Since gods do not exist, what do you believe is out there

[Slartibartfast]

You do not respect the god that Jesus worshiped?

You are talking about some other god?

Oh, I did not realize that.

What god are you talking about...if not the god that Jesus worshiped?

All that stuff applies to those of the Jewish faith, not the Christian one.

The terms changed with Jesus

 

[calamity]

You have to learn how to be an agnostic, Calamity.

You do not know that god does not exist...and to assert it as a "definite" requires that you assume the burden of proof.

So...where is your proof that the god does not exist?

You mean more proof besides pointing out the obvious errors in the creation myth attributed to this god in the first chapter of the book you quoted?

 

[calamity]

All that stuff applies to those of the Jewish faith, not the Christian one.

The terms changed with Jesus

:roll:

 

[calamity]

You do not respect the god that Jesus worshiped?

You are talking about some other god?

Oh, I did not realize that.

What god are you talking about...if not the god that Jesus worshiped?

Now you're getting with the program.

 

[Sweden]

Why does religion thrive in the US? I've never heard a convincing answer. In Sweden 18% say they believe in god; 4% attend church on an average Sunday. Higher numbers have church weddings on funerals but for cultural not religious reasons. But the bad news is that Islam is growing fast and there are probably as many people in mosques on a Friday than in churches on Sundays.

 

[tosca1]

Ok, we beat the gods issue to death, and, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion from all that is that there are no gods

EH?


How did you come to that conclusion that there is no God or gods, when the National Academy of Sciences had not only not ruled out the existence of God, but actually said there are evidences that support THEISTIC Evolution - which is defined as the belief that God created the universe?

You got some explaining to do.


....many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs

Many big mysteries remain. Who or what created the universe?

That's true. You cannot eliminate the possibility of God.....unless you've got the evidence to support you.

 

[Frank Apisa]

All that stuff applies to those of the Jewish faith, not the Christian one.

The terms changed with Jesus

The god is the god.

Either the god told people to do those things...or the god didn't.

Jesus apparently thought the god did tell people to do those things...and Jesus worshiped the god.

So...the reason why I think you are terrified of the god...is because the god is terrifying.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You mean more proof besides pointing out the obvious errors in the creation myth attributed to this god in the first chapter of the book you quoted?

I am not asking for proof that the description of the god seems bizarre...and contrived. We agree on that.

You said that god definitely does not exist.

I am looking for proof that the god does not exist...not talk about how barbaric the god is described.

 

[KevinKohler]

No gods? I think that all depends on one's idea of what god could be. We tend to limit ourselves to what we know, because it's hard to think about what we don't know. It requires imagination.

Like, for instance, an alien being with no form or substance as we think of those terms, intellect without mass. Undying.

Or are we limiting ourselves to a god who is omnipotent?


As for what's out there?


Off hand?


I'd say just about anything and everything.

 

[KevinKohler]

I think it's very possible there was a consiousnous who is responsible for the rules set forth in the big three religions, the very rules that demand of us to deny our nature. There is an expression, that there are two ways to go through life, the way of nature, and the way of grace. Grace is that which these rules demand of us, to rise above what we were, to become what we sometimes are, what we could be, as a people.

We can go on and on about how we interpret that message to mean rape, murder, war, etc...and eternal damnation.

But imagine you were sent back in time, to the very beginning of recorded history, with the mission of bringing social order to mankind...how would you do it? What rules would you impose on a fairly lawless and tyrannical society? Yes, you are the superior intellect, but how do you go about giving that to as many people as possible?




Food for thought.

 

[calamity]

I am not asking for proof that the description of the god seems bizarre...and contrived. We agree on that.

You said that god definitely does not exist.

I am looking for proof that the god does not exist...not talk about how barbaric the god is described.

The God is as it is described (what else would you think it could be, everyone's cafeteria-like interpretation?). And, this God, as it is described, cannot possibly exit unless we suspend our belief in observable reality.

So, choose. Either this god exists exactly as described in the bible. Or, that particular God does not exist. I choose B.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The God is as it is described (what else would you think it could be, everyone's cafeteria-like interpretation?). And, this God, as it is described, cannot possibly exit unless we suspend our belief in observable reality.

So, choose. Either this god exists exactly as described in the bible. Or, that particular God does not exist. I choose B.

I choose "I do not know."

I also choose, "I do not know if the god exists...and the ancient Hebrews screwed up their opportunity to reveal the god to the world big time by putting their own primitive nonsense into the mouth of the god."

But I am an agnostic...so it stands to reason.

 

[tosca1]

The God is as it is described (what else would you think it could be, everyone's cafeteria-like interpretation?). And, this God, as it is described, cannot possibly exit unless we suspend our belief in observable reality.

So, choose. Either this god exists exactly as described in the bible. Or, that particular God does not exist. I choose B.

