Science proves atheists do not exist

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who embraces the concept that god (God) cannot exist, has either a massive ego, a profound genetic stupidity, or a fear of such enormous proportion that it cripples any possible sense of being out of control of destiny.

What is there to have faith in, other than a power far beyond that which we can perceive in our little myopic bubble of existence?

Dunno if 'militant' atheists go so far as to claim God cannot exist since that'd require knowledge of the entire universe making the speaker themself God and rendering the statement redundant. Think instead we simply leave it at 'we don't believe in gods as religions define them.'

I believe in life in the universe. I'm pretty much convinced I exist, and you exist. I'm as convinced others exist in the rather large cosmos as in aliens equal to, or greater than us insofar as technological development and spiritual thought. So I'm sure somewhere there's a species of beings who if we encountered them would be as gods to us. Way we ourselves are going with technology-integration into the human body (google glass projected far foward wont be an add-on prosthesis for people, but something built right into our eyes/bodies) it's reasonable that a more advanced species will have incorporated technology into their own bodies and thus be able to do things which to us seem godlike.

That is not what Dawkins says, perhaps you should learn that you are not capable of speaking for everyone on the planet before you try to offer an argument where you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who embraces the concept that god (God) cannot exist, has either a massive ego, a profound genetic stupidity, or a fear of such enormous proportion that it cripples any possible sense of being out of control of destiny.

What is there to have faith in, other than a power far beyond that which we can perceive in our little myopic bubble of existence?

Dunno if 'militant' atheists go so far as to claim God cannot exist since that'd require knowledge of the entire universe making the speaker themself God and rendering the statement redundant. Think instead we simply leave it at 'we don't believe in gods as religions define them.'

Exactly. And so isn't Penny the perfect example of why you can't even talk to theists? No matter what you say to them, all they hear is what their preacher or parents have drilled into their heads. They've been programmed to think anyone talking against god is SATAN.

And by Penny's comment either she is purposely twisting what we are saying so she is a liar or she is only hearing what she wants to hear and so she's impossible to even communicate with. This is the problem with religion. Penny, you being an idiot is why I hate religion. It makes people YOU dumber than you should be.

All that proves is you are stupid enough to only talk to idiots. and then conclude that the fact that you only talk to idiots proves you are smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If it did, I would have used this study to bash you over the head instead of mocking its conclusions, despite the fact that I believe in the existence of God.

 

[sealybobo]

Dunno if 'militant' atheists go so far as to claim God cannot exist since that'd require knowledge of the entire universe making the speaker themself God and rendering the statement redundant. Think instead we simply leave it at 'we don't believe in gods as religions define them.'

Exactly. And so isn't Penny the perfect example of why you can't even talk to theists? No matter what you say to them, all they hear is what their preacher or parents have drilled into their heads. They've been programmed to think anyone talking against god is SATAN.

And by Penny's comment either she is purposely twisting what we are saying so she is a liar or she is only hearing what she wants to hear and so she's impossible to even communicate with. This is the problem with religion. Penny, you being an idiot is why I hate religion. It makes people YOU dumber than you should be.

All that proves is you are stupid enough to only talk to idiots. and then conclude that the fact that you only talk to idiots proves you are smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If it did, I would have used this study to bash you over the head instead of mocking its conclusions, despite the fact that I believe in the existence of God.

What grinds your gears Peter Griffin?

 

[sealybobo]

Dunno if 'militant' atheists go so far as to claim God cannot exist since that'd require knowledge of the entire universe making the speaker themself God and rendering the statement redundant. Think instead we simply leave it at 'we don't believe in gods as religions define them.'

Exactly. And so isn't Penny the perfect example of why you can't even talk to theists? No matter what you say to them, all they hear is what their preacher or parents have drilled into their heads. They've been programmed to think anyone talking against god is SATAN.

And by Penny's comment either she is purposely twisting what we are saying so she is a liar or she is only hearing what she wants to hear and so she's impossible to even communicate with. This is the problem with religion. Penny, you being an idiot is why I hate religion. It makes people YOU dumber than you should be.

All that proves is you are stupid enough to only talk to idiots. and then conclude that the fact that you only talk to idiots proves you are smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If it did, I would have used this study to bash you over the head instead of mocking its conclusions, despite the fact that I believe in the existence of God.

All I understood from your post is that you apparently believe in god(s). Which god? Has he ever come to earth? Are you talking the christian god, muslim or jew or do you have a completely other understand completely your own? I need to know what level of crazy you are before I can engage you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly. And so isn't Penny the perfect example of why you can't even talk to theists? No matter what you say to them, all they hear is what their preacher or parents have drilled into their heads. They've been programmed to think anyone talking against god is SATAN.

