Why can't people just be honest about religion?

[orogenicman]

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

Not true. Scientists use null hypotheses all the time. They are vary useful in eliminating 'noise' and redirecting our attention to more useful information. As for your apollo analogy, that is a claim based on superstition and myth. As such, there is no reason at all to suppose that Apollo is anything other than supertition and myth, and can certainly be discounted as invalid. In other words, while there may not be direct physical evidence to discount the existence of apollo based on our understanding of the sun and the solar system, there certainly is plenty of evidence that the mythical accounts of apollo are made up and so, based on our understanding of mythology and supersitition itself, are not real.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomena. This is what you start with and is not a conclusion. The sentence you underlined referred to a position, which is pretty much the same thing as a conclusion. I doubt you are going to find many scientists who will agree that an untested hypothesis - one for which there is an utter lack of evidence - constitutes a valid conclusion.

I agree with you on Apollo, which was my point. Now please point to the evidence about god beginning by telling what it is. What is it that you claim isn't there.

I highly recommend that you read this article:

God s and the null hypothesis Secular Woman

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. I said you were ignorant. You are operating without any evidence at all, so ignorant is all you can be. I am saying everyone is ignorant. If you want to take that personally, that is your choice.

I assume you can't tell me what God is. You can just refer to other people's beliefs, which themselves have no basis in evidence. Yet you say you can establish as a high probability that something you can't describe, can't define and know nothing about does not exist. This is fantasy.

Your claim that the laws of physics, et al act as if no god exists assumes more knowledge you do not have. How exactly would a universe where god did exist differ from a universe where it did not? How would you tell the difference?

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

You are not using knowledge and reason. You are using pure belief which you have convinced yourself is the same thing. Which is entirely irrational.

Pure belief about what?

Based upon the completion and utter lack of evidence for any of the past and current human configurations of gawds, I conclude gawds don't exist. In the same way, I conclude the boogeyman doesn't exist. There's no requirement for belief.

It's a simple matter for you to provide evidence for your beliefs in supernatural / magical entities: provide some evidence for them.

Consistently, you cannot.

Your conclusion is based upon an "utter lack of evidence". You just said it yourself. Any conclusion based upon an utter lack of evidence is pure belief. It can't be anything else. You admit to ignorance but act as if it is knowledge.

It is no use asking me to supply you with evidence of my beliefs. I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief. The difference between us is that I am quite willing to admit it is a belief and don't claim it to be knowledge. But my inability to prove my belief does not prove your belief. You have as much obligation to prove your position as I do mine. And since neither of us can, both of us are operating on pure belief.

The other difference between us is that I fully concede you have as much chance of being right as I do. It doesn't bother me in the least. But don't claim your position is based upon knowledge and reason when it is, in fact, based upon belief and emotion. There is nothing wrong with belief and emotion, but you should be able to recognize it when you are using it and claim it to be something it is not.

A null hypothesis is a valid scientific principle. Look it up.

I understand what a null hypothesis is. Simply tossing out the phrase does not mean it applies. It is not a talisman.

 

[PratchettFan]

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

Not true. Scientists use null hypotheses all the time. They are vary useful in eliminating 'noise' and redirecting our attention to more useful information. As for your apollo analogy, that is a claim based on superstition and myth. As such, there is no reason at all to suppose that Apollo is anything other than supertition and myth, and can certainly be discounted as invalid. In other words, while there may not be direct physical evidence to discount the existence of apollo based on our understanding of the sun and the solar system, there certainly is plenty of evidence that the mythical accounts of apollo are made up and so, based on our understanding of mythology and supersitition itself, are not real.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomena. This is what you start with and is not a conclusion. The sentence you underlined referred to a position, which is pretty much the same thing as a conclusion. I doubt you are going to find many scientists who will agree that an untested hypothesis - one for which there is an utter lack of evidence - constitutes a valid conclusion.