You keep saying God couldn't possibly exists.......you have to explain, WHY!

You don't have science behind you......so, what is the basis for your opinion?

 

[calamity]

I choose "I do not know."

I also choose, "I do not know if the god exists...and the ancient Hebrews screwed up their opportunity to reveal the god to the world big time by putting their own primitive nonsense into the mouth of the god."

But I am an agnostic...so it stands to reason.

Fair enough, I guess. But, you do know, and I am sure you do, that this means that you are agnostic over the cafeteria version of the god. You definitely agree with me that the garbage written about him creates a description of a god that cannot possibly exist.

To me it reminds me of sailors who described seeing mermaids, but, as we learned later, they were really only seeing the manatee. So, people thought they were talking to god, but really all they were doing was describing reality as best they could, using what they understood at the time along with a heaping helping of imagination. That's not god. That's man writing a fictional tale.

 

[calamity]

You keep saying God couldn't possibly exists.......you have to explain, WHY!

You don't have science behind you......so, what is the basis for your opinion?

I deny your god because the first few pages of the very first chapter of the book defining this god (the bible) have been completely debunked by observable reality. The credibility of the good book has been impeached.

 

[tosca1]

I deny your god because the first few pages of the very first chapter of the book defining this god (the bible) have been completely debunked by observable reality. The credibility of the good book has been impeached.

Your opinion about the Bible is irrelevant. I was reacting to your OP.


FYI...should evolution be proven true, we can also own it. :lol: Christians can follow where the evidence leads.

 

[calamity]

So, you're just specifically denying the Biblical God. You're not actually saying, creation by God is not possible?

Depends on what we call "god." I do agree that creation by something we do not understand is possible.

 

[trollarc]

I'm simply making observations based on what others have posted. I've made no claims here. I didn't even bring God into the discussion; these are your words. Do I detect an agenda perhaps?

You are funny. Your topic up until his response was basically believe in god because no disproof. Let's apply your idea (which was that god exists because it can't be disproven despite you claiming otherwise) on a more general level to humor the topic you are pretending to argue.
Santa Clause exists today because we can't empirically disprove magic.
The easter bunny exists because we can't empirically disprove magic.
FSM exists because his or her meatballs of mercy shield your mind from the terror of his or her mighty marinara sauce.
You can't disprove any of the three.

 

[FluffyNinja]

You are funny. Your topic up until his response was basically believe in god because no disproof. Let's apply your idea (which was that god exists because it can't be disproven despite you claiming otherwise) on a more general level to humor the topic you are pretending to argue.
....

This wasn't "my idea". Perhaps you've confused me with another poster?

 

[Manny]

You are funny. Your topic up until his response was basically believe in god because no disproof. Let's apply your idea (which was that god exists because it can't be disproven despite you claiming otherwise) on a more general level to humor the topic you are pretending to argue.
Santa Clause exists today because we can't empirically disprove magic.
The easter bunny exists because we can't empirically disprove magic.
FSM exists because his or her meatballs of mercy shield your mind from the terror of his or her mighty marinara sauce.
You can't disprove any of the three.

People get hung up on the question of proof. What if there was something more important to the function of belief on the human psyche than simply "proof vs non-proof"?
Perhaps all people who believe in God do so regardless of empirical proof. That practically goes without saying - Ever seen an Angel or a Demon, etc.? No. But if you do, maybe it's time to seek help.

And yet, some of the most brilliant minds in history, even modern people, still believe or have faith or what you may call it. Proof is not only unnecessary, it's irrelevant. Ever seriously consider why that is? Why is "proof" not a necessity for those who believe? An important question to consider.

 

[mbig]

People get hung up on the question of proof. What if there was something more important to the function of belief on the human psyche than simply "proof vs non-proof"?
Perhaps all people who believe in God do so regardless of empirical proof. That practically goes without saying - Ever seen an Angel or a Demon, etc.? No. But if you do, maybe it's time to seek help.

And yet, SOME of the most brilliant minds in history, even modern people, still believe or have faith or what you may call it. Proof is not only unnecessary, it's irrelevant. Ever seriously consider why that is? Why is "proof" not a necessity for those who believe? An important question to consider.

"Proof" is mostly used by Ignorant Theists who are:
1. Trying to discredit the "mere" 'Theory' of Evolution.
2. Responding to Atheists pointing out they have not only no "proof" of god, but No EVIDENCE so..
3. Theists go for the Fallacious "you can't prove there's no God". (the negative)
No Kidding!
And they can't prove I'm not god, which doesn't make that likely either.

Of course, Unlike scientific theories, god has No Evidence either.
So Thiests love to go for the "proof" standard, which neither can meet, as a way of making both mere 'beliefs'.
Evo has overwhelming Evidence, God has NONE.
But under the Moral equiavlence/abuse of the "proof" standard, they are "both the same/just beliefs", Theists tell us.