And by Penny's comment either she is purposely twisting what we are saying so she is a liar or she is only hearing what she wants to hear and so she's impossible to even communicate with. This is the problem with religion. Penny, you being an idiot is why I hate religion. It makes people YOU dumber than you should be.

All that proves is you are stupid enough to only talk to idiots. and then conclude that the fact that you only talk to idiots proves you are smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If it did, I would have used this study to bash you over the head instead of mocking its conclusions, despite the fact that I believe in the existence of God.

What grinds your gears Peter Griffin?

My gears grind idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly. And so isn't Penny the perfect example of why you can't even talk to theists? No matter what you say to them, all they hear is what their preacher or parents have drilled into their heads. They've been programmed to think anyone talking against god is SATAN.

And by Penny's comment either she is purposely twisting what we are saying so she is a liar or she is only hearing what she wants to hear and so she's impossible to even communicate with. This is the problem with religion. Penny, you being an idiot is why I hate religion. It makes people YOU dumber than you should be.

All that proves is you are stupid enough to only talk to idiots. and then conclude that the fact that you only talk to idiots proves you are smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If it did, I would have used this study to bash you over the head instead of mocking its conclusions, despite the fact that I believe in the existence of God.

All I understood from your post is that you apparently believe in god(s). Which god? Has he ever come to earth? Are you talking the christian god, muslim or jew or do you have a completely other understand completely your own? I need to know what level of crazy you are before I can engage you.

All i understand form you r post is that you think you are smarter than I am, which is why you posted stupid deflection in an attempt to make yourself look intelligent.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Faith is not the same thing as belief in God, or religion.

Everyone has faith in something. That doesn't mean they believe in God, though.

Lol, what definition of 'God' are you using?

The term is so ambiguous now in popular culture; you could mean anything from a comic book character, to the Biblical eternal Creator.

There are many concepts of God that I do not believe in, far more than the ones I do believe in. So am I statistically an atheist because I disbelieve more versions of God than I believe in?

Atheism is bullshit, just an elaborate way of denying responsibility for treating other people like trash whether it is at the office, the massage parlor or a drug den.

 

[G.T.]

However if 100% of people actually believe, this construct does not speak to the truth or falsity of God's existence and so it doesn't advance the search for the Universe's origins.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anyone who embraces the concept that god (God) cannot exist, has either a massive ego, a profound genetic stupidity, or a fear of such enormous proportion that it cripples any possible sense of being out of control of destiny.

What is there to have faith in, other than a power far beyond that which we can perceive in our little myopic bubble of existence?

Dunno if 'militant' atheists go so far as to claim God cannot exist since that'd require knowledge of the entire universe making the speaker themself God and rendering the statement redundant. Think instead we simply leave it at 'we don't believe in gods as religions define them.'

I believe in life in the universe. I'm pretty much convinced I exist, and you exist. I'm as convinced others exist in the rather large cosmos as in aliens equal to, or greater than us insofar as technological development and spiritual thought. So I'm sure somewhere there's a species of beings who if we encountered them would be as gods to us. Way we ourselves are going with technology-integration into the human body (google glass projected far foward wont be an add-on prosthesis for people, but something built right into our eyes/bodies) it's reasonable that a more advanced species will have incorporated technology into their own bodies and thus be able to do things which to us seem godlike.

That is not what Dawkins says, perhaps you should learn that you are not capable of speaking for everyone on the planet before you try to offer an argument where you do.

Dawkins is the Taliban version of militant atheism. He sees no limits to what knowledge science can test, a very stupid and egotistical thing to assert as most day-to-day knowledge lies outside of the testable range of science.

Dawkins believes that the lack of evidence for God's existence irrefutably proves God does not exist, and so he ignores the old maxim that 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence.'
The God Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, Dawkins is a deluded fool, liar and fraud.

I.E. a typical leftist demagogue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

However if 100% of people actually believe, this construct does not speak to the truth or falsity of God's existence and so it doesn't advance the search for the Universe's origins.

How does the Truth of falsity of God have anything to do with the scientific search for the universes origins?

The origin of the universe is a question of 'How did the universe begin?'

God existing is a question of 'Who did it?' and considerably separate.

 

[G.T.]

However if 100% of people actually believe, this construct does not speak to the truth or falsity of God's existence and so it doesn't advance the search for the Universe's origins.

How does the Truth of falsity of God have anything to do with the scientific search for the universes origins?

The origin of the universe is a question of 'How did the universe begin?'

God existing is a question of 'Who did it?' and considerably separate.

"Origins" is a more all encompassing term then "mechanism."

"Origins" deals with who, what, where and when and so God is for certain a part of that conversation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

However if 100% of people actually believe, this construct does not speak to the truth or falsity of God's existence and so it doesn't advance the search for the Universe's origins.

