Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,085 comments
- 1,007,771 views
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
There is no god. It's really the saddest thing about the world that in this day and age too many people are too busy worshiping fairy tales and trying to kill each other for not believing in the same fairy tales. If only more people had the power of rational thinking, the world wouldn't be such a mess.
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
That's the beauty of religion isn't it? it's all based on "faith". No proof exists that god is real, but it's all good, you just gotta have faith lol. The best bit is, if you ignore the sheer amount of stupid **** in the bible that contradicts what we know about the world today, you can't prove there isn't an invisible magic man in the sky that created everything.
What I suggest you do is read the bible, and tell me just how logical everything in it is.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a god. I don't need to prove it to you, just as you don't need to prove there is. Religion was created so it's vague enough to not be disproven. I will say this though. It's great how these days, people just pick and choose which parts of the bible they say god still wants you to observe, and ignore the bits that might make god look like a bit of a nutter to a reasonable person who hasn't read the bible lol.
Edit* I have also studied a lot of different religions, as even though I've never been religious, I come from a very religious family, and have always been fascinated by what drives a person to believe in such things. I won't argue the point with you, you can have your beliefs if it helps you deal with your mortality. You can't argue with someone who believes in something that is the total opposite of logic or reason.
What I suggest you do is read the bible, and tell me just how logical everything in it is.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a god. I don't need to prove it to you, just as you don't need to prove there is. Religion was created so it's vague enough to not be disproven. I will say this though. It's great how these days, people just pick and choose which parts of the bible they say god still wants you to observe, and ignore the bits that might make god look like a bit of a nutter to a reasonable person who hasn't read the bible lol.
Edit* I have also studied a lot of different religions, as even though I've never been religious, I come from a very religious family, and have always been fascinated by what drives a person to believe in such things. I won't argue the point with you, you can have your beliefs if it helps you deal with your mortality. You can't argue with someone who believes in something that is the total opposite of logic or reason.
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
Where's your evidence there is a god? The onus isn't on me to prove something DOESN'T exist. I could just as easily say to you, that I can jump 3000ft in the air, and you can't prove me otherwise. The onus would be on me to prove my claims, rather than the twisted logic that someone has to prove something DOESN'T exist lol
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
Where did I say all killing is in the name of religion? The biggest wars in history have been over religion, and the current mass hatred in the world we live in today is solely because of religion, but I never said the world would be perfect without it, just a whole lot less messy.
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
Tough crowd down where? I couldn't care less what people believe in, or what they think of me for not believing in fairy tales hahaha. Telling people over the internet to be afraid only makes you look silly mate lol.
Let me ask you what you believe then. Are you religious?
Let me ask you what you believe then. Are you religious?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I disagree.
Given that no evidence of a reasonable standard has ever been demonstrated for the the existence of any Gods, then a hypothesis that 'their is/are no God/s' is a reasonable one.
It only becomes an unreasonable position if evidence were presented and it was dismissed without investigation, peer review etc. More so should that evidence be shown to meet the scientific standard. However this has not yet occurred and with each failed attempt the hypothesis of 'their is/are no God(s)', while it will always be impossible to prove, becomes more reasonable and less extraordinary.
As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", given the lack of evidence over the encore course of human history the hypothesis of 'no gods' is not an extraordinary one. However the same can't be said (given the again lack of evidence) of a claim that God(s) do exist.
- 1,916
- Letchworth
- mistersafeway
Which "god" are you talking about? Sure, many gods can't possibly exist as described, so claiming non-existence is completely logical. The problem is, there's an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to what constitutes a god, so a claim along the lines of 'no gods, 100% certain' is far from logical. I just felt I should say this as I'm unsure as to exactly what you're saying.
BTW, I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in gods at all, just aware of the (extremely slim) possibility that something that could be defined as a god could exist.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Well that does depend on how you define both 'biggest' and 'religious'.
Given that prior to the late 20th century it could be argued that just about every side in a conflict believed that 'god' was on there side and 'god' would help them to win, a religious factor existed in pretty much every conflict before that.
A view backed up by the very concept within Christianity of a 'just war'.
Now you may well not hold that view, but I would argue that its not a factor that can be removed from it.
That had not been posted when I hit the reply button (the dangers of a rapidly changing thread), you know my views on that.
To state so categorically and to dismiss the chance regardless of evidence is as much an act of faith as religion is.
Fortunately for me that doesn't change the point I was making in my post, but it should cause @Mike_grpA a pause for thought).
- 3,475
- Vilnius
We can only assume there is no god due to the absolute absence of evidence for it's existence.
But. A solid claim that "there is no god" assumes knowledge of that and thus is required to either be proven or else it's just a faith based belief just as much as a non-backed up claim that there is a god.
- 1,916
- Letchworth
- mistersafeway
You seem to be a nontheist which means you are religious in a way, so no, LeMansAid doesn't agree with you.
