If there is a God...

[Taz]

Because god can’t make humans who can make a proper fridge? Amirite or AMIRITE?

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

I leave that up to each person to decide for themselves.

We’ve all decided that you have nothing.

 

[Montrovant]

What is your point, then? It seemed to be that arguments would not happen about things that do not exist.

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

 

[ding]

What is your point, then? It seemed to be that arguments would not happen about things that do not exist.

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Can you think of a more over the top claim than to say god gave you ten commandments

It all depends how you want to see it, right?

If you want to see it like a child and make a child's argument then that is one thing.

But if you want to see it for how it really is, then recognize that each and everyone of those laws is a moral law of nature that naturally promotes harmony and order in a society. Man can't make those laws. Those laws exist in nature. Those laws transcend men.

Not to mention that at the time those laws were handed down it was a standard which was leaps and bounds above their contemporaries of that day and still challenge us today.

 

[sealybobo]

What is your point, then? It seemed to be that arguments would not happen about things that do not exist.

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

Consider thru human history we weren’t allowed to speak our views. Even when we are free to speak you try to use guilt to get us to stop exposing the truth about organized religion

I love when theists say why do you hate or attack god. It’s like they can’t see there’s nothing to attack.

If you can get people to believe this ridiculousness then it’s easy to convince people that global warming doesn’t exist, the tax system isn’t rigged, the republicans have used religion to sucker votes.

It wasn’t until religion got political that I became a militant anti theist.

No offense god. You don’t even exist

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, there are rules to the universe. Cause and effect usually seems to hold sway, although again, when you get into things like quantum mechanics, they may not always hold true.

So then everything happens for a purpose, right?

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists or happens.

No. Purpose implies thought. It implies intelligence. Cause/effect is not the same as purpose. There being rules to the universe is not the same as purpose.

Further, as I have stated, I do not know if the universe is entirely deterministic, or if everything in the universe is bound by the same rules. I gave quantum mechanics as an example of where things might not be deterministic. My understanding of the subject is limited.

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

 

[ding]

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

It goes back to Meriweather's point.

If atheists really believed God didn't exist they wouldn't be arguing like they do about it. It isn't enough for them not to believe in God, they want everyone not to believe in God.

 

[ding]

So then everything happens for a purpose, right?

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists or happens.

No. Purpose implies thought. It implies intelligence. Cause/effect is not the same as purpose. There being rules to the universe is not the same as purpose.

Further, as I have stated, I do not know if the universe is entirely deterministic, or if everything in the universe is bound by the same rules. I gave quantum mechanics as an example of where things might not be deterministic. My understanding of the subject is limited.

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

 

[sealybobo]

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

I leave that up to each person to decide for themselves.

We’ve all decided that you have nothing.

He’s a formidable foe arguing for a generic god. No ones convincing me Jesus was anything more than a man. As far as that goes consider me Jewish

 

[ding]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is your point, then? It seemed to be that arguments would not happen about things that do not exist.

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

There is no ‘disrespect’ in acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, it’s simply acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

And it isn’t ‘opposition’ to a belief in an omnipotent deity, it’s an opposition to the consequence of such belief: the arrogance, the ignorance, the hate, bigotry, and racism that manifest among far too many theists.

We see examples of that hate and bigotry in America daily, as theists seek to violate the rights and protected liberties of gay and transgender Americans, and discriminate against gay and transgender Americans in places of business.

Of course most theists do not harbor such bigotry and hate, and many speak out against it; indeed, the majority of gay and transgender Americans are persons of faith, illustrating the confused inconsistency of religious dogma, and the fact that religion and ‘god’ are indeed creations of man.

 

[Meriweather]

Sell a lot, make my dog happy, get a date for tomorrow and rid the world of a lie I feel holds us all back

How does knowing that life existed on Mars or any other scientific breakthrough change anything about the purpose of your life today? The truth: God is. Devoting oneself to what one believes is a lie seems a little counterproductive.

 

[Montrovant]

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

It goes back to Meriweather's point.

If atheists really believed God didn't exist they wouldn't be arguing like they do about it. It isn't enough for them not to believe in God, they want everyone not to believe in God.

And I disagree completely with that point. If they really believed a god existed, why would they argue one does not? Why would someone not argue about something they do not believe exists? If an adult were to honestly try to claim that Santa Claus exists, I would certainly argue the point. If an adult were to claim that dragons exist, I would argue the point.

Plenty of people have argued that speciation, or macro-evolution, does not exist, to bring up the evolution example. There are long, drawn out arguments about that very subject I've been involved in on this site.

I agree that many atheists probably want everyone to not believe in god. So what? People generally do want others to think the same way they do in an argument.

 

[ding]

We only wish we were intelligent enough to engineer a fluid that would be capable of flowing and coagulating on demand when it's line ruptured and was smart enough to figure out to do it on it's own without having to stop flow.

 

[Indeependent]

We are responding to your sarcasm which allows us to know you didn’t start this thread to accept anything but what you want to hear.
Now, Mr. Science, why do so many refrigerators get such bad reviews after only 6 months of use in the real world?

Because god can’t make humans who can make a proper fridge? Amirite or AMIRITE?

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

 

[Montrovant]

No. Purpose implies thought. It implies intelligence. Cause/effect is not the same as purpose. There being rules to the universe is not the same as purpose.

Further, as I have stated, I do not know if the universe is entirely deterministic, or if everything in the universe is bound by the same rules. I gave quantum mechanics as an example of where things might not be deterministic. My understanding of the subject is limited.

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

 

[sealybobo]

So then everything happens for a purpose, right?

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists or happens.

No. Purpose implies thought. It implies intelligence. Cause/effect is not the same as purpose. There being rules to the universe is not the same as purpose.

Further, as I have stated, I do not know if the universe is entirely deterministic, or if everything in the universe is bound by the same rules. I gave quantum mechanics as an example of where things might not be deterministic. My understanding of the subject is limited.

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

On one planet beings may have to eat each other to survive. During hard winters you kill an elder. Evolution caused it or a meteor. Would the laws of earth say they are sinners?

So the laws on one planet might be different. They may bang their sisters or telling the truth gets you killed. It might make sense to work on sundays because they have Ten day weeks. Parents might kill their kids so you don’t honor your parents

 

[Indeependent]

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

 

[sealybobo]

Because god can’t make humans who can make a proper fridge? Amirite or AMIRITE?

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

He said your god. The god you speak of he’s atheist about but a God? He’s agnostic because it’s unknowable

This is why I’m an agnostic atheist on the spectrum.

No ones 100% either way on the spectrum. So you are an agnostic theist because like us you don’t know either. It’s why you need to have strong faith to believe any holy book

 

[Indeependent]

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

He said your god. The god you speak of he’s atheist about but a God? He’s agnostic because it’s unknowable

This is why I’m an agnostic atheist on the spectrum.

No ones 100% either way on the spectrum. So you are an agnostic theist because like us you don’t know either. It’s why you need to have strong faith to believe any holy book

You are not agnostic; you and Taz are both confirmed atheists.
At least have the balls to admit it.
I have no issues with atheists who respect the people they are dealing with.

 

[sealybobo]

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.