exist.

[RolandCuthbert]

Agnostic atheism. Haha! You are either an atheist or agnostic. If people want to claim they are both, they fool no one but themselves.

Agnostics simply claim not to know if God is real or not. End of line.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Absence of a belief is not a BELIEF OF AN ABSENCE!!!
It's as much of a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

As for the Big Bang, all you're doing is a God of gaps fallacy. Take a hard science question and say, "It must be God."

Atheism isn't a religion. Would it be accurate if I said theism is a religion? No. Theism is purely on the basis of the belief of a deity.

[RolandCuthbert]

My argument is what I say it is. It is not what you say it is. God created the universe.

The End.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert And I do not believe in a God, but that isn't the same as a belief there is no Gods.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Of course atheism is a belief. And it requires as much faith if not more than any other religion. The zealots of atheism are just a combative, nonsensical, irrational as zealot from any religion. I hear this mantra so often about the absence of belief. It is absolutely hilarious.

You have just recounted your beliefs in the Big Bang theory and in mathematical calculations that make your beliefs possible.

You believe. You have faith. And it is oh so very strong.

[RolandCuthbert]

You believe in the Big Bang Theory. That is belief. You have went through great lengths at explaining your theories on the origin of the universe.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well not collecting stamps is a hobby by that logic.

I have evidence. One such evidence include the Cosmic Background radiation. A baby print for the universe, if you will. It's what the Big Bang model predicts. Objects are moving away from us on an intergalactic scale, implying the universe must've been smaller in the past.

[RolandCuthbert]

And this is where your faith is revealed. Your supposition is not science. Nor is it based upon science. The photo of the cosmic background taken by the WMAP and then again by a later satellite, I forgot the name, show a photo of a baby universe. A young universe.

And as the theory goes, that universe expanded, matured and cooled to become the one we see now.

It certainly does not take you anywhere near the era of the singularity. . . or whatever was present from before to form this universe.

Besides, we could not even see back earlier than that even if we had the equipment.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert With the predictions that the Big Bang model makes matching up.

So you claim knowledge about this time period?

[RolandCuthbert]

No one claims knowledge about the time period before light was able to travel across the universe. Theoretical physicists have made a bunch of different proposals. Hawking proposed that talking about the origin of the universe is pointless, since that is when time began. It is pointless to talk about what came before time itself. Of course, most scientists consider that a cop out.

I could go on, right? We can talk about string theory. We can talk about many-worlds. I think Hawking has played around with that also. There are a lot of different theories of everything.

The cyclic universe. . .

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert But the belief that a deity needed to create. Why is that a good explanation that's above all the others?

[RolandCuthbert]

I will tell you this, that there is a God that loves you and has a purpose for you. You can choose to reject it. And I will go on with life. I won't stop living because you go on being an atheist.

The reason for this thread and I share the creator's view. Is that some Atheists think that religious people believe because of superstition or as you termed it psuedo science. Some Atheists truly believe they are in possession of fact, rational and logical thinking.

But the reality is far from that.

And the thread owner laid out a perfectly reasoned argument as to why.

It is a scary thought. It is much more comforting to think the universe was created by accident and there is no purpose or reason for anything.

[jacquesvol]

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...bdc1031f6c.jpg

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I'm sorry, but the thread creator has made tons of fallacy, which I pointed out and explained the flaws.

The truth is the truth. It isn't there to comfort you. Otherwise, if I just choose what I believed in because it's comforting, I'd think the holocaust and other mass genocide never happened.
My point is that the truth doesn't conform to your sensitivities.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol My old friend.

I do not agree. Atheists require proof of God from religion, but no proof from science. You only need to create a mathematical equation that works. You need no evidence.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert So I claim there's a teapot in the middle of space. Prove me wrong.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why should I prove you wrong?

That's the question every atheist has to answer.

Here an alternate theory of creation. Godzilla farted and out came the universe.

Prove that theory wrong. Why prove it wrong? What's the point? Your imagined theory whether it is about giant branes of existence colliding. . . or an unexplained breaking of symmetry from a quantum fluctuation. . . or there are an infinite number of universes. . .

why are these hair-brained theories so much more legitimate that God creating the universe? You are talking about science that is extending beyond natural law. And when you do that, you enter the realm of superstition.

Period.

Think about this for one second. This is a certainty, not a possibility and not a fantasy.

If the universe is infinite, you and I are having this conversation an infinite amount of times in other places in it.

That is fact. There are only so many planck sequences of spacetime before there is repetition.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert
Godzilla farted and out came God.
Or Satan created God and pulls the strings since ever?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert "Why should I prove you wrong?"
Why should I prove your God wrong?

"Your imagined theory whether it is about giant branes of existence colliding. . . or an unexplained breaking of symmetry from a quantum fluctuation. . . or there are an infinite number of universes. . .
why are these hair-brained theories so much more legitimate that God creating the universe? You are talking about science that is extending beyond natural law. And when you do that, you enter the realm of superstition."
Imagined? No. Mathematically plausible? Absolutely. Half brained? Well if you argue that this is beyond the natural world, then there is no evidence for God and thus we shouldn't take suh hypothesis seriously. We can't observe any evidence that supports it and it brings you back to square one. The Burden of proof.
"Think about this for one second. This is a certainty, not a possibility and not a fantasy."
I have thought about it, I've though about it for nearly 13 years.

[Deathraider]

It's a possibility, but not certainty. It's also possible for Russell's teapot to be real.
"If the universe is infinite, you and I are having this conversation an infinite amount of times in other places in it.

That is fact. There are only so many planck sequences of spacetime before there is repetition."
Perhaps so. The Infinite Monkey theorem tells us it'll almost certainly happen. Exactly how is this helping your case?

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Hey, there are Satanist. But I am with Penn Jillette on that one. Have you heard he said. "Satanists are the stupidest people of the stupidest religion". Because in order to be one you have to first admit there is a God.

[RolandCuthbert]

That's why you are not logical. It is your "belief" that these theories are more legitimate. It is your faith that sustains you. That's why I have so much respect for scientists Dr. David Albert or Dr. Roger Penrose. Because even though someone like Penrose is an atheist, he does not accept nonsense in the place of science. He talked about many-worlds and he explained a theory that simply creates an un-testable hypothesis is not science. "Many-worlds" is based upon this theory that any universe that can exist does exist. That's how our universe came to be. But we cannot contact or communicate with any of these other universes.

That is utter nonsense.

Yes, these come from imagination. Surely you are not making the insane argument that the theories for the creation of our universe come from the physical laws that govern the universe. It is impossible to get our universe from using the physical laws that govern it.

cont'd

[RolandCuthbert]

cont'd

The quantum singularity suggested at the beginning of spacetime is proof of that. These theories are made up. Then given mathematical proofs.

I am not arguing that what is outside of the universe is supernatural.

That is a statement of fact.

The universe is governed by natural laws. Laws science has gone through painstaking research to try to document. We don't fully understand the universe and probably never will. But one thing is for certain, the realm outside of the universe is not governed by natural laws. Because it is not apart of the universe.

It would be like guessing what is inside of a Black Hole. If such a thing exists, we do not know what is inside of it. And we can never know what is inside of it. It is beyond our reach. Information cannot come out of a black hole. Nor can information come to us from outside the universe. At least not through "natural law". How plain do I have to write to make you admit the obvious.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I'm sorry, but the thread creator has made tons of fallacy, which I pointed out and explained the flaws.

The truth is the truth. It isn't there to comfort you. Otherwise, if I just choose what I believed in because it's comforting, I'd think the holocaust and other mass genocide never happened.
My point is that the truth doesn't conform to your sensitivities. "

That's exactly my point to you. You can't claim science does something that it does not. That is not logical. That is not truth. And that is not scientific. What you say must be based upon fact, scientific experimentation, methods, etc.

"God does not exist" is not a scientific statement.

It is a belief.

[RolandCuthbert]

? You claimed that I needed to prove you wrong about a teapot sitting in the middle of space.

What in the world does this have to do with disproving the existence of God. Does the teapot disprove God?

I am showing scientific fact versus superstitious belief. If you believe there is no God, that is superstition. If you believe there is no evidence to prove or disprove God, that is scientific fact.

Got it?

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert Believers just CAN NOT grasp the idea that their belief isn't the only good one. They learned it since they were toddlers. Religious brainwashing is a tool to control society, honed for centuries.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol I won't argue on behalf of supposed Christians who do not practice what Christ preached. But the atheist crowd has bad actors too. And making people feel bad claiming they are unscientific or illogical simply because of their faith is wrong.

We are all believers in one fashion or another. Religion and science are merely two sides of the same coin.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Not a belief. A lack of one! Are you ever listening to my stance?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Pseudo science, conspiracy theory, and religion are 3 manifestation of fallacious thinking. The Unholy Trinity.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, you are just playing with words. A lack of belief, no belief, disbelieve, it is all the same. You are only fooling yourself. And it simply another symptom of this illogical attempt folks who believe in the scientific evidence for universal origins are somehow "better" than folks who believe in intelligent design.

Zealotry does not have to be religious in nature.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Pseudo science, conspiracy theory, and religion are 3 manifestation of fallacious thinking. The Unholy Trinity. "

So says the true believer.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert
Essentially I would have to ask evidence for every lack of belief there is. Are you Asanta? Well how do you know? Are you Ateapot-floating-in-space? Well how do you know? Are you ALast-Thursdayism? How do you know? And so on.

Look, a lack of belief is not a belief. Otherwise, you would need evidence to disprove every idea, which isn't possible in the cases of unfalsifiable hypothesis. Like you don't think Last Thursdayism is correct? Well do you have evidence?

My point is simple. We are critics. We don't have a belief.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert You said two side of a coin, so I said the Unholy Trinity of Fallicious thinking. XD

[RolandCuthbert]

Lack of belief? Again you are just wordsmithing to create this false viewpoint of objectivity. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment.