4. Scientists, who are much more likely atheists than not, AND much more likely than the general population are, Understand the 'proof' standard, while many creationists are totally Ignorant of the Context of proof, [scientific] theory, and evidence.
As evident on this mb.
5. Your use of "some billiant minds.. believe" is Intentionally skirting the general scientific consensus in Favor of Misleading ANECDOTE.
Talk about proof/evidence/debate standards/fallacious argumentation/disingenuity.

 

[Manny]

"Proof" is mostly used by Ignorant Theists who are:
1. Trying to discredit the "mere" 'Theory' of Evolution.
2. Responding to Atheists pointing out they have not only no "proof" of god, but No EVIDENCE so..
3. Theists go for the Fallacious "you can't prove there's no God". (the negative)
No Kidding!
And they can't prove I'm not god, which doesn't make that likely either.

Of course, unlike scientific theories, god has No Evidence either.
Not to mention all the other past Blown gods, and current contradictory ones, which make any given one Unlikely/means most believers are Necessarily wrong.
4. Scientists, who are much more likely atheists than not, AND much more likely than the general population are, Understand the 'proof' standard while many creationists are totally Ignorant of the context of proof, [scientific] theory, and evidence.
As evident on this mb.
5. Your use of "some billiant minds.. believe" is Intentionally skirting the general scientific consensus in Favor of Misleading ANECDOTE.
Talk about proof/evidence/debate standards/fallacious argumentation/disingenuity.

It's hard to debate when you continually use terms like "ignorant", "intentionally skirting", "misleading". I see no reason to be accusatory or insulting. Besides that you've said nothing else here of substance for me to even talk about, except "yes it is"... "no it isn't". That is a lame discussion.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm asking a question and you are deflecting what I say to mean something else entirely. I make no claims about evolution being wrong, or other items in your list.

 

[mbig]

It's hard to debate when you continually use terms like "ignorant", "intentionally skirting", "misleading". I see no reason to be accusatory or insulting.
Besides that you've said nothing else here of substance for me to even talk about, except "yes it is"... "no it isn't". That is a lame discussion.

This is completely False.
90% of my post addressed the use/abuse of the word "proof" that YOU said used/overrated in the god debate.
THAT was the vast bulk of my post and it Did address the Meat of what you said.
Let's be candid.
You have offered No debate in repsonse.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm asking a question and you are deflecting what I say to mean something else entirely. I make no claims about evolution being wrong, or other items in your list.

No, You made a sub-Topic of "Proof" in this debate, and that it as overrated, AND.. that "some scientists believed". [anyway]
I accurately pointed out what you said was an Atypical/anecdotal generalization, which just happens to be yours as well.

 

[Frank Apisa]

"Proof" is mostly used by Ignorant Theists who are:
1. Trying to discredit the "mere" 'Theory' of Evolution.
2. Responding to Atheists pointing out they have not only no "proof" of god, but No EVIDENCE so..
3. Theists go for the Fallacious "you can't prove there's no God". (the negative)
No Kidding!
And they can't prove I'm not god, which doesn't make that likely either.

Of course, Unlike scientific theories, god has No Evidence either.
So Thiests love to go for the "proof" standard, which neither can meet, as a way of making both mere 'beliefs'.
Evo has overwhelming Evidence, God has NONE.
But under the Moral equiavlence/abuse of the "proof" standard, they are "both the same/just beliefs", Theists tell us.

4. Scientists, who are much more likely atheists than not, AND much more likely than the general population are, Understand the 'proof' standard, while many creationists are totally Ignorant of the Context of proof, [scientific] theory, and evidence.
As evident on this mb.
5. Your use of "some billiant minds.. believe" is Intentionally skirting the general scientific consensus in Favor of Misleading ANECDOTE.
Talk about proof/evidence/debate standards/fallacious argumentation/disingenuity.

I agree that scientists are less likely than the general public to be religious...and they are less likely than the public to "believe" that a god exists.

But declaring them atheists...rather than include agnostics is a step too far. (I suspect a lot more are agnostic than atheistic.)

Here is a link to a Pew Research Poll that deals with the question:

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center

Scientists like Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan were agnostics...not atheists.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ok, we beat the gods issue to death, and, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion from all that is that there are no gods. Gods are a figment of our imagination. But, that does not explain anything. Many big mysteries remain. Who or what created the universe? Are we alone and on our own in this vast universe? Is there a force we have yet to find? Could there be an energy field that unites us all in some as yet unknown way? Life after death? A bunch of stuff.

Let's hear some ideas, beliefs or just general philosophies about the great unknown.

Der um I want to make it clear that no gods exist is not the same as gods don't exist, err, it's the difference from a fifth degree black belt atheist and a fourth degree blue belt atheist.

Lol