I agree with you on Apollo, which was my point. Now please point to the evidence about god beginning by telling what it is. What is it that you claim isn't there.

I highly recommend that you read this article:

God s and the null hypothesis Secular Woman

Read it. I nice little justification for her beliefs, but there wasn't a single shred of evidence provided in support. A null hypothesis is useless without evidence. Otherwise, I could prove you were a red head simply because there was no evidence to claim you were blond.

She completes her article with the following: "And it seems to me if gods really did exist, providing evidence of their existence wouldn’t be so hard."

Really? How does she arrive at that conclusion? Precisely what evidence would she expect and why? Her entire position is based upon the assumption she knows the attributes of something she has absolutely no evidence for. This is pure belief.

 

[orogenicman]

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

 

[PratchettFan]

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

I declare there is no evidence to support either side based upon experience. I have asked you to present your evidence and you have consistently failed to do so. So it is pretty clear you have no evidence. All you have done is show there is no evidence to prove you wrong. But the very same claim can be made by Theists. Clutching onto your position despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis. I know accepting the fact there are things you don't know is scary, but you should give it a try.

 

[Hollie]

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

I declare there is no evidence to support either side based upon experience. I have asked you to present your evidence and you have consistently failed to do so. So it is pretty clear you have no evidence. All you have done is show there is no evidence to prove you wrong. But the very same claim can be made by Theists. Clutching onto your position despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis. I know accepting the fact there are things you don't know is scary, but you should give it a try.

Really dude, your silly and melodramatic "declarations" are truly pointless.

Try actually comprehending what you're "declaring" in such shrill, chest-heaving terms. You want evidence of something's non-existence.

Let's try that again, shall we? "Evidence of non-existence". I'm guessing your dogmatic religious views prevent you from any critical analysis of such "declarations" but don't expect others, taking an objective position, to accept such nonsense.

The absurdity of "declaring" that others are required to prove the non-existence of that which doesn't exist, that which has left no evidence of its existence, that which is defined as supernatural and thus excluded from rationality and reason and that which religionists define as beyond human perception is pointless and irrelevant, just as your silly "declarations".

So… let's look at this from another perspective.

I hereby and forthwith (note the use of silly melodrama), declare that when people like you say there is a supernatural entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

I declare there is no evidence to support either side based upon experience. I have asked you to present your evidence and you have consistently failed to do so. So it is pretty clear you have no evidence. All you have done is show there is no evidence to prove you wrong. But the very same claim can be made by Theists. Clutching onto your position despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis. I know accepting the fact there are things you don't know is scary, but you should give it a try.

Really dude, your silly and melodramatic "declarations" are truly pointless.

Try actually comprehending what you're "declaring" in such shrill, chest-heaving terms. You want evidence of something's non-existence.

Let's try that again, shall we? "Evidence of non-existence". I'm guessing your dogmatic religious views prevent you from any critical analysis of such "declarations" but don't expect others, taking an objective position, to accept such nonsense.

The absurdity of "declaring" that others are required to prove the non-existence of that which doesn't exist, that which has left no evidence of its existence, that which is defined as supernatural and thus excluded from rationality and reason and that which religionists define as beyond human perception is pointless and irrelevant, just as your silly "declarations".

So… let's look at this from another perspective.

I hereby and forthwith (note the use of silly melodrama), declare that when people like you say there is a supernatural entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

Sometimes I have to wonder if there is any point at all. You don't need me, you just make up what I say in your own head and respond to that.

I have never, not once, said there is a supernatural entity. Not even close. The only thing I have said is that I have beliefs for which I have no evidence. No one, including you, even asked what they were. You just applied your own beliefs to that statement and went on your merry way.

You are the one making the claim and are upset for me even suggesting that you are to be held to the same standards you hold others. Sorry, dude. You don't get a free ride. If you can't support a claim, you don't get to say that your inability to support it means you must be right. If you can't support the claim, don't make the claim. Don't blame me because I'm unwilling to accept your utterly unsupported claim on faith alone.

