God does not exist.

[Bat Attack]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

The belief of imaginary twins making out is not a shared belief. It is an individual delusion. There is a shared belief of god with many (for right or for wrong, I will not argue).

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig

[Godslayer Jillian]

[quote=MollyMac]And there's no excuse NOT to believe either- as the whole of it is unproveable. [/quote[ Please tell me we don't have to go back to explaining the whole concept of unfalsifiability and burden of proof.

ALL of these things exist. Whether we have parables, fables, or histories, ALL of what you said still will exist for all days. Where there are two in existance, there will always be disparity.

Does that also excuse bigotry as it will also exist?
"Let that man think her wife is his property. That makes him happy, and it's not like it will stop sexism in the world."

[MollyMac]

None of it is excused, by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Do you think that all of society's ills will be rectified by a proof of lack or god, or just re-defined?

[Bat Attack]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

None of it is excused, by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Do you think that all of society's ills will be rectified by a proof of lack or god, or just re-defined?

Well of course there will be those who refuse to believe the proof.

[MollyMac]

As well as those who believe solely in the lack of it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

How can you still say that? We've been through this more times than I can count.
If I claim that there's a little teapot orbiting Jupiter, I'm the one that has to prove it!!
It's bullshit that you would think everyone else is just as deluded for not believing in it because they don't have evidence.
Religion only gets away with it because it's so pervasive.

[Drake Dun]

The problem is, they aren't happy, and they can't be happy until the rest of us also bend the knee to their imaginary friend, who is the worst control freak ever dreamt up by the human mind. Idiotic beliefs are extremely dangerous when they're tangled up with the moral senses and power games.

It sounds grand to blame it all on "extremists", but it's bullshit. Sit down and figure yourself out some consistent definitions for "religion", "extremist", "Christianity", etc., and then survey the real world, and you'll see what I mean. If we're going to take ourselves at all seriously, we need an ethic that says when you're making a case for some moral conclusion, or law, or candidate or whatever, "A magic man told me so!" is never a reason.

Happy, fluffy type lunacy is also dangerous, albeit less so. We make decisions based upon our model of the world. When that model is stupid, you make bad decisions - like failing to take your insulin shots because you would rather rely upon the magic healing powers of sky Daddy, a chunk of mineral, or whatever. The advantage of happy fluffy type stupidity is that the victims are usually the believers themselves, which makes it possible to take the stance that what they're doing is their own business, even if it is insane.

And religion reinforces and enshrines shitty thinking. Just to be religious is a profound kind of arrogance, if you look at it. To be religious means to believe things for no good reason, but to deny the validity of things that other people for no good reason. So it's not even just that you have sloppy thinking habits. It's that you have selectively sloppy thinking habits. It's stupid *and* dishonest. I think I hit this point in a post a while ago.

All of this has consequences in the real world. The scientific elements of the United States are currently in the middle of a several year long battle with hordes of knuckle-dragging Bible thumpers who want to overturn several major scientific theories based upon a piece of ancient desert fiction, including the big bang theory, the theory of evolution, planetary formation theories, etc. For them to get what they want would literally mean the dawn of a localized new dark age. This has happened before in history, and it can happen again.

Right now the forces of common fucking sense are barely winning this battle, in part because the response of religious "moderates" who comprise a huge segment of the population has been lethargic due to their exaggerated respect for religion.

Meanwhile we can't be honest with ourselves about the threat Islam poses to almost everything we've achieved since the Englightenment, because we've convinced ourselves that if it's unacceptable to call a homegrown nutjob out on his bullshit as long as he wraps himself in the cloak of "faith", it's even more unacceptable to call out a nutjob in a tradition from overseas. That would be rraaAAaaccciiIiIssst [cue ominous music]. So we find ourselves in this tragicomic scenario in which when someone tells us that he thinks when someone changes her religion or has sex with the wrong person, we should THROW ROCKS AT HER UNTIL WE CRUSH THE LIFE OUT OF HER BATTERED AND BROKEN FRAME, we have to nod politely as if this is an opinion which should have a place at the table.