Arguing with a religious person about their beliefs is not scientific. Claiming to know there is no God is not scientific. Everything else you say is just noise.

So I don't accept the fake position that no belief and disbelief are two different definitions. An opinion on God's existence or non-existence is not a scientific endeavor.

It is just that simple.

No one asked you to disprove or prove. You choose to do that.

[RolandCuthbert]

And I said. . ."so says the true believer". Indeed, you may have more faith than anyone I have ever met.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert But religion doesn't follow the scientific method. Yet it makes claims about how our universe operates. Something science is suppose to do.

I don't have a belief. If I asked, do you think the president in the 2040 would solve global warming, responding I don't think so isn't the same as saying I think the president won't.

Define faith.

[Mi2mi2a]

Science explains the How : How the univers works, not the why: why the universe works this way?

But you use science to explain the 'why' that's where lies the first mistake.

[RolandCuthbert]

It absolutely does not make such a claim. It claims "faith" in a supreme being to which NATURAL LAW does not apply. God is beyond our ability to understand. God isn't a construction of science. God is not bound by scientific law. God exists without time. God exists without space. God exists without any fundamental physical law that science observes.

So since natural law is used by science to prove its theorems, there is no way to prove or disprove God. You believe based on faith because there is no natural law you can use to disprove God's existence.

You are still playing with words. What does the title of this thread say, "atheism is not science based".

So analyze what you say and what you have said. . . is it based upon science?

Faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert God is a belief. That's where it starts and stops.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Mi2mi2a Absolutely. Why do we have to pretend science can give us meaning to our existence? So many physicists try it over and over again. They ignore the obvious. Most people simply refuse to "believe" their story on why we exist.

But they can't just stick to explaining how the universe works. They have to attempt to meddle in the realm of religion. We learned centuries ago that religion shouldn't dabble in the realm of science. Why can't they coexist? One does not have to try to eliminate the other.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol I would never attempt to argue other wise. I could no more prove God's existence through science than Deathraider could disprove him.

So why pretend that any debate about God, should be on basis of science?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert All I'm saying is that I have no reason to believe this claim because there has not been a single observed phenomenon which is best explained by this.

[Deathraider]

What if asking why isn't the correct question to be as, ing. You ask why to get meaning. What if meaning isn't something that intrinsically exist, but something we construct?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I'm not disproving him per se. It might be real, but so might Last Thursdayism.

[jacquesvol]

@Tanisha69 atheists have a strong personal belief that there is NO reason they should accept other person's belief (s) God (s) without scientific proof.

[RolandCuthbert]

But this discussion is not about what you believe. This discussion was about the basis of atheism. Science does not provide a basis for the belief. It cannot be used to prove or disprove atheism. Nor will it ever.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert It can't prove or disprove Last Thurdayism either, yet most of us regard Last Thurdayism as false. Science itself can't disprove the idea of God, because it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. But the very essence of being an unfalsifiable hypothesis makes it weak. Scientific method on the other hand could lead us to question if this God exist, and prevent irrational thinking.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert Science tells , not to accept an hypothesis as true before there's enough sciientific proof. Atheists are still waiting for scientific proof concerning gods. Theists don't bring any.

[RolandCuthbert]

If "why" isn't the correct question, then I submit, no question matters. "Why" should be the only question my opinion. And it is funny, you think that something is inherently wrong with a person probing for the reason for their existence. But this is what the vast majority of people do, religious or not. And one thing we know that is established by science.

If a person feels they have no purpose, they do not live for every long.

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...ast-65-live-longer.html

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Does purpose have to be something we search? Purpose is what we construct, not find.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guarantee you no one in this thead is afraid you may disprove the existence of God. It is funny you did not reference the "last thursday" argument to counter "many worlds". The theory states the reason why this universe is so finely tuned is because nature made an infinite amount of mistakes and finally got it right with us.

Again, an attempt to be scientific, without using science.

[RolandCuthbert]

Do you wish to turn this into a conversation about philosophy?

Is a person less alive if their purpose is artificially constructed? A man lives for buy presents for his family, he loses them in a fire. He adopts a family and resumes giving presents, is his purpose less real?

People need purpose and a why to their existence. It makes them feel like they have a goal, a reason for being here. Even atheists believe they have purpose.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Look, it isn't my job to disprove God, but the person who proclaims that God must be real.

by the way, we don't worship humans.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I construct my purpose. Purpose doesn't exist intrinsically. Look, feelings are strong. Even though it's subjective, it's still held very dearly.

My goal that I made for myself is to live the fullest life and to help people.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol "Science tells , not to accept an hypothesis as true before there's enough sciientific proof. Atheists are still waiting for scientific proof concerning gods. Theists don't bring any. "

My good friend, then I submit atheists are not practicing science. Because while there isn't enough scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove the existence of God.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Look, it isn't my job to disprove God, but the person who proclaims that God must be real.

by the way, we don't worship humans. "

Your job is to disprove the people who claim God must be real, and prove to the claims of those who God must not be.

There is no scientific evidence either way.

And you can twist and turn all you wish, there is no way you can "prove" people who disbelieve God are more rational or more logical.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert disprove the existence of God. ?
First disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti monster. Then -if you succeed- I will use your method.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I construct my purpose. Purpose doesn't exist intrinsically. Look, feelings are strong. Even though it's subjective, it's still held very dearly.

My goal that I made for myself is to live the fullest life and to help people."

Then why sit throwing stones at religion. . . why not join those who have similar purpose, be they religious or not?

I have a suspicion about self-identified atheists. But I won't share it here. I think a very revealing affirming part of your journey as a young person will be exploring that very question.

There are Christians even here at GaG, who spend time berating people about their beliefs, instead of joining them in a quest to help people and to create a better world.

Hmmmm. . .

Maybe atheists and religious folks are not so different after all.

[RolandCuthbert]

"disprove the existence of God. ?
First disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti monster. Then -if you succeed- I will use your method. "

Haha!!

Hilarious.

Well, let me try. . . scientifically.

Jacquevol, is the universe infinite?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I'm not disproving, I'm here to show why such a hypothesis is unfalsifiable and should not be followed without evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty. Your claim is just a claim until you prove it true. Whether that claim is a person committing a crime or that a God exist.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert Science supposes the universe is infinite... until science knows more about it.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert
"Then why sit throwing stones at religion. . . why not join those who have similar purpose, be they religious or not?
I have a suspicion about self-identified atheists. But I won't share it here. I think a very revealing affirming part of your journey as a young person will be exploring that very question.
There are Christians even here at GaG, who spend time berating people about their beliefs, instead of joining them in a quest to help people and to create a better world.
Hmmmm. . .
Maybe atheists and religious folks are not so different after all."
I may be young, but not naive.
"Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational a lifetime." -Bo Bennett
I'm here to help people with critical thinking skills.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I'm not disproving, I'm here to show why such a hypothesis is unfalsifiable and should not be followed without evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty. Your claim is just a claim until you prove it true. Whether that claim is a person committing a crime or that a God exist."

Again, no one here is afraid that you will disprove the existence of God. You rest easy sir.

I am simply claiming there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. It is not a scientific question.

I do not have to prove my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs. What you believe is your own affair. You can't outlaw someone's beliefs. Not even the majority of atheists would support such a dangerous claim. By the way, I have committed no crime.

[Mi2mi2a]

@RolandCuthbert about @jackesvol I've proved where the flying spaghetti monster way of thinking is wrong, it's just his only argument so he pops it in every argument.

@Deathraider, why are you fixated on a method that you know can't aswer your questions? You know science can't explain the why because that isn't its work but you still are stubborn on using it.

That is a close minded view as much as religious radicals are when they solely rely on blind faith.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert It's not a crime, but to proclaim that it's rational is... hilarious.
reactiongifs.me/.../..._chang_laugh_spits_milk.gif

[Deathraider]

Which question can't it answer? Does even such question make any sense?

[Mi2mi2a]

@RolandCuthbert and this is when you know that atheists are as much blind as radical religious people.

I just give up, there is no more logic here, and I'm not going to bust my head for soeone who wants to say no for the sake of no.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Hmmm my good friend Jacquesvol. . . then what is the testable hypothesis for proving the universe is infinite or not?

There would appear to be none.

So here is a question. Does the atheist or scientist who believes the universe is infinite, also believe in a flying spaghetti monster? If not, I wish to understand how one has a scientific basis. . . and the other does not. If we are truly being scientific, then we would agree that in an infinite universe it is not only possible, but probable that an infinite sequence of randomly arranged planck length units of spacetime. . . would eventually result in a flying spaghetti monster on a planet some place a googleplex of light years away.

The thing is, I don't think atheists are prepared for exactly how strange the truth about our universe is. Nor are they prepared for the actual predictions established scientific theories make.

[RolandCuthbert]

"It's not a crime, but to proclaim that it's rational is... hilarious."

You can be insulting. I am going to stay logical and simply destroy your reasoning.

You claim it is irrational to believe in God, because there is no scientific evidence. But it is okay to disbelieve in God. . . without any scientific evidence.

That is the issue.

I never submitted scientific evidence of God. I told you, I believe in God. You said you disbelieve in God. . . because. . . ?

You pivot to the argument of non-belief, which of course means nothing. You believe in scientific theories for universal origins, which have no testable hypothesis and which are nothing but the dreams and aspirations of different theoretical physicists.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Mi2mi2a I think it is funny. Because @deathraider is anything but logical or rational. He is a true believer. And his religion is science.

[Deathraider]

I'm looking at this critically. Your arguments are extremely flawed.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I don't believe that there are no Gods, but I lack a belief that there is one. Quit making my argument into what you want it to be. Quit shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the idea is true, not the one who questions it. Theism must be sufficiently proven.

Look, you're making a God of gaps fallacy and it's very fallacious. By that logic, the flying spaghetti monster is just as good of an explanation.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Define religion.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I'm looking at this critically. Your arguments are extremely flawed. "

So says, the true believer.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I don't believe without evidence.

