Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

O, if i may.

Think about the past and evidence of a creator or god. There has been non that definitely proves the existence.

For a start, faries are ideas that have been created by individuals. These ideas have over time been used in stories, fairytales and more and the majority can admit that it is based on an idea, there is no proof in the existence of faires. The idea may be widespread and words can be twisted, people tend to create rules around ideas and maybe even expand the idea so far that in their mind they wish that this idea could become a reality. They suddenly decide that because there is nothing to disprove it, there must be a chance of its existence.

I can come up with the idea now of a flying pig with shoes for eyes, it sound absurd not only for its nature, but if it gains any form of social

The idea of a god would have been created many thousands of years ago, well before christianity began, the idea of a creator filled in that gap of how are we here. It is appealing to those who want a quick answer to the universe and since it something that explains the complexitys of the world and even the universe it became more socially accepted, however it is still a belief without evidence.

What you have to remember O is that god is an idea, not something that was true, it may be socially accepted by many, but it does not mean that people should believe it because the majority do. We all share different beliefs and there are many things we disagree on. For example we all can safely say that there is a moon in sky, and that is because evidence backs it up, there is no belief involved. God however has no evidence, it is solely belief based on a bigotted, racist ideaology that got blown way out of proportion when people began embracing the idea.

It makes sense, just think about it, its common sense and i'm sure you can see the logic behind what i said. The only reason the idealogy of a god is more accepted is because it provides us with an answer, a reason as to why we are here. The truth is that we may never find out some of these questions in our lifetimes and since people want to fill in that gap quickly, some may be more prone and easy to turn to the existence of god.

I hope that made sense.

LS...to me it sounds like you are preaching to the theists. Which...we...are not.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Hmm let me see if I can explain a bit better.

Mes wants to believe in fairies, because if fairies existed...this would make her happy.
Instead, she does not believe in fairies, merely because she has no proof of their existence.

Just because she doesn't have proof of their existence, doesn't mean they don't exist. So wouldn't it be more optimistic to at least accept the possibility that fairies could exist without her knowing?

To believe without evidence, is to be deluded.
And the empiricist-naturalist world view includes the possibility of anything existing. You just have to provide evidence.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

LS...to me it sounds like you are preaching to the theists. Which...we...are not.

I was merely giving a statement which hopefully broke things down in terms of why i don't accept the existence of a god, i believe based on evidence, not faith.

I was hoping that by saying that, maybe O could use it as a way of basing things when he applied it to the existence of a god.

Originally Posted by Korittke

To believe without evidence, is to be deluded.
And the empiricist-naturalist world view includes the possibility of anything existing. You just have to provide evidence.

You missed my point.

I'm not saying she should believe without evidence. I don't want anyone to be deluded, just because they want something to be true.

It just seems very closed minded to not even be able to accept that there are things that we cannot yet find proof of. Things we cannot yet understand. And to deny the existence of everything and anything that is not YET proven seems ignorant...considering new things are proven every day.

Why not at least be open to possibilities?

As a Theist i though I would put my views to as why I think God exists. Different than Agnostics I believe 100% that their is a God. It is the only thing in the world I believe 100%. I look at it from this point of view.

I came from my parents. The more generations a go, then comes devolution, more then its a sea dwelling animal, before you know it, my ancestry is a protein based amino acids formed from ammonia, oxygen, carbon etc. Before that the earth was nothing but magma, before the earth was pieces of meteor, before than earth came from dying stars, before that the beginning of energy slowing down into matter, before that the formation of the universe.

Everything before the formation of the universe is God to me. The fact is there has to be infinity.

Many things have happened in my life, in the process of hope and faith. Its gives me courage, and at the time where you do not know whats going to happen, the only thing to look back to is faith.

As believing in a creator ( In a Universalism view ) it is clear that their is no way to even fathom the existence of God. But while I put my hope in him, it seems as if things get a lot better, that I know energy can never be created or destroyed. But energy is here today, and however it got here is God. God to me is everything I do not know.

Oh...and another thing I don't understand.

Why do some admitted agnostics argue for the atheists? Just for the sake of arguing?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

You missed my point.

I'm not saying she should believe without evidence. I don't want anyone to be deluded, just because they want something to be true.

It just seems very closed minded to not even be able to accept that there are things that we cannot yet find proof of. Things we cannot yet understand. And to deny the existence of everything and anything that is not YET proven seems ignorant...considering new things are proven every day.

Why not at least be open to possibilities?

The truth is nina, when thinking this through, atheists do consider the possibilities, but they then provide logical thinking and evidence and make a conclusion. As people have said to me in the past, why hang on to everything and assume that it exists. I could create a whole list of ideas of creatures that do not exist, so by your logic, would it be closed minded to assume that they do not exist?

You have to apply logic and think how something like that would be possible. When things don't have evidence we have to think about it logically before making a conclusion.

I deny the existence of a god, but i welcome any evidence for the proving of a god. After all, evidence proves...

Originally Posted by Aquanina

You missed my point.

I'm not saying she should believe without evidence. I don't want anyone to be deluded, just because they want something to be true.

It just seems very closed minded to not even be able to accept that there are things that we cannot yet find proof of. Things we cannot yet understand. And to deny the existence of everything and anything that is not YET proven seems ignorant...considering new things are proven every day.

Why not at least be open to possibilities?

Did any of us say there is no chance of a god existing? Of course there is a chance, but just as infinitely small chance of one existing as any other thing.

Do you believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists? Do you believe it COULD exist?

Ok stop using the whole "i could create a whole list of ideas of creatures that do not exist" argument. People keep bringing that up.

Creating imaginary things to believe in is completely different than arguing the existence of some form of intelligent design in our universe.