We need to be able to call a spade a spade, and reject barbarism as barbarism. Before we can do that, we have to clear the field of all this absurd reverence for religious belief.

[Noumi]

This documental really made me think...
At the beggining is very related to this topic, so please watch it when you have the time , it´s not boring at all


*Click!*

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Bat Attack

And it's easier.
To believe what we DO NOT perceive with our limited human senses could be seen as imaginary.

That's not what I was implying. I said there's things in this world that we are not capable of being aware of or understanding based on our human faculties. Look at Ultra Violate light or heat sensoring technology or electromagnetic fields. These things are even visible to certain animals. Who's to say there are not even more deeply hidden laws that escape our attention.

It is in no way an act of imagination to know that we are limited to our senses and there there is more out there than what we are capable of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting.

In any case. I disagree with organized religion, though the notion of God does not escape me out of spite the way it seems to for you.

[freddy666]

there might be something more because alot of things are organized in a way that makes it seem unbelievable that everything fell into place.

but my argument about no religion existing is not only lack of proof but also the fact that people are so convinced that the religion they follow is correct and no other exist there can bo only two explanations: no religion exists or something beyond our imagination exists after life because who is to say christians are right and buddhists are wrong etc.

i rather live my life to the fullest and believe that after i die that i won't exist instead of devoting my life to something that doesn't exist and wasting it.

[Saya]

I haven't met God yet, but if I do I'll let you know.

I don't believe in an all powerful god, who watches over us and toys with us. I suspect if somethings there, its more a part of the very fabric of everything, but "all and one and more than the totality of existence.". Its a certain je ne sais quoi, something indescribable, and I don't understand it, but one day I hope to.

One thing I really do get frustrated about talking with other people about God is that a lot of people who believe in him presume that they can put words in his mouth as if they met him. You're going by the word of a two thousand year old book, how do you KNOW for a fact he hates gay people? Did he tell you himself? And its not just Christians either, actually a few days ago I was cheating on Gnet and posting on a Buddhist forum where we were discussing God, and a lot of people were content with "Buddha said in this sutra that there is no creator God.", which is silly because thats their same argument for other supernatural beliefs, "Buddha taught reincarnation [according to a sutra written a few hundred years after his death], therefore I believe that there is a Pure Land with devas flying around!"

If you don't understand what or who God is, how can you paraphrase his/her/its will? Why just take someone else's word about it?

[Sanguine Mind]

Originally Posted by Saya

I haven't met God yet, but if I do I'll let you know.

I don't believe in an all powerful god, who watches over us and toys with us. I suspect if somethings there, its more a part of the very fabric of everything, but "all and one and more than the totality of existence.". Its a certain je ne sais quoi, something indescribable, and I don't understand it, but one day I hope to.

One thing I really do get frustrated about talking with other people about God is that a lot of people who believe in him presume that they can put words in his mouth as if they met him. You're going by the word of a two thousand year old book, how do you KNOW for a fact he hates gay people? Did he tell you himself? And its not just Christians either, actually a few days ago I was cheating on Gnet and posting on a Buddhist forum where we were discussing God, and a lot of people were content with "Buddha said in this sutra that there is no creator God.", which is silly because thats their same argument for other supernatural beliefs, "Buddha taught reincarnation [according to a sutra written a few hundred years after his death], therefore I believe that there is a Pure Land with devas flying around!"

If you don't understand what or who God is, how can you paraphrase his/her/its will? Why just take someone else's word about it?

I think I just fell in love with you for a second ^^.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The problem is, they aren't happy, and they can't be happy until the rest of us also bend the knee to their imaginary friend, who is the worst control freak ever dreamt up by the human mind.
*snip*
The advantage of happy fluffy type stupidity is that the victims are usually the believers themselves, which makes it possible to take the stance that what they're doing is their own business, even if it is insane.

How do you know they're not happy? And how do you know they all want everyone else to follow the same religion?