[Mi2mi2a]

@RolandCuthbert About you theory of atheists, I've read when I was still young an article explaining atheists mindset, I don't remeber the writer, it was a long time ago, but it basically said that atheism is a way to not accept the truth because of a fear that humans are feeble beings, and the hilarious thing is it was written by an atheist.

[Deathraider]

So you think one person represent us? Since when was that the case?

[Mi2mi2a]

Isn't he right? We have proved a thousands time that asking for evidence in science is illogical, yet you still are going about it.

I want evidence , evidence, evidence! but science will never give you evidence to God existing or not existing. That's not in its powers but you still want it either way. Tell me where this rational.

[Deathraider]

Look at it this way, according to your logic, that would mean the fly Spagetti monster is real. Science is defined as the method of getting knowledge. A method.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I don't believe without evidence."

But you can disbelieve without evidence.

[RolandCuthbert]

Religion;

Belief absent scientific evidence.

[Mi2mi2a]

but the flying spaghetti monster could be real on another planet. You don't know, you will never know because the way you go about proving that monster not being real is wrong.

Why use science when you know it will not help you, as you say it's a method, and evry method has got a field it works on. Science's field of work is not what you use it for.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Look at it this way, according to your logic, that would mean the fly Spagetti monster is real. Science is defined as the method of getting knowledge. A method. "

That is not according to my logic. That is according to scientific theories regarding the universe's size. Many theorists BELIEVE the universe to be infinite in size therefore out about a googleplex of light years or so, a flying spaghetti monster is terrorizing Tokyo at this very moment.

And for some reason, these types of scientific theories seem plausible to atheists, but a theory that says God created the universe is not.

Now, who is the more rational one in this discussion?

I don't think you are very scientific in your analysis. Nor do you seem to be aware of the current discussions going on within the scientific community regarding the origin of the universe.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert I lack a belief.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well I don't have a religion then.

Science [method] "body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
By definition, history and mathematics are science, though not what most people usually define science by. There is Natural, Social, Formal science. Look, we don't have evidence that a deity ever interacted with the natural world. I don't think your claim is correct. It's that simple.

[Deathraider]

Well theism is a philosophy that has implications on the natural world. One that we have yet to observe.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Look, atheism is a broad category that encompasses a lot of people. It's just as accurate to say that we all claim that no God exist as it is to claim that all theist follow Lord Vishnu.

The universe geometry as far as we know has no curvature. We measured the angles of triangles on an intergalactic scale and find that it adds up to 180 degrees. That leads us to 3 conclusion. 1. The universe is so large that it's curvature is unnoticeable. 2. The universe has no curvature and doesn't seem to have an end. 3. The universe is multidimensional Dodecahedron. Apply Occam's razor, and the best answer is the second. But right now, we're doing test to learn more about our universe.

I am.

Well according to quantum mechanics, it's entirely possible for objects to come into existence due to quantum fluctuations.

[RolandCuthbert]

You "believe" that you do not have a religion. I submit that you do. Your atheism is merely another religion that has a system of beliefs. Those beliefs do no interact with science. You are still twisting and turning to avoid talking about simple fact.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the origin of the universe. Any belief about how the universe came into being is a belief based upon hope and faith. Believers in the Big Bang Theory believe in it because the evidence of what is unseen and the substance of things hoped for.

They are no more rational than any religious person.

Period.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Well theism is a philosophy that has implications on the natural world. One that we have yet to observe."

The statement is nonsensical. Please clarify.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Atheism isn't a religion. First of all, we aren't organized. Second of all, the only thing common among us is the lack of belief in a deity. That's it. We don't share the same moral opinion, meaning of life, traditions, etc.

There are evidence supporting the Big Bang.
Hubble's law and the expansion of space
Cosmic microwave background radiation
Abundance of primordial elements
Galactic evolution and distribution
Primordial gas clouds
"The age of the universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with other estimates using the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars."

Religious people are no more rational than Pseudoscientist.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert For example, most religion believes that prayer has an effect, correct?

[RolandCuthbert]

This last post is definition of bizarre weirdness. Lord Vishnu?

What?

Anyway in your attempt to talk about science, as far as we know, yes. . . no curvature. But many theorists believe there is curvature so slight that we cannot measure for example, Dr. Michio Kaku. But these are beliefs. There is no testable hypothesis for a universe that is infinite. You think you are being more rational, simply because these theories are in the realm of supposed science. But nothing is scientific about these theories. They are hopes. They are fantasies. There is no way to prove them or disprove them.

And that's what's so disappoint about atheists.

They lack the ability to be scientific in their quest to claim they are more rational, more intelligent, and more reasonable than religious people.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh prayer. I cannot speak for all religions. But the ones I know of seem to agree that prayer can definitely help people.

[RolandCuthbert]

This is just a list of nonsensical statements. So to be religious, you must be a member of your subjective definition of an "organized" religion? Religious people do not have to recognize a deity. They merely have to have beliefs not grounded on scientific fact. There is no evidence supporting the Big Bang. There is only evidence that once upon the time the universe was more dense. Which is all your list proves. There is nothing proving there was a quantum singularity at the beginning of the universe. And there is certainly nothing that explains why such an object would break symmetry creating all that we know and see. If that were the case, Dr. Stephen Hawking the greatest living physicist, would not be working on the boundary proposal. Many-Worlds would not be a viable theory in physics. String theory would be completely dead. The holographic principle would not exist. I could go on into the hundreds if not thousands of theories explaining the creation of the universe.

[Tanisha69]

@RolandCuthbert are you a Stephen King fan, btw? :)

[RolandCuthbert]

@Tanisha69 Oh absolutely. While the movie sucked, the Gunslinger series is as good as it gets. Did you read the first book?

[Tanisha69]

@RolandCuthbert I read them all yes :) I liked the movie too

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Beside their effects as placebos, can they actually cause events?

[RolandCuthbert]

@Tanisha69 You like the movie? Without Susannah?

vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/.../DT3_2.jpg

vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/.../Detta_Walker.jpg

3.bp.blogspot.com/.../...an_by_fiszike-d5lofkr.jpg

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert "There is no evidence supporting the Big Bang. "
There is, though the nature of it is up in the sky. But the thing is that we don't accept these as truths, rather they're possibilities. The problem with theism is that it can't ever be really verified because of the God of Gaps fallacy.

[RolandCuthbert]

:)

Is there scientific evidence disputing the effects of prayer?

[RolandCuthbert]

Nope there isn't. Such a claim is made devoid of scientific evidence or experimentation.

And again, the WMAP is a map of the early universe, there is no way to look back passed the time light was present in the universe.

These are simple facts.

Besides, the quantum singularity proposed at the beginning of the universe is a mathematical impossibility, hence the search for a "theory of everything".

Great movie by the way.

The funny thing is this we don't even have a theory on how to describe a quantum singularity.

Remember, we have no unified theory. And now that I think about it, it is hilarious. We have not even put together a theory on unification and here you are claiming we have a theory on universal origins.

And remember we are talking about theories. We have nothing that we do not even have a testable hypothesis. We have a bunch of mathematical theories.

Did you read the no boundary proposal? What do you think?

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well how could we ever know if prayer truly had causal relation.

"The funny thing is this we don't even have a theory on how to describe a quantum singularity."
And you claim your God must be right. That's a God of Gaps fallacy. Look, no matter how many test we run, we can never be 100% sure about anything.

And yes I have looked it up.

[Tanisha69]

@RolandCuthbert I can't *not* like anything with Idris Elba he's fine :)

[RolandCuthbert]

You know making up stuff and claiming that is my argument is not very logical. I told this before and I tell you this again. The question of God is not a scientific question. I make no claims in the realm of science. Because I no evidence to offer to a scientist. Even if Christ was to walk up to you and change water into wine. You would explain it away by claiming some advance in technology or some natural effect we do not yet understand.

So I will never make such a claim to an atheist. I would meet you on the grounds you claim earlier that you try to make this world a better place.

As for the question of the quantum singularity, please tell me what you have looked up. Since there is no consensus in the scientific community about what it is or if it is even possible.

Do you know a theoretical physicist named, Dr. Mersini-Houghton?

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

@Tanisha69 Yeah, yeah, women always gush over him.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert
Well if I have a documentation of the event, multiple scientist to look over the data and the best explanation was something supernatural, then we'll think it's supernatural. Simple as that. But yet, there currently hasn't been any account of such and event happening that could be verified.

Look, you're making it look as if it's either the singularity or your God. The answer could be as simple as we don't have an answer. But admitting we don't know is not admitting defeat. It's intellectual honesty. That doesn't mean we should claim a God exist. We aren't sure yet.

I don't believe I've heard that name. Which work would you be referring to?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh Mersini-Houghton wrote a paper on why a singularity cannot form. Peer-reviewed by the way.

:D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton

Oh and on Christ performing miracles, I just think you not being honest. Every atheist I know has said any sufficiently advanced civilization would appear to be gods to us. Thus eliminating any need to debate an atheist about miracles, etc.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert But what evidence do we have that proves these sufficiently advanced civilizations exist?

[RolandCuthbert]

We don't have evidence of "advanced civilizations". I find it rather odd to suggest that there should be evidence. Does an ant know about the human race? Is it even able to comprehend that we exist?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I just wanted to add. Dr. Mersini-Houghton's paper was rejected by most in the scientific community. It was peer-reviewed and her mathematics is spot on. The physics is sound. But many physicists believe her view contradicts what is observed. We can't observe a black hole of course, we can only observe the material that is around it. The problem with the Black Hole as Mersini-Houghton suggests that we are human beings.

When we look at a Black Hole, we are not just looking at an object across a certain distance. We are seeing an object across a barrier of time. That object that we are looking at could be billions upon billions of years in the future.