Using examples of a clearly fictitious and flawed anthropomorphized deity, or an imaginary chocolate sundae for that matter doesn't ever negate the eternal moment of which we are all undeniably a part, and trapped in. Even if the construct we communicate in is illusory, the moment isn't ever imaginary... so therein lies your answer. That undefinable moment. As soon as you step back and attempt to define it or give limit to it with inert words and symbols, it ceases to be that which you want to define. 'Now'.

As I've said before, "Every intent, is lost in it's own expression"

Also, I think what nina is trying to get at was...

If you can't be in a continual state of sheer wonderment in the face of all the beauty and splendor of the cosmos and everything that went into getting you to this moment in the eternal 'Now', you must be a pessimist, because life is just so amazingly mysterious it baffles and humbles the wisest of the wise. If you can't humble yourself to take the stance of, "I don't know, but this place sure is fascinating", then you are by all rights, a pessimist.

Something like that, right?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Ok stop using the whole "i could create a whole list of ideas of creatures that do not exist" argument. People keep bringing that up.

Creating imaginary things to believe in is completely different than arguing the existence of some form of intelligent design in our universe.

Yeah but the reference is easy to apply, fairies are ideas without evidence, any ideas i create without evidence will be just the same. Like a horse with shells for legs.

Because, in a way, its like saying that in the past people could not make up fictional characters and ideas in their heads.

Originally Posted by wasup

Did any of us say there is no chance of a god existing? Of course there is a chance, but just as infinitely small chance of one existing as any other thing.

From what I understand, atheists do not believe in god or any chance of his existence as none of the atheists here have said otherwise.

For the record...who here IS an atheist? Besides Mes?

I'm open to any evidence that anyone could give me of a supernatural being.

This whole argument is confusing me. Nina are you saying I should believe in the possibility of fairies because that would somehow make me happier?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Creating imaginary things to believe in is completely different than arguing the existence of some form of intelligent design in our universe.

lol wut? Explain?



Edit: Eek, such misunderstanding of atheists. I think all of the atheists here have made clear that they are open to evidence, just like any rational, intellectual person would be.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Yeah but the reference is easy to apply, faires are ideas without evidence, any ideas i create without evidence will be just the same. Like a horse with shells for legs.

Probably you guys can mesh in my post for the sake of argument. Mes Tarrant, insight on my post?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Edit: Eek, such misunderstanding of atheists. I think all of the atheists here have made clear that they are open to evidence, just like any rational, intellectual person would be.

I'm learning

Btw, i'm open for any evidence anyone can provide of ideas that have been created that have no evidence to back their existence.

The universe being intelligently designed doesn't imply an anthropomorphized deity... it implies the undefinable and unknowable nature of infinity which we reside in...

If anything, it could mean an intelligent system of which we are a part. Not to mention, we are sitting here using intelligence to argue for and against intelligence of the universe...

Don't you see the irony?

t just seems very closed minded to not even be able to accept that there are things that we cannot yet find proof of. Things we cannot yet understand. And to deny the existence of everything and anything that is not YET proven seems ignorant...considering new things are proven every day.

As I said, having any kind of remotely scientific world view already implies the possibility of anything, no matter how grotesque. That is why the whole atheist/agnostic debate is just a play on words with barely any meaning to them. It's nothing particularly special or extraordinarily intelligent to consider something that is not yet part of human knowledge to be possible. But I don't need to go around telling people that "horses with shells for legs" are possible. Why would I do that? What's the point?

The whole point is this: If you tell people that you honestly believe, Santa Claus might exist, you'll get laughed at or put in the loony bin. If you apply the same to God, you'll simply be called agnostic. And that is only because of the social acceptance of the word "God", not because of any conceptual difference.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I'm open to any evidence that anyone could give me of a supernatural being.

This whole argument is confusing me. Nina are you saying I should believe in the possibility of fairies because that would somehow make me happier?

No, as I said...

Originally Posted by Aquanina

You missed my point.

I'm not saying she should believe without evidence. I don't want anyone to be deluded, just because they want something to be true.

Originally Posted by Korittke

As I said, having any kind of remotely scientific world view already implies the possibility of anything, no matter how grotesque. That is why the whole atheist/agnostic debate is just a play on words with barely any meaning to them.

Well said.

Well now I'm thoroughly confused...you're saying atheist/agnostic is the same thing now? Except one has a more scientific view?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Well now I'm thoroughly confused...you're saying atheist/agnostic is the same thing now? Except one has a more scientific view?

I can't be bothered explaining unfortunately. But reading these will probably make it a little easier for you. Plus it will help you determine the differences, they are similar, but not completely, reading these will help you determine that difference...

Atheism

Agnosticism

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Ok stop using the whole "i could create a whole list of ideas of creatures that do not exist" argument. People keep bringing that up.

Creating imaginary things to believe in is completely different than arguing the existence of some form of intelligent design in our universe.

No, it's not any different. Let me get this clear... because it is silly, it makes it untrue? I suppose the main thrust of your argument is that because it was specifically created to be untrue as an example, it is not the same. Okay, let me present the following for you: Thor. Do you believe that thor could exist just as much as any of the things you believe can exist? Thor, the superbuff redheaded carpenter, struck down goats and giants with his magical hammer of thunder. Can he exist? People did honestly believe in him.

I don't understand why you think the flying spaghetti monster is any different than god. If thousands of years ago, someone wrote a book in conjunction with the bible about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, and millions believed in him (the same number of people who believed in the christian god), would you THEN believe it has a greater chance of being true? And you still didn't answer my question: Do you believe that the Flying spaghetti monster exists or could exist?

What the fuck is a flying spaghetti monster?