 

[Hollie]

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

It's a double whammy: the hyper-religious sufferIng a neurosis.

 

[Hollie]

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

I declare there is no evidence to support either side based upon experience. I have asked you to present your evidence and you have consistently failed to do so. So it is pretty clear you have no evidence. All you have done is show there is no evidence to prove you wrong. But the very same claim can be made by Theists. Clutching onto your position despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis. I know accepting the fact there are things you don't know is scary, but you should give it a try.

Really dude, your silly and melodramatic "declarations" are truly pointless.

Try actually comprehending what you're "declaring" in such shrill, chest-heaving terms. You want evidence of something's non-existence.

Let's try that again, shall we? "Evidence of non-existence". I'm guessing your dogmatic religious views prevent you from any critical analysis of such "declarations" but don't expect others, taking an objective position, to accept such nonsense.

The absurdity of "declaring" that others are required to prove the non-existence of that which doesn't exist, that which has left no evidence of its existence, that which is defined as supernatural and thus excluded from rationality and reason and that which religionists define as beyond human perception is pointless and irrelevant, just as your silly "declarations".

So… let's look at this from another perspective.

I hereby and forthwith (note the use of silly melodrama), declare that when people like you say there is a supernatural entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

Sometimes I have to wonder if there is any point at all. You don't need me, you just make up what I say in your own head and respond to that.

I have never, not once, said there is a supernatural entity. Not even close. The only thing I have said is that I have beliefs for which I have no evidence. No one, including you, even asked what they were. You just applied your own beliefs to that statement and went on your merry way.

You are the one making the claim and are upset for me even suggesting that you are to be held to the same standards you hold others. Sorry, dude. You don't get a free ride. If you can't support a claim, you don't get to say that your inability to support it means you must be right. If you can't support the claim, don't make the claim. Don't blame me because I'm unwilling to accept your utterly unsupported claim on faith alone.

What is it that your gawds are if not supernatural entities?

I knew you would stutter and mumble instead of attempting to actually address my comments.

And yes, I have the disproof of your alleged supernatural entities, the ones which have left no evidence of their existence which prompts your "declarations" that they then are unavailable for disproof.

I thus declare: Disprove my disproof.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

 

[Hollie]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

Atheism does not allege a system of morality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Morality isn't dependent upon religion in the first place.

 

[Hollie]

Morality isn't dependent upon religion in the first place.

Religious folks will disagree.

I'm sure you've read / heard the canard from religionists: "how does an atheist derive a moral code without... (fill in the name of the religion espoused by the religionist)"

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Morality isn't dependent upon religion in the first place.

Religious folks will disagree.

I'm sure you've read / heard the canard from religionists: "how does an atheist derive a moral code without... (fill in the name of the religion espoused by the religionist)"

Because I agree religion and religious beliefs are a symptom of mental illness, what crazy people think doesn't really matter to me.

 

[sealybobo]

I am very confident that the ancient Greek gods and Egyptian gods that were invented before the modern religions don't exist.

Of course you are right but that in itself does not mean that the stories are not based on actual events of a time when gods walked the earth, if you understand that during the times in which these stories were written it was the belief that human beings could be gods.

It is also important to note that ancient people were fond of riddles and brain teasers that only the intelligent could solve through rational thought.

Nope. They may have been inspired by great men and beautiful women but they were not gods. You'd have to suspend reality to believe that. Do you believe in ghosts and angels? Of course. You're only human

 

[sealybobo]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

Its the people who claim they know that piss me off. You're right. Although Im considered a militant atheist I don't actually claim to know for certain if something created us. For all I know were in a fishbowl in a babys room right now. Our entire universe.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

Its the people who claim they know that piss me off. You're right. Although Im considered a militant atheist I don't actually claim to know for certain if something created us. For all I know were in a fishbowl in a babys room right now. Our entire universe.