I just think she is great. She is a pioneer for women in the field.

discovermagazine.com/.../mersini-houghton.jpg

discovermagazine.com/.../20-no-such-thing-as-a-black-hole

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Ants are well aware of our existence. And the thing is that your argument of being beyond our comprehension could be used in a multitude of way. The only way we could verify the reliability of claims is evidence.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well there's obviously other explanations that work just as well. The thing is that we need evidence. I mean there's a bunch of ideas of how a black hole works and it's quite paradoxical at the moment, mainly the information paradox. Scientist should always critic ideas and come up with other possibilities. Of course, we only know which one is true with evidence.

[RolandCuthbert]

Really? You always make claims with no supporting evidence. I know of no peer-reviewed paper claiming that ants are conscious of us. . . or even themselves. They simply respond to stimuli. Individually, they are much too simple to understand the world around them. They work collectively and collectively they appear to make decisions about what is best for the colony. But an individual ant would not perceive or be aware of you other than if you are threat.

It is funny you always talk about evidence, yet you never offer any. You just make claims. Please read something scientific about the subjects we discuss.

And this is the religious guy talking.

https://news.stanford.edu/pr/93/931115Arc3062.html

[RolandCuthbert]

You don't seem to be able to grasp what I explain. The point is there is no "evidence" for any of these explanations of black holes. They simply work mathematically and to the human brain, they seem plausible. Which is what your explanation for the origin of the universe is. There is simply no evidence for what exists past a certain point in our universe's past. And you simply are stating faith when you make those claims. While there are physicists who have beliefs and theories, there is no evidence that goes back past the time when light was present. The CMB is first evidence of radiation of any kind. Period.

As for Mersini-Houghton black hole theory, I just find it fascinating, because she is absolutely right. Black holes are not some solid definite object. It is simply a radius from which we can get no information. In her theory, singularities do not exist. But there is no way to confirm that either way.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well the thing is that they don't understand us to the fullest extent, but the thing is using that excuse and applying it to a deity isn't valid at all. I could claim anything and you could criticize it. All I would have to do, according to that logic, is just shrug it off by claiming that people can't understand it.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Well the observation of the CMB is exactly what we should expect. So far, it's the best explanation there is and follows Occam's razor.

Yeah. Currently, I'll admit. I don't know what's in a black hole. But if you claim to know, you need a ton of evidence.

[RolandCuthbert]

I have no idea where you are going with that. I simply stated a scientific fact. You went off on some religious tangent. I talked about what scientists have proven with respect to ants. The wield a collective intellect. They are a hive mind. To talk about one apart from the others would be like talking about an individual neuron of the human brain. They do not possess consciousness and intellect the way we do. That is a simple scientific fact.

[jacquesvol]

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian.
Religious thus. Handle it with care: for religious people 'God' isthe simplest answer.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol No, the simplest answer is that something came from nothing. That out of oblivion. . . all of creation came into being.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert If not, WHO (or what) created gods?

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol That's the thing, even science knows that something must exist that is "eternal". That's why we have 50,000 different theories for the origin of the universe in science. What I term God, for you will probably end up as some mathematical equation. That's why I say religion and science are two sides of the same coin. I just don't think the science inclined are able to see "miracles". For them there are just scientific probabilities.

Something eternal exists. . . outside of the universe that gave it "life". Perhaps the universe itself is eternal, who knows? But that is not what the scientific data implies. I insist that this eternal force is God, is conscious, is Good, and has a purpose for us.

I just think scientists are on a very long journey to where philosophers, religious folks, etc. already are. They are simply taking the "scenic" route.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert eternal or with a lifespan beyond our scope?

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Then the scientific question is always what came before? If the universe has just a really long life span, then what came before it?

We have an issue Jacques, we don't understand two numbers that we have created. "Zero" and "infinity". They make no sense to us. Zero does not mean vaccuum space. It means absolutely nothing. Infinity does not mean a long, long time. It means forever.

We cannot conceive of a state that is absolutely nothing. Nor can we understand a being or a state that exists forever. Yet scientific equations allude to these two states.

There is something existing to which natural law does not apply. Because it is the creator of natural law. It does not need natural law to exist. Think of spacetime. Space has rules. That itself does not strike you as odd? That there are things you can and cannot do in spacetime?

Even scientists don't think that is an accident.

Start at 3:10, finish when you wish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert Yeah. Consciousness is an emergent property. An ant doesn't need human level consciousness to know that we are a thing. It could just look and observe us and our effects as we burn them up using a magnifying glass or kick over an ant hill.

[RolandCuthbert]

@deathraider

You are skirting the issue. Does the ant know that it is alive?

Of course not. It would be ridiculous to suggest that. It knows that a rock is a thing. It knows that a bird is a thing. And when we talk about knowing. . . all we are saying it that it know something is present. If I put my foot in front of an ant, it would simply crawl up and over it.

It doesn't say "my goodness that human has a big foot". It doesn't know what a human is. It doesn't know that a foot is. Therefore it does not even know humans have feet.

But this is all a waste of time.

The issue is we cannot possibly claim to perceive the universe. If the universe is infinite, we have no way to perceive it. It isn't matter of technology. It is a matter of these forms we now inhabit.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert So let me ask you, why are you trying to claim that a God exist? My stance is clear. I don't think there is a god and have not seen sufficient evidence for him.

[RolandCuthbert]

So if our world just started burning you would magically perceive a higher being. So are you arguing that humans have knowledge through magic or mysticism?

I don't think you understood the point. You are so busy arguing you lost the original point that I made on this tangent. There is no way anyone could prove the existence of God to you. You would not "perceive" God in anyway, in any shape or in any form. You would not acknowledge manipulation of natural processes as Holy. You like the majority of atheists would claim it was simply technology or a misunderstood natural occurrence.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not trying to claim God exists. This whole thread is about you claiming you have scientific evidence that God does not exist. You simply did the same wordsmithing most atheists do. You claim you have no evidence for God creating the universe. Yet, you have no evidence for the universe spontaneously appearing out of nothingness. Then you claim one is much more probable than another.

I simply claim there is no scientific evidence for either.

Nor will there ever be.

And again, as I have said so many times, everything else you post is just noise.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert "This whole thread is about you claiming you have scientific evidence that God does not exist."
Asker confounds "does not exist" with "was never proven to exist."
And assumes that since the contrary isn't proven her imaginary friend exists.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol "Asker confounds "does not exist" with "was never proven to exist."
And assumes that since the contrary isn't proven her imaginary friend exists."

I don't accept that argument Jacques. It is basically claiming that since I cannot prove God exists to you, I am wrong.

Yet, I have never attempt to prove the existence of God. The asker says, atheism is not scientific. Indeed.

Throughout this one conversation only one person has cited the factual science.

That would me. . . the religious man, with the "imaginary friend".

And I am standing by the statement that began the debate. "Atheism" is not science based.

And all we have heard is that "we" need to believe in atheism. But not because of scientific evidence. There is none. The argument we have been given by Deathraider is that atheism is the better religion.

And I am just saying, I like my religion just fine.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert. OP tries to invert the burden of proof. An old fallacy.
Atheism is based on the scientific idea that the one who advances a concept has to prove it's existence and validity.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol That's just wordsmithing Jacques. An atheist does not "believe" in God. "Believe" is the operative word. We are all just talking about our beliefs. No one has any scientific evidence to submit into this conversation to justify their beliefs.

This conversation is merely about which religion we choose to follow.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/

The First Church of Atheism is formed around the belief that the mysteries of life can be explained through science and reason. We aim to provide a place for atheists to become ordained, for free, as well as a hub for atheists to find ministers to perform their ceremonies. This is our doctrine:

“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert Op states that atheists have no solid proof for a lack of belief. But hasn't any solid proof in favor of her belief.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Hmmm. . . wordsmithing again.

"Lack of belief". Interesting.

I reject your framing of the debate. You will as you so often do mock religion in the future. And it will not be because of a lack of belief. It will be because of something you profoundly believe about reality and our existence. This belief probably came about from some life experience (s).

It does not matter to me if you choose to recognize that. I consider you a friend here Jacques, because of your ruthless intellect. But this impasse is not something we can negotiate at this time. Because you insist upon standards that you do not adhere to.

I do much less than you to convince people of my beliefs. I do not mock atheists or people from other religions, because I understand they are entitled to their beliefs. And I was taught that my belief in Christ does not make me better than other folks. I am lucky He choose me.

I reject the "lack of belief" argument and Spock is the only Vulcan that I know.

:D

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert religions aren't special snowflakes beyond critic approach. The way religions behaved in history raisess questions. So do their holy books.
I personally had problems with RC believers, much more than with the Muslims feared by conservatives

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Jacques, I am sorry that many religions especially Christianity, murdered, raped, stole, and committed the most barbaric acts in the name of Christ. I don't understand Christians today who belittle people of other faiths and belief systems. I don't understand why any religious person thinks it is okay to take up arms against others, simply because of the beliefs they hold.

But I cannot, will not blame God for the acts of humanity. People choose to do horrible things. The reasons they choose are simply those of convenience. Mocking someone for their beliefs is not about Christ nor His message. Neither is waging wars or torturing people brutally. That is about something else entirely.

But this conversation was not about the evil things Christians do. It was about the supposed scientific basis for atheism.

Christians have done many evil things and many taint the message that Christ gave to the world.

[Deathraider]

@RolandCuthbert If a deity could demonstrate sufficient evidence and it was the best possible explanation, then I'll change my stance. It's that simple.

And all I'm saying is that the argument is fallacious to reverse the burden of proof.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert " It was about the supposed scientific basis for atheism. "
Indeed, that's ONE way of saying it but it was clearly about a supposed scientific basis for not believing.

As if there should logically be a basis for NOT accepting a claim about an unproven deity. That's an inversion of the burden of proof. A fallacy thus.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol Come on Jacques. We are both mature, intelligent men. Why should we play that game?

"Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God."

There will never be any proof of God to you. Nor will there ever be a scientific explanation for how our universe came into being.

And as you say, it is just that simple.