It disgusts me when atheists attack other people's beliefs, and then get upset at people who try to convert people to their religion. IT"S THE SAME FUCKING THING. You liken a religious beliefs to being under the impression of being in an oasis, but converting-happy religious people look out from that oasis, which is very much real to them, and want to do you a favour and bring you to shade and water. You want to do them a favour and bring them to other water.
The problem is that you have no actual proof that YOU aren't wrong. They don't have any proof that THEY aren't wrong. You both can argue until you're blue in the face, and all you *might* do if you're lucky is convince them that evolution is real, if they didn't already believe in it.
Why do you care, if it doesn't hurt anyone? There are plenty of religious people who aren't harmed themselves by their religious beliefs.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I guess, then, I'm an atheist because I actually understand logic.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I guess, then, I'm an atheist because I actually understand logic.

Some people who have faith understand logic too, but although logic provides answers, it cannot motivate people to follow through. For example: smoking. Many smokers accept that it destroys their health. Many accept this willingly, it is a choice for them.

But some smokers really wish they could quit. They know it is bad for them. Logic tells them they should quit. But they can't. They are doomed.

Enter Faith (choose your preference). Now, where logic failed to help them follow through, Faith succeeds.

Understanding logic is not enough for the entire scope of human existence.

[Saya]

"Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world." -Nietzsche

Watching philosophers tackle the idea of God is very painful to read, both sides either make assumptions, leave holes in their arguments or do not address all issues; mostly because the more famous ones try to tackle the idea of the Judeo-Christian God rather than the general idea of god. Its technically logical, but no conclusion can be reached objectively.

[stolide]

Originally Posted by Bat Attack

So do you believe that God is a supernatural being? Or just some sort of magical energy/power? Surely if it is some sort of magical energy/power, then it is not God, but a force.

How would God do anything if not by means of some magickal energy/power? Considering he isn't physical, then the only thing left is energy and other things we have yet to define. Those things we have yet to define are likely similar to energy.

Why can God not be both a supernatural being and a magickal energy/power?

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Understanding logic is not enough for the entire scope of human existence.

Well put. While rationality is an aspect of our being, we are not completely rational beings. This comes with both good and bad.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by stolide

How would God do anything if not by means of some magickal energy/power? Considering he isn't physical, then the only thing left is energy and other things we have yet to define. Those things we have yet to define are likely similar to energy.

Why can God not be both a supernatural being and a magickal energy/power?

Why can God not be a pig with wings and a forked tongue?

[Godslayer Jillian]

I am not speaking as an atheist. I am speaking as a logician.
the fact that many of you guys can't still get through your fucking heads the concept of


BURDEN OF PROOF
is physically painful to me.

[$haDe]

Take a look at my signature.

Isn't it obvious ?

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I am not speaking as an atheist. I am speaking as a logician.
the fact that many of you guys can't still get through your fucking heads the concept of


BURDEN OF PROOF
is physically painful to me.

Burden of proof means nothing in religion. Something tangible like a teapot floating around Jupiter, yes, but not gods.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I am not speaking as an atheist. I am speaking as a logician.
the fact that many of you guys can't still get through your fucking heads the concept of

BURDEN OF PROOF
is physically painful to me.

Uh...how about the burn mark on my tortilla that looks like Ozzy Osborne?
O.o

[Saya]

One thing I find funny is that most athiests say "I believe in science and logic," but unless you can understand and recite the math and model of the Big Bang theory and understand the physics of it in and out, and tackle it yourself, you're going on the words and faith you have in scientists. Similarily, logic is hardly infallible.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Logic is by definition infallible. If you're assuming such a thing as error, then you're working within the concept of logic.

And:

Burden of proof means nothing in religion. Something tangible like a teapot floating around Jupiter, yes, but not gods.

Why?
Just because people decided it's so goddamn special?
Well, from here on, I attribute the orbiting teapot with divine authority. Don't you dare place it lower than any other god, for it is just as divine.