Cutting-edge cosmology suggest our universe is just one of many not unlike how galaxies exist in such abundance. Seems everything in a region of the universe is moving in a uniform direction it shouldn't be as though something is exerting gravitational pull pulling it that way. Since this is going on on the very edge of the known universe the suggestion is another universe 'on the other side' is pulling it that way. Makes sense. Nothing in the universe is unique. Many planets, stars, galaxies, why not the universe itself?

 

[sealybobo]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

Its the people who claim they know that piss me off. You're right. Although Im considered a militant atheist I don't actually claim to know for certain if something created us. For all I know were in a fishbowl in a babys room right now. Our entire universe.

Cutting-edge cosmology suggest our universe is just one of many not unlike how galaxies exist in such abundance. Seems everything in a region of the universe is moving in a uniform direction it shouldn't be as though something is exerting gravitational pull pulling it that way. Since this is going on on the very edge of the known universe the suggestion is another universe 'on the other side' is pulling it that way. Makes sense. Nothing in the universe is unique. Many planets, stars, galaxies, why not the universe itself?

And that edge or horizon you see is only an allusion. That's just as far as we can see.

So we know, based on science, that there is no way a god would create all that for just us. We use to think we were all there was and our solar system was all there was before the telescope. Some people theorized the stars were just other suns far away but that was considered heresy and ignorant back then. Clearly the earth was in a fixed position and everything was revolving around us FOR us.

Think of a room that has been cleaned. If you want to keep it clean, you put vacuums on each of the windows blowing out and seal them tight. Any dust in that room will eventually get sucked into one of those vacuums. The vacuums represent black holes. We live in a universe that has dust and black holes. The stars will all eventually blow up. All that debris eventually comes together and either big bangs or goes into black holes where it spits out into another universe.

Listen to me talking like I know what I'm talking about. I'm just speculating/contemplating.

Do you know what will someday explain it? Math. Not religion.

 

[sealybobo]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

Was with ya up until "atheism is the only moral position." Oncer you give your disbelief a name like atheism you loose any right to claims of being superior. You're now a religion yourself. Atheism's no more correct any given religion. God could well exist but earthly religions are all wrong about him. But then atheism's wrong too despite basing its' belief (disbelief) on religions which were simply wrong. Could be another civilization somewhere else in the galaxy has the right idea about "God" and what that being was or is. Consequently, asserting the belief(disblief) in the existence of God is highly dependent on reliigons you actually know of. In other words, it's highly subjective. Unless you can have perfect knowledge of everything and everyone in the universe you can't say with any certainty there's nothing or no one anywhere we'd call a god.

This is why I don't describe myself as atheist so much as areligious. I don't not believe in gods so much as the gods mentioned in various religions. But I don't claim to know there's no chance of some older civilization somewhere doing their thing even now where "God" is a mortal race of ancient beings and only those primitive species like us say they're immortal and all-powerful but an alien society knows they're perfectly mortal, finite, and limited but powerful nonetheless.

Atheism does not allege a system of morality.

Right. Most us understand that it is societies that set up that system of morality. The US constitution is a great example of a secular society. No need for gods. If you sin we punish you here and now.

What about the atheist who's terminally I'll? What stops him or her from raping or murdering before we go? Is it possible we don't do those things just in case there is a god?

That god I could believe in. One that cares about your heart not whether or not you believe an unbelievable ancient story. Maybe I'd still believe in god if that's the story I was told. Instead christians Muslims Jews and Mormon stuck with their ancient fables which today just can't be taken seriously.

I can't believe the age of enlightenment is still going on. Does anyone still believe the earth is flat? Does anyone still believe in Zeus? Many ppl did 2000 yes ago before they heard about Jesus. Becoming Jewish was too difficult but becoming a christian just requires a dunk. And Zeus didn't invite a lot of humans but Jesus was all inclusive. Very appealing.