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry. That was meant for you Deathraider.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a
"yes I'm shifting the burden of proof. don't I have a right of it."

That confession took you a long time. Way too long.
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. It renders the rest invalid.

[RolandCuthbert]

This is just wordsmithing Jacques. And I demand more for this conversation. This conversation is not about your lack of belief. You can try to convince the majority of the world's population to "believe" in your lack of belief or whatever fancy way you wish to state your claim. The vast majority of people, atheist or not, know what you are saying, even if you do pretend not to.

And all we are doing is arguing over who can frame the debate and in which terms. So we are not talking about anything at all. The difference is, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about your intellect.

I can't take back the bad things you or any atheist experienced at the hands of supposed Christians. All I can do is say that I am profoundly sorry.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert not wordsmithing. Simple logic.

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol No, it is not. It is not logical. It is not even intelligent.

"There is scientific evidence for my lack of belief".

There is scientific evidence for a lack of belief in the Big Bang Theory, String Theory, Many-Worlds, Black Holes, that science will ever find an answer to creation, etc., etc. For thousands upon thousands of scientific theories, there is scientific evidence for a lack of belief.

The statement says nothing.

[jacquesvol]

@RolandCuthbert wordsmithing :D

[jacquesvol]

Mi2mi2a Gods came to be invented by mankind to furnish an easy answer to difficult questions and to soothe fears.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a 5

[RolandCuthbert]

@jacquesvol The answer for creation is not "difficult" at all. Because there is no scientific answer.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a
"Behind every machine, there is a mastermind."
I'd rather consider that behind everything that happens there's a collection of long chains of hazards. You wouldn't be here if your granddad hadn't met your granny. And they wouldn't have met if one of both had decided to go for a walk in another direction, or meet another person. And so on, up to 500 years back. Of course, there's some Poincaré logic behind each of all these occurences but there are just so many occurences that it's a chaos for any observer.
No mastermind, just hazard.

[EpicDweeb]

Excellent mytake and I pretty much agree with every word. For all the people saying no that's not what atheism is... simple fact is that whether or not that's true in technicality doesn't change the way atheists often act and talk. If there is no God, then the universe must have come about by chance as that is the only alternative. Chance is not orderly besides its conformity to the ORDER of the universe. The simple fact that order exists and controls everything in such an undeniably perfect balance says something had to balance it... and chaos cannot produce order without directive. Whether God is the God of the Bible or Allah of Islam, He exists in some form or other. I believe Him to be a being who exists outside of time and space, who created both, and who did so just for His own pleasure. I believe Him to be the God spoken of in the Bible, but then that's my business and if someone wants to make it theirs I'll gladly participate in a debate on the subject for as poorly as it may well go. xD

[Mi2mi2a]

That's what I'm saying God exists has nothing over any religion.
You know what I think is that all religions are right just that each prophet was sent for different times and lands.

[EpicDweeb]

At that is the point at which we'd disagree. None the less you don't blind yourself the way many others do to the simple fact that we see the power of a God in every aspect of the existing world, in the complexity of each cell and in the incredibly fine tuned eco system in which we live. The perfect balance of all creation gives evidence that there is a being of balance and order behind it all and to blind oneself to that very clear fact is foolishness.

[Political_dude]

1) I don't worship anyone. Atheism is the absence of belief.

2) I accept I can't prove god doesn't exist. But can you prove he does?

3) This point is a joke. Even Wikipedia can answer this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war Everone knows highest number of people killed in history is only because of religion.

4) Yeah.. Mary can give birth being a virgin is science. Converting water to wine with one touch is science. 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven is science.

5) Like not every Muslim is a radical terrorist or not every Christian is part of KKK, not every atheist is like that. Speaking for myself, I'm atheist and never did that. Even on g@g where I'm completely anon, I wrote a take supporting religion. Religion Isn't the Worst Thing to Happen to Humanity - From an Atheist ↗

6) Science before 19th century is created by men. All progress is done by men. Does that mean women should not claim for equal rights? And off cource every person was religious back then. Open atheism was a crime with death punishment. Why'd someone declare it?

7) Photons are real, I can see them, I can prove their existence. We don't have a book to convince others and hell we don't want to. Atheism is open for all, anyone can join.

8) I can't stop laughing

What was your argument again?

[Mi2mi2a]

1- are you denying all the other atheists who put humanity on a pedestal?

2- I proved God exists merely by my last point. Why do you atheists turn a blind eye to it?

3- It's not the religion that made wars it's radical practitioners. when you start making that difference you can come to it?

4- Disproving christianity doesn't disprove God existing. and You actually tell me that Gos has got to work under the laws of nature he created?

5- Did I say that all atheists are like that, I said that they are as gulliable as religious people.

6- science before 19th century was brought back by muslims. They usually were fqih, that means someone who is additionally to scientifist explained Islam.

7- You can't see photons. You see light. Photons is part of two theories that haven't surely been proved that's it's true. when you get your facts right. come talk to me.

what was your arguments again?

[John_Doesnt]

If you didn't put so much effort into this I would have called you a troll, because you've parroted every failed argument from religious people on YouTube.
"Instead of worshipping a ‘God’ they worship humans":
No, the first and only rule of atheism is not believing in God. That's it. There is no creed, because atheism is a definition of people who don't believe in God. Buddhists are atheists who don't believe in a God, but worship other things.
"It’s all just a set of beliefs nothing scientific about it"
Again, no. Atheism is just one belief: no God exists. You could have Googled this and saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.
"Attacking other religions" Again no, I could easily say Christians attack all other religions.
"They lump all other religions under Christianism’s beliefs" Aren't you lumping together all atheists?
"They shove down your throats their BELIEFS as much as religious people do" If you mean science, yeah because classrooms are full of science.
This whole take talks about atheists lumping religions together and shoving their beliefs down other's throats, but that's exactly what you're doing.

[AD240pCharlie]

1. Why should I believe in a God but not in a giant suitwearing rodent with wings who brings Ebola-infected keyboard to every rock consert? I mean, we have never seen any of those things, but they COULD exist... Right?
2. How come it's impossible for the universe to exist from nothing but it's possible for God?
3. The statistical improbability of something most often turns into a statistical probability according to the law of truly large numbers. For example, if you count that the odds of something happening to you is only one in a million, then you should expect that thing to happen to you every 35 days. The same goes for the universe. Yes, the probability of the Earth and life existing in the first place is extremely low, but considering how huge the universe is, it should have happened at least a couple of million times. And if the universe is infinite, then it should have happened an infinite amount of times considering the fact that the laws of physics is finite and therefore so are the possible outcomes.
However, I do agree with many things in this mytake. Many atheists treat their belief just like a religion, and there are also a lot of atheists who actually DO believe that their belief is backed up by science, which is isn't. It could be backed up by logic, but that's completely different. A lot of scientific discoveries - like the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics - go completely against logic.

[jacquesvol]

i.pinimg.com/.../...568ae7058e--have-faith-kid.jpg

[Anonymous]

It's heavily science based. It's the absence of measurement for any spiritual entity that leads people to being atheist. There's no ultimate proof so it has an element of belief to it, but it's markedly less absurd that virtually every other suggestion. You hit a wall when it comes to ideas that it's believers say are impossible to measure... well okay but if there's literally nothing I can say or show you that can change your mind then that's a logical wall. I can't disprove you but it's wasteful to invest thought into such intellectual dead ends.

Plenty of atheists hate people. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you a humanist. But humans are fickle isn't really an argument against either of those positions.

You can make up anything to want in the position of "god," if it's not based on some kind of science then there's no reason to believe in anything included under the infinity of imagination, atheist just becomes a sensible resting spot until a sensible idea comes along.

My perspective is that anything that could be even remotely considered godlike would be far beyond the conceptualization of humans and is unlikely to care about the tiny speck of meat that is you. But that's just be, if there's something godlike, it's completely alien and bizarre.

[Mi2mi2a]

Why are you all changing your idea on atheism? atheism is the doctrine of not beliving God exists, agnostic is not knowing wether God exists or not because of lack of evidence

everybody know science can't prove everything, so why are you fixated on using a method that is clearly lackin?

[Opinion Owner]

Atheists don't know but they're adequately convinced they're like agnostics leaning toward atheism; it's a belief.

Science isn't clearly lacking, it's fkn amazing relative to every other body of knowledge, it's the best we have; way better that everything else when it comes to knowing about the world. That means something to people.

[jacquesvol]

atheism is not a belief , nor is it a doctrine. It's a lack of belief

[jacquesvol]

"god is materialistic" is a religious belief: believing that by honoring gods and their priests during life, they'll get rewarded by going to Paradise. That's VERY materialistic.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol You didn't prove that God is materialistic being, you said that going to paradise is materialistic place. Well Duh, of course it's going to be materialistic because we are materialistic beings. Religious people don't believe God is materialistic, that's atheist.

Choose one of them! take a stance so that I can be able to debate with you: atheist or agnostic? jumping from one to the other suiting your needs is not a way of debate.

To prove somethig exist;science has two way of going about it: either it proves the being or it proves its consequences: How? for example virus: There are two methods to prove a virus is in the body, either it proves the virus in itself exist, ot it proves through its consequences which are Ac and Pathology when the virus is hard to prove it exists. Now why don't you take that kind of logic to the existence of God? It can prove it exists through the existence of God, or it can look for the consequence.

Since proving God exist is impossible up to

[Mi2mi2a]

now is impossible, why don't you use the other method? that means through its consequences.

[jacquesvol]

You make the belief a trade off. Business thus. If that isn't materialistic, what is it?

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol why don't you answer my questions instead of claiming me something that I'm not? I thought atheist were people looking for logic. Well there it is.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a I answered your REAL questions.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol 'You make the belief a trade off. Business thus. If that isn't materialistic, what is it?' is ana answer to what are the consequences of God existing if he does? ALright!

[Opinion Owner]

@jacquesvol It's a lack of believe like believing in one god means you don't believe in another. Semantics.