Read after third quote.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
I'm afraid that's not the way it works. You quite clearly made what appears to be a statement of fact, to wit:
You flatly made the statements, it's up to you to provide backup. The onus is not on anyone else to disprove your statements, rather it's on you to prove them or disavow them.
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Take an army filled with christians in all ranks, an army that even asks for God's help in war, with soldiers that pray to Him before battle, with regiments that have a military Chaplain and even whose symbols have religious connotations ...
If you tell me that any war or battle such an army engages is a war or battle "... over religion ..." I will say you're wrong.
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Really?
How about you give us top three biggest wars in history and we'll see, shall we?
I would have said that WW1 and WW2 would have to be at the very least in the top five, and I don't recall them being about religion.
Solely because of religion?
There's plenty of racial hatred going on as well, last time I checked, along with nationalist hatred and just good old fashioned :censored:holes.
It's one thing to say that there isn't a god because no substantial evidence has been displayed to think otherwise. It's another to categorically deny that there can be a god based on the lack of observation of any evidence, as you did by saying "I can say without a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a god".
I believe this has been gone through here before as the difference between atheists and non-theists, non-theists generally being deemed just as irrational as theists for their total adherence to a factual statement that has no factual basis, only a statistical likelihood.
You're giving strength to the position of "there is no god" that it doesn't deserve. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, is should be and is the default assumption, but likewise there is no reason to state is as an absolute fact. The truth is that it's highly likely that no god exists, but there are plausible scenarios in which it is possible that one may.
I could tell a 15 year old who has never driven a car or a kart that he'll never be an F1 driver, and the overwhelming statistical likelihood is that I'll be right. But it's not entirely the truth, I'm assuming that he won't be an F1 driver simply because I haven't seen anything to influence me to think otherwise. If he then gets in a car tomorrow and turns out to be the greatest driving prodigy the world has ever seen, then perhaps he will drive an F1 car one day. So the reality is that based on what I knew at the time, he was never going to be an F1 driver, but that there were specific highly unlikely events that, if observed, would cause me to change my opinion.
Such is the sensible approach to the existence of god. Now you can decide whether you wish to adopt such an approach.
- 2,810
- Tasmania, AU
- stigsdaddy
My statement, was that I can say without doubt there is no god, because I have no doubt in my mind that any such thing exists.
As @Scaff said, I didn't makean extroadinary assumption, without any proof, my conclusion is based on logic. If no proof of something has ever existed, you can't say someone has to prove it doesn't exist, because it's logical to think it doesn't. People saying there IS a god, can't prove it, and so much of the bible has already been either disproven or thrown out by christianity, so christians tend to get upset when someone challenges their religion. A religion which has nothing to do with fact or reason or logic, and all to do with blind faith.
I am not religious, to say that I am because I believe their isn't any kind of god is laughable, I don't go preaching to people, I believe what can be proven, it has nothing to do with faith. I don't label myself an atheist or anything else because of the fact that I just don't care what people believe in, I don't buy into bull**** so easily.
If someone went on your local news network and said "there is life on Mars", you would want proof of such an extroadinary claim wouldn't you? Or with your logic, it would be up to you to prove there isn't?
Again, believe whatever you want, if it makes you feel less scared about your mortality then good for you. This thread asks for an opinion, and in mine, there is no god, because if there was, he's a **** head for allowing the atrocities that happen in the world, and having such ridiculous rules in the bible. I won't argue any more with anyone here, because you can't argue with someone who doesn't use logic or reason, they will never view things from a neutral position, because their view is based on emotion, not reason.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The issue people have is that your posts started to come across as you holding a position that you would never re-examine the position regardless of any evidence that may come forward.
That is not a rational or logical point of view to hold at all.
Now don't get me wrong, based on the evidence that currently exists the probability of God(s) existing is 0 (zero), and I mean that in a true probability scale (1 one being no doubt of existence at all and 0 being it doesn't exist). That zero is the position I currently hold, however should evidence come to light that changes that probability value, even if its to raise it from 0 to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, then it would be illogical to maintain the exact same position.
The probability of God(s) existing has only changed a tiny amount, but it has changed. That still would not mean that its certain God(s) exist, but it would be enough to remove the 'doesn't exist option from the table.
Now to date nothing at all has been shown to change the zero, but to rule it out totally and if one were to say they would maintain that position regardless of the evidence, now that would be illogical.
Its important to note that my post on this current discussion also carried this as well, now if you would be willing, should evidence come to light*, to reevaluate the position then now is the time to clarify (no harm, no foul).
*Please note I find the likely-hood of such evidence being presented to be very, very, very, very low, but should it be shown to meet a robust standard, be falsifiable and repeatable, then of course I will take it on board.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,260
- United States
Similar threads