[Mi2mi2a]

again you evaded my question.
Moreover, I didn't say that I believe an image of God, I said I believe in a superior existence aka 'God'.

[jacquesvol]

@_Anonymous (25-29)
It's indeed monotheism that stipulates you can't believe in 2 gods.
It's also about thinking and understanding that if you reject some 3000 gods (for your good reasons) YOU TOO are atheist towards them.

Then atheists can just as well reject your god and are justified to do that. Atheists believe in just ONE god less than monotheists. ONE GOD LESS. That's all the difference.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol nah. a theist first believes there is a superior entity that has infinite knowledge , then second project their image of what that entity will be. 1 God, 2 Gods, 5 Gods.

An atheist believes there is no superior entity. that's where lies the difference.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a you're completely forgetting the difference between monotheism and polytheism.
Do i really have to quote the Quran and the Bible about other gods?

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol AsI said through myTake, what is the opposit of atheism isn't religion, it's believing God exists.

It's when you acknowledge that God exist that you can move to the next step, what form that God takes. Don't jump steps.

[jacquesvol]

it's believing God exists. A god thus, One god. Not a complete pantheon: Islam rejects the christian trinity for that reason. Christianity rejects pagan gods, for the same reason.
Their contradiction is in the way people believe. A non religious god is still a god, ONE god.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol Do I have to go back an relace God with super entitity so that will get it?

Again, you jumping steps, when I grew up, the first doubt I had is wether ! god actually exists? and if he exists what form he takes; the one in the bible, the one in Islam, the one as 500 gods?

[Mi2mi2a]

It's after the first question that I moved to the second

[Opinion Owner]

I could have argued with asker but that's all pooped up now. Just gonna mute. Enjoy.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a atheism is NOT a doctrine. It's not accepting your statements about god without proof.

[jacquesvol]

Without scientific proof, I can advance the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/150322313_1280x720.jpg

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol please go back to your thread, I've answered that question, I'mnot going to do so a thousands time because that is your only argument, and you pop it in every discussion with no logical steps.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a I do not start questions to attack religion. You're the one attacking atheism.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol Are you serious right now? Did I say that you are attacking religion? I give up. Are you discussing with ME or with what you want to believe is me?

[RolandCuthbert]

I like your focus on the science angle. Because it is the chief argument used by atheists as to why they are right about there being no God. They use the science argument to claim that religious folks are irrational, emotional and not serious people.

Yet, their own beliefs show a complete lack of understanding of science, the scientific method, and rational thinking.

Many religious disciplines understand there will never be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Because to describe the event, you must go back before the universe existed. . . into a realm where no natural law is present. And our science can only describe a tiny fraction of how the universe works. We have no idea about how to even begin a conversation about the laws that govern realms outside of it.

[Mi2mi2a]

Yes, at least one understood my point!

[madhatters4]

"Instead of worshipping a ‘God’ they worship humans"
Atheism is simply the belief that god does not exist. it doesn't say worship anything

"It’s all just a set of beliefs nothing scientific about it"
if you believe in the big bang and evolution than you are believing in something that has loads of science to it

the rest is just you bashing atheism or suggesting that atheism is bashing religion and has nothing to do with the premise. i think you took a lot of time to defend religion and should've just done that rather than suggesting things about atheism that simply aren't true.

[Mi2mi2a]

1- Atheism put humanity on a pedestal. are you going to deny that?

2- The big bang theory is a theory: that says there was an explosion that turned the void into universe. It just seems overrated for me. There is nothing logical about it, since it defys the laws of nature: Substance+ substance----- substance ; nothing comes from the void. Yet with that theory: Void---- substance

It does bash religion to prove its credibility, it doesn't bash the existence of God in itself.

[madhatters4]

1. Atheism put humanity on a pedestal. are you going to deny that?
-- i'm going to deny that such a broad statement is not true of all atheist

2- The big bang theory is a theory: that says there was an explosion that turned the void into universe. It just seems overrated for me. There is nothing logical about it, since it defys the laws of nature: Substance+ substance----- substance ; nothing comes from the void. Yet with that theory: Void---- substance
-- you can say it's illogical but there is science to support this. you said there is no science or logic or rational thought to it. but science is just that based on logic and rational thought, experiment, evidence, etc

atheism doesn't bash anyone. some atheist may bash religion. atheism is a belief it doesn't act. so atheism can't bash anything to prove anything. some atheist may do this but atheism literally doesn't do anything. it is just a school of thought

[Mi2mi2a]

what is the science that proved the big bang theory?

I don't care what a mere individual may say, because as I can see they change their stances so they get away of critcism. I'm talking about the articles, the TV shows and radio. Don't tell me, 'oh there is some atheists who don't think like that' then where are they, when there is public talk of atheism?

[madhatters4]

what is the science that proved the big bang theory?
you can easily google it yourself. not to sound like a dick but i'm not an encyclopedia. but one primary source of evidence is Hubble's Law regarding radiation, dark energy and the expansion of space. again that's only one element. i encourage you to look into it if you are truly interested

"Don't tell me, 'oh there is some atheists who don't think like that'"
-- if you read my response to earlier today you'd see that i said specific atheists may bash religion but that is not atheism bashing religion. you may bash atheism but that doesn't mean religion is bashing atheism it simply means one religious person is bashing atheism. yes there are atheists who bash religion, i stated that earlier, but atheism does not bash religion because atheism has no ability to bash anything as it is a school of thought

[Mi2mi2a]

I've read the big bang theory, while it is logical, there was no science to it, it was speculations made out of the present Laws. But it was lacking in the fact that it forgot other Laws, that's why it's still called theory. While it was as I said logical, there was nothing scientific about it.

If you read my response, I know there are atheists that don't bash religion, but those atheists aren't made public, I need a platform to debate on, and that platform is the public notions of atheism. Atheism isn't independant of its atheists because it was a notion created by atheists that every atheist give his interpratation to. Like communism, it's a notion that every commmunist head will explain on its own way.

I clearly can't as a public Take to discuss avery atheists' take on atheism, so I choose the genral opinion, the articles and TV shows.

[Lopezz1999]

Atheism is the lack of beliefs in any gods, period.

In most cases, it can be caused by freedom of unbiased or indoctrinated logical thinking by influencing religions, not that it's literal freedom from religious order. It's got zero to do with trying to disprove god, or anything.

Atheists for the most part care far less about benevolent religious practice than anyone else. No one will be able to disprove something, and a freedom loving atheist is going to waste his time trying to find out, especially one that can respect Christians and other religions.

[love_conquers_lust]

"No one will be able to disprove something" Incorrect. A theory is a tested hypothesis that has yet to be disproven. No theory can ever be proven true because we have finite resources to test infinite numbers of conditions.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, you are right. It's not neutral, impartial or objective to declare that God doesn't exist, as though this were scientific fact -- as though you already checked every nook and cranny of the universe for him. A truly neutral position would be to neither believe nor disbelieve in God until there was sufficient evidence one way or the other. For what it's worth, history's greatest scientists tended to be believers. (The creator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest!)

Atheism is more like a religion unto itself, with its own doctrine, ideology, and evangelists. At least people nowadays follow it as a religion, in the sense of "Here is the Truth! Now no one is allowed to question it!" But how is believing that the universe somehow created itself from nothing really a big step up from believing that God made it?

[Mi2mi2a]

Why? I usually go about it this way:
If a mere house needs construction workers and architects to exist. How could the universe with its complicated rules and machinations be a mere coincidence, and brought out by nothing?

[Arne123123]

There is no "neither believe nor disbelieve in God" you either belive the claim that gods exist or you don't. Not beliving in something is not the claim that it does not exist. Just as you not beliving in the lock ness monster, bigfot or fairies is not a claim that they don't exist, you just haven't been convinced they do.
And what is the doctrine and ideology you claim atheism contains?
The truth is we don't know how it all started, and filling the gap with a made up defenision of a god that most likely doesn't exist is not a valid answer.

[jacquesvol]

@Arne123123 "neither believe nor disbelieve in God" is agnosticism

[Arne123123]

@jacquesvol we have different definitions then, those who say they are agnostic also fall under atheist under my definitions. Herd of agnostic atheists? If you ask someone if they belive something and they say anything else then yes, then they don't belive in it.

[Opinion Owner]

@Arne123123 No, not being convinced that something exists is NOT the same as believing firmly that it doesn't and couldn't exist. This issue also comes up in areas like aliens and the paranormal. There are firm believers in these things (psychics, UFOlogists, etc). There are also firm disbelievers (such as religious fundamentalists who reject anything that doesn't fit into the Biblical picture of the universe). But there are many others, perhaps the majority, who think such things may be possible but who wouldn't call themselves believers. In their minds, the "jury's still out". Atheists don't have this uncertainty.

There actually is evidence of God's existence throughout history -- like miracles -- which atheists reject. The Fatima miracle was witnessed by some 60,000 people, including university profs, police officers, reporters, etc. It was a real historical event which cannot just be dismissed. While it may not disprove atheism, it certainly raises reasonable doubt!

[Arne123123]

And like i just said, atheism is not "believing firmly that it doesn't and couldn't exist." It's just not being convinced it does. You can say my definition is wrong and that im agnostic, but i disagree, and can call myself whatever i want as long as i can define it.
As for your "miracle" i looked it up, and it's not very convincing. That it even happened and was not just a combination of clouds, atmospheric effects and natural sunlight creating an unusual effect is debateble, not to mention confirming that it was the result of any god doing anything. Been looking for any proof for a god for at least 6 years, and so far i haven't found or experienced anything i have found convincing, and that is why i don't belive any gods exist.

[slatyb]

Almost all the great twentieth century physicists were atheist or agnostic: Einstein, Feynman, Fermi, Gell-Mann, etc.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb Why do westerners forget that there are other great scientists other than europeans?
maybe because that's all you were taught, but fundementals of the different science were brought about by muslim scientists. wether it be biology, medicine, chimy, mathematics and so on and so on.

[slatyb]

Almost all of modern science, physics, chemistry, and biology, was developed by Europeans and Americans, starting with Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and continuing through the 20th century, with contributions from some East Asians. Which Muslim scientists are you thinking of?

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb it's a long long long list, go look up muslim scientists in the 8th to the13th century, for the fundamentals of science.

And about modern science, you are kidding yourself if you think it is only made of european scientists. just because they work in Europe or USA doesn't mean they are european by default.

[slatyb]

No problem. I don't need the whole list. Just name a few. From memory I could name maybe a hundred important European and American scientists and a couple of Asians like Hideki Yukawa.

[slatyb]

Of course there are many many scientists outside Europe and the US today. I was mostly writing about the basic development of quantum theory up to about 1960.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb Maths : al-Khawarismi, al-Uqlidisi; Abu al Wafa al-Buzjani ; al-Kashi ; Thābit ibn Qurra ; Abu Kamil

Astrology: Al-Fazari ; Albumasur ; Al-Farabi; Ibn al haythan; Avicenna

Medicine: Ali ibn Mousa al-Ridha ; Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari ; Ali ibn al-'Abbas al-Majusi

Physics : Avicenna ; Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī , Ibn Bajjah ; Al- Kindi

Surgery : Abul-Qasim alzahrawi; Al-Razi ;avicenna.

those are the leading muslim scietists in the islamic era

[slatyb]

Thanks, I'll do some reading. But just because someone professed Islam or Christianity in ancient times doesn't mean they really believed it. In those times apostates were punished with death.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb No I assure you those were muslims alright, because some were fqihs, that means someone who explains islam.

[slatyb]

I'm not asserting that none of them were, I'm just saying that when it was death to not profess belief, we can't assume that everyone who followed a religion believed it.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb If you want some islamic history, after the prophet died there were many that turned back to their old religion, and no actions were taken. I don't know about the islamic kingdoms afterwards if they heeded or not, but that isn't because of islam, it's because of dictators.

[jacquesvol]

Anonymous (30-35) The burden of proof is on those advancing an (y) existence, not on those who don't accept the belief.

[slatyb]

That's a common argument. The answer is "No one knows." Whatever the answer, it's almost certainly not an anthropomorphic God worrying about what humans are doing on one tiny planet in a universe of billions of galaxies.

[jacquesvol]

@slatyb churchm.ag/.../...cies-burden-of-proof-620x390.jpg

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb you have been trying to show that my definition of God doesn't exist by disproving the bible. I don't believe in the bible, and if I believed in a religion or not doesn't mean I will not believe in God. Those as I repeated times again and again are two separate matters.

How would you disprove God has any effect on creating the universe? please do so, because up till now you have been telling me theories that even the scientific community hasn't agreed on.

[Mi2mi2a]

sorry that was not for this thread, I got confused :D

[lilaqua]

No... just no. Yes we don't have infinite knowledge but the we are able to prove a lot of the things that were considered fact within the bible. Not to mention science explains certain aspects of other religions, mostly ancient and tribal, so why wouldn't christianity be any different? Science wasn't created by Atheists? yes obviously because the fundamentals of science were discovered in a time when atheism was not an option, either because it was illegal or so drilled into the society. Most modern day scientists don't believe in a god though. Oh and the "worship of humans" it's that kind of great. Showcasing that we have an amazing amount of potential but it also is very true where we are no longer animals but a force that can create or destroy on par with a god.

[Mi2mi2a]

Disproving the bible doesn't disprove the existence of God.

'very true where we are no longer animals but a force that can create or destroy on par with a god' when a mere cyclone kills thousands, or rain saving millions.

'the fundamentals of science were discovered in a time when atheism was not an option, either because it was illegal or so drilled into the society' the fundementals of science was not discovered by christians, but by muslims. in a phase where being any other religion or atheist at that time was an option.

[love_conquers_lust]

We are not on par with God. We manipulate what's already been created. I have no idea how to create time, space, and energy.

[lilaqua]

@love_conquers_lust god doesn't either

[jacquesvol]

The Bible?

https://i.imgur.com/Cg9cAIR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cyWZWqu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gevvL7Z.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0SpE5pW.jpg

pics.me.me/...e-most-potent-force-for-13089662.png

And the Quran isn't any better.

[lilaqua]

@jacquesvol fuck that robot is terrifying. Would make a great dystopian novel though, like Handmaid's Tale mixed with Terminator.

[jacquesvol]

https://i.imgur.com/FFIhigK.png

[love_conquers_lust]

@jacquesvol Stuck.

[love_conquers_lust]

"Most modern day scientists don't believe in a god though."

bigthink.com/.../how-scientists-can-believe-in-god

[Mi2mi2a]

@love_conquers_lust I don't know anything about the bible so I'm not going to discuss it.

However Quran as a kid, I learned the first tool that people who hate it may use. Taking one word without taking the sentence as a whole: i example: prayers are sinneres
Yes there is that sentence in the Quran but it doesn't stop there. So maybe when you tell me two words taken out of the whole text, go elsewhere that is as mush logical as myths.

Moreoover don't you call, theists ; blind, deaf, in cofusion, dumb. So when we call atheist those terms it's hate speech? that is just right?

Why would God think people who are atheists are the most beloved humans? that is just not logical.

[love_conquers_lust]

@Mi2mi2a Yes, you speak of quoting out of context. I've only skimmed some versions of the Quran, and I could manipulate Quranic texts as easily as I could in the Bible. I believe both texts have parables warning against false prophets and corrupting the word of our respective God/Allah. It's akin to bearing false witness or lying in the Bible which is a sin.

I don't worry about hate speech. It's redundant and needs to be silenced with debate and counter arguments, not oppression.

"Why would God think people who are atheists are the most beloved humans?" I don't know about most beloved. What Judeo Christians believe is just because someone rejects any covenant, doesn't mean they should be denied the word of God or a chance to do what is right. Atheists will then get all pissy about literal/figurative translation that they'll denounce all of it freeing them from any "oppressive" moral obligation.

[jacquesvol]

@love_conquers_lust @Mi2mi2a The problem with all religious books is that they were put into writing more than 1000, even 3000 years ago, in a completely different society, with another structure laws and standards. It makes them highly interesting lecture to gain some knowledge about the era they were written in. But worshipping them in 2018 is more than delicate.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a @love_conquers_lust
Quoting out of context? If one can only use these holy books in their context, you admit that they're not valid on face value anymore. That's desacrating them (they're sacred books)

[love_conquers_lust]

@jacquesvol "If one can only use these holy books in their context, you admit that they're not valid on face value anymore." Thou shall not kill. Good message there wise one.

You worship science? Darwinism suggests we should weed out the elderly when they retire and let the strong expropriate their resources for better resource distribution. You feeling down and hip now?

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol What is wrong with a religious book, if it teaches you moralls, laws, and the way to whorship God? Let's take you believe for an instance in God. Morals and Laws don't change through time, they are the same. Maybe humanity evolved with science, but morals are the same, they don't change to suit your needs. Laws, is too unchangeable, how? sins are the same: killing, stealing, rape, liying, wcheating, con...

About the way to worship God, he will decide it, so I don't know how it can change through time too.

Maybe, what is delicate about believing those books is that they were changed to suit the needs of people, the leaders.

[MlleCake]

Wow, so much misunderstanding here.

There are atheist assholes who are as stupid as religious assholes. No one likes them.

Most atheists are people who just haven't felt any compelling reason to believe in a higher being. Neither you as a Muslim nor me as a Christian can really ask people to "believe" something that just isn't compelling to them.

Personally, if I felt it was all that important to God, it wouldn't be possible to be atheist. I have to think they have as much reason and right to believe how they do, as you or I have.

[Mi2mi2a]

Like the how most atheists say: Don't they have a right to criticise?
I'm not talking about individuals, because as a muslim, I know first hand the judgements people give you, I'm talking about articles, Tv shows and radio. I'm talking about a general opinion, and I'm not forcing anybody to my belief. They claim to be logical and are not at all about stupid faith and beliefs, well here is logic.

[MlleCake]

They aren't forcing anyone either.

[Mi2mi2a]

Does not forcing anyone to take to their beliefs doesn't give me the right to criticize what I don't find logical. If that is true, stop every religion hating articles, stop evry show that attacking on religions, stop every article explaining why atheism is the truth.

Or is freedom of speech only given to atheist? and it called forcing someone to their beliefs when done by theist?

[MlleCake]

It depends upon what force a religious person is using to promote their beliefs. Just talking about them? No force. But forcing people to convert, which many religions have or are doing is a problem.

You certainly can criticise. You just don't have all of your story straight.

[Mi2mi2a]

so what is wrong about me critcizing atheism? I don't see where the problem is.

[MlleCake]

I don't recall having said it was wrong. I personally think religious people do ourselves a disservice by being intolerant of others. But I never told you you were wrong. I don't know if you're wrong.

[Mi2mi2a]

I honeslty didn't understand what you find wrong about I said. Care to explain?

[MlleCake]

I don't recall having said it was wrong. I just don't personally function that way myself and I explained why.

[jacquesvol]

@MlleCake

https://i.imgur.com/waNZEuS.jpg

[MlleCake]

@jacquesvol Not all people who believe in God believe that God uses coercive power to convince people to believe, that would be the omnipotence you are speaking of. And many people who believe in God (s) don't believe in a literal Hell.

[jacquesvol]

@MlleCake
coercive power to convince isn't needed: proofs convince atheists.

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol Think about it this way, if you were forced to believe God exist then you have no free will. And we know how humans love freedom.

I don't know what is so hard to believe in God, searching for some evidence, when it is right in front of you: the universe. If you don't see that evidence then you are as blind as you come.

God is benevolent, not omnibenevolent, He gave humans free will, to choose. Here an example: If the teacher wants its students to pass the exam, why won't he give them the answers? that is the same thing you are saying right now.

[jacquesvol]

I don't believe in ghosts; the Monster of Loch Ness, aliens and in the Easter bunny either

[MlleCake]

@jacquesvol Yes, one might think that if there is a God, God would work overtime to be understood to exist by all, in whatever manner that would be. But there's a third level of belief, that many people can't conceive of.

[slatyb]

People can say what they like in their private lives. US government officials, in carrying out their official duties, must not promote any religion.

[jacquesvol]

@slatyb but in Court, they they ask you an oath on the Bible, don't they? And do you know this?:
us.123rf.com/.../...e-trust-on-one-dollar-bill.jpg

[jacquesvol]

"Most atheists are people who just haven't felt any compelling reason to believe in a higher being. "

That makes them assholes in some Christian or Muslim minds. :p

[slatyb]

@jacquesvol In US courts people are no longer asked to swear on a Bible. And yeah, in the 1950's at the height of the Red scare they put "In God We Trust" on the currency. The motto used to be the more unifying "E Pluribus Unum".

[Kiran04]

Oh please, I've fallen out of love with atheism these last few years and even I think your take is full of shit. Logic has always gone much further to disprove God than to prove the existence of a god, so your ending argument is absolutely horse shit. And atheists don't worship human beings. They don't worship anyone. Atheism is largely defined by the lack of a need to worship, to believe in any outside intervention. Atheism is the counter movement to the more evangelical style of Christian or hard core religious fanatic, the kind that believes the word of the of old books are infallible and refuses to question the world around him. The atheist questions everything around him. Even that which others take to be for truth. Even that which has been taken for truth for a thousand years. Nothing is truth until proven right there before their very eyes.

[Mi2mi2a]

Why is my last argument horseshit? when you are agaisnt an opinion, instead of calling it horsshit because you know better, maybe start by telling me where my logic fails.

Maybe the word whorship was too much, but it's the same, they put humans on a pedestal, where science is their infaillable tool, that can be on par with gods. Not my words theirs. I've read it.

[Kiran04]

Because you quoted horse shit to make your last argument. "To sustain the belief there is no god, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge." Uh, no they don't. That's not how science works. In science, if you postulate the existence of something, the onus is on you to prove that something exists. It is not on your detractors or critics to prove that it does not exist. So, if you postulate there is a God, you must be able to prove, or at least support, that hypothesis with solid evidence. That quote is a bait and switch of old, "No YOU must prove god doesn't exist!" argument, which has been shot down and debunked more times than I care to count.

[Mi2mi2a]

Well, if you have a scientific mind you would know that if you can't prove a theory wrong you don't accept it is wrong. It is still in doubt. So when someone claims that God exist or God doesn't exist is in need of proof in both cases.

Claiming God doesn't exist is tanatamount to saying that you have used every possible method to claiming knowledge to prove its inexistance, and since science is seriously lacking you would need infinte knowledge that there is no God in existance.

[Kiran04]

How can I possibly prove a theory wrong when you've presented no evidence to prove it's even possible to begin with? You're trying to rig the game by saying, "HAHAHAHA! YOU CAN'T SEE, HEAR, OR DETECT GOD BUT HE'S THERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE HE ISN'T!" For that matter, I could tell you there's invisible aliens that age backwards in time under your bed, but you can't see, hear, or touch them. Now prove me wrong. No, the onus is on the one presenting the theory to provide evidence that the theory is sound. Religious people provide no such evidence, and since no evidence is provided there is no evidence for science to debunk. I could make all sorts of ludicrous claims about things you can't see, hear, touch, or detect that you couldn't possibly disprove because I've rigged the game. Science doesn't allow for that. You postulated it. You prove it.

[Mi2mi2a]

Likewise atheist bring no evidence to their claims.
Aliens may exist, or may not. Science can't tell you, at that moment it's not science to take either stances, it's blind belief.

The thing is with atheists as I said is that they focus too much on science. Science can't prove anything, example: abstract things. When a tool is lacking to find an answer the logical way to go about it is to find other methods.

The religious radicals are blind because they focus solely on beliefs, the atheists are blind because they are close minded in their search of the truth.

These two people are two side of a coin, just that each one is taking contrary stances.

[Kiran04]

No evidence to what claims? Aliens and atheism have nothing to do with one another. Plenty of religious people believe in aliens. There's no evidence aliens exist, but aliens aren't a core tenant of being an atheist so I don't see how that even matters. Atheism isn't based on claims. It's based on a lack of claims. This is where you go wrong. What exactly do atheists claim that needs proving by science? Atheist only refute the claims the religious give them as truth without evidence. They don't put forth any claims themselves.

[Mi2mi2a]

You are the one that brought out aliens as an argument, I'm merely responding to such a poor example.

Again, I repeat when you don't know wether God exists or not because of lack of proofs, you are agnostic. Someone who is still in the search of truth and have no claim.

When you become atheist, you already moved from the agnostic phase, that means you found proof to support your claim of the non existence of God.

[Kiran04]

I brought in aliens as an example, not an argument, and I brought it in as an example of what I could claim without proof that you can't possibly refute if I stack the deck. You're just picking and technicalities now, and you aren't even getting said technicalities correct in the first place.

[slatyb]

Actually it's western religions that separate humans from the rest of the animals, believing that only humans have a soul, are capable of moral behavior, etc. Science shows that we are little different from other primates.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb why oh why do atheists mix existence of God with a certain religion! Okay, you found a certain religion lacking has nothing over the existence of God.

Look, I've asked myself if the religion I'm followingg is a mere human' creation! but wether that religion was created or not, didn't make the existence of God a myth.

So when you want to disprove the existence of God, disproving a religion has nothing on it.

[slatyb]

I was responding to the assertion that "Atheists worship humans".

[slatyb]

I don't know about the existence of God. in my opinion that's unknowable as it's unobservable. Even if there is a God, there's zero evidence to support any religious practice.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb Right now you are asking yourself wether God exists or not, you can't jump from one step to another.

It's when you confirm that God exist, that you can go to the next step, logically, wich religion is right or did the truth get lost forever? you can't speculate wether one religion is right or wrong if you don't believe in its fundementals to follow its logic.

[slatyb]

The truth didn't get lost, humans never had it, and never will have it. It's pointless to ask questions about what is outside the observable universe, because by definition we can never have an answer.

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb You don't want to know the truth, then why are you telling me you are searching for one as an atheist.

That means atheism is just giving up on the truth because they don't want to accept other facts, because it's easier.

[slatyb]

If you had any actual facts that would be really interesting. But facts means something observable, not feelings or wishful thinking or old stories.

[jacquesvol]

@Mi2mi2a Who stops you from advancing serious proof your gods exist? Atheists? ;-)

[Mi2mi2a]

@jacquesvol How many times do I have to tell you to not butt in just to bring nothing to the conversation?

[jacquesvol]

Non sequitur

[Mi2mi2a]

@slatyb that's where you are wrong. Let's take science for example, it doesn't bring obdervable proofs, it brings logical thinking.

As atheist who pride themselves on their scientific mind, you don't know its methods. The big bang theory brought no observable but everyone BELIEVE it. Why? because it relies on logic. And though there were big loopholes in its reasoning, I can tell you that almost all atheists believe in it.

The way you go about proving or disproving God exist is wrong, sciece can't tell you either! Do you know why? because it's not its field of work. When you start acknowledging that there are tons of methods other than science, that your view would no longer be narrow.

The problem with atheists isn't wether they believe in God or not, it is that they are as much blind as your radical religious people. Its two sides of one coin, just that one is blindsided with faith and sees no other method, and the other is blind sided with science and they see no other method.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

1) Atheism isn't based on science, and most people don't think it is.

2) Worshiping humans instead of God is called "Humanism", not Atheism. There is a very large difference between the two groups.

3) The fact that most scientists are religious is irrelevant. It's like saying I can't be an Atheist because Atheists eat food grown by religious people. It's meaningless.

4) Your quote from Ravi Zacharias is not logical. It's a logical extrapolation based on a faulty assumption that one has to have infinite knowledge to believe there is no God. A corollary to that would be that you have to demonstrate infinite knowledge to believe in God, which we all know isn't true either.

5) I really wish people would stop trying to include science when you talk about religion. It's getting ridiculous how misinformed you guys are.

[Lynzerilee]

This is bs, an all too stigmatizing and hate-driven. Religious people jusdge and discriminate against atheist people the most, and try to impose their beliefs on them. Atheists who attack other religions at any given opportunity are fake and angry ones, and claim atheism only for personal interests. Most atheists are humanistic and hold strong values, that they are convinced about, not because they fear punishment. God is in our hearts, good and bad will is also in our hearts and minds. Religious people chose to believe in a supreme being, we chose to believe in our hearts and minds to define who we are and guide the way we live.

[Arne123123]

Painfull to read. First of your headline is actually correct, atheism is just not being convinced any gods exist. From the take and your comments you seem to use a different definition of agnostic and atheist then most people. Most atheists would fit under what you call agnostic.

Second, Atheism can't be wrong, it doesn't make any claims. Even if god was proven to exist tomorrow, im still not wrong for not being convinced today.
As for the "logic proves god" is just laughable, i'v never found anything remotely logical about god or religions, saying a god created the universe is no different then saying magic did it. It's not an answer, it just posts 50 more questions. who is god, where did he/she/it come from? How did he do it? why did he do it? So pretending god answers anything is just ridiculous.

[effyourfeelings]

Atheists also forget that.
...
It's not scientific to completely deny the existence of something just cause there is no solid evidence cause there is always a possibility that there's evidence that you haven't encountered yet (scientific discovery'),
Atheists and theists are just two opposite sides of the same coin

[JFilmore]

Preach!

[ladsin]

No. Is the person saying, "leprechauns exist" and the person saying "I don't see why you think leprechauns exist" two sides of the same coin?

[monkeynutts]

@ladsin definitely never found no little green dudes sitting on a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, but those damb underpants gnomes, keep steeling my fucking undies. I have caught marsupials in elliot traps, and bandicoots in cages, but I'm not sure about these gnomes.