How does the Truth of falsity of God have anything to do with the scientific search for the universes origins?

The origin of the universe is a question of 'How did the universe begin?'

God existing is a question of 'Who did it?' and considerably separate.

"Origins" is a more all encompassing term then "mechanism."

"Origins" deals with who, what, where and when and so God is for certain a part of that conversation.

So then how does a universal evolved innate belief in God not suggest its veracity?

What other belief would be so universal?

Why would this be so universal if there is no God?

 

[G.T.]

How does the Truth of falsity of God have anything to do with the scientific search for the universes origins?

The origin of the universe is a question of 'How did the universe begin?'

God existing is a question of 'Who did it?' and considerably separate.

"Origins" is a more all encompassing term then "mechanism."

"Origins" deals with who, what, where and when and so God is for certain a part of that conversation.

So then how does a universal evolved innate belief in God not suggest its veracity?

What other belief would be so universal?

Why would this be so universal if there is no God?

I think the question is kind of asinine. Belief doesn't presuppose truth. If it did, there would be no question or search for the truth.

If all children believe in santa, it doesn't mean that he exists.

There are many explanations:

When we were primitive and evolving, we rationalized our death because the fear was so immense, more-so immense then another creature's experience because of the level of sentience we've achieved.


But - it's not even established that everyone believes - in the first place. It's a hypothetical at this point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Origins" is a more all encompassing term then "mechanism."

"Origins" deals with who, what, where and when and so God is for certain a part of that conversation.

So then how does a universal evolved innate belief in God not suggest its veracity?

What other belief would be so universal?

Why would this be so universal if there is no God?

I think the question is kind of asinine. Belief doesn't presuppose truth. If it did, there would be no question or search for the truth.

If all children believe in santa, it doesn't mean that he exists.

You are not grasping my question or else its significance. IT is the UNIVERSALITY that is significant, not that it is belief itself. And not all children believe in our version of Santa, thank God. Santa is an actual saint and gift giving was just a way of honoring his memory, but of course in the USA we had to commercialize it and coat it with candied bullshit.

There are many explanations:

When we were primitive and evolving, we rationalized our death because the fear was so immense, more-so immense then another creature's experience because of the level of sentience we've achieved.

How does making an irrational belief that is essentially putting reality out of focus if untrue, how does that give an evolutionary advantage?

But - it's not even established that everyone believes - in the first place. It's a hypothetical at this point.

I don't agree with the scientists conjecture as to why its true, but it reinforces an impression I have had for years; most atheists claim atheism for reasons other than having made a calm reasoned decision after investigating the facts. They think they get something out of it.

 

[G.T.]

So then how does a universal evolved innate belief in God not suggest its veracity?

What other belief would be so universal?

Why would this be so universal if there is no God?

I think the question is kind of asinine. Belief doesn't presuppose truth. If it did, there would be no question or search for the truth.

If all children believe in santa, it doesn't mean that he exists.

You are not grasping my question or else its significance. IT is the UNIVERSALITY that is significant, not that it is belief itself. And not all children believe in our version of Santa, thank God. Santa is an actual saint and gift giving was just a way of honoring his memory, but of course in the USA we had to commercialize it and coat it with candied bullshit.

There are many explanations:

When we were primitive and evolving, we rationalized our death because the fear was so immense, more-so immense then another creature's experience because of the level of sentience we've achieved.

How does making an irrational belief that is essentially putting reality out of focus if untrue, how does that give an evolutionary advantage?

But - it's not even established that everyone believes - in the first place. It's a hypothetical at this point.

I don't agree with the scientists conjecture as to why its true, but it reinforces an impression I have had for years; most atheists claim atheism for reasons other than having made a calm reasoned decision after investigating the facts. They think they get something out of it.

A universal belief still doesn't make that which is believed in true or false.

That doesn't rationally or logically follow.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the question is kind of asinine. Belief doesn't presuppose truth. If it did, there would be no question or search for the truth.

If all children believe in santa, it doesn't mean that he exists.

You are not grasping my question or else its significance. IT is the UNIVERSALITY that is significant, not that it is belief itself. And not all children believe in our version of Santa, thank God. Santa is an actual saint and gift giving was just a way of honoring his memory, but of course in the USA we had to commercialize it and coat it with candied bullshit.

How does making an irrational belief that is essentially putting reality out of focus if untrue, how does that give an evolutionary advantage?

But - it's not even established that everyone believes - in the first place. It's a hypothetical at this point.

I don't agree with the scientists conjecture as to why its true, but it reinforces an impression I have had for years; most atheists claim atheism for reasons other than having made a calm reasoned decision after investigating the facts. They think they get something out of it.

A universal belief still doesn't make that which is believed in true or false.

That doesn't rationally or logically follow.

That is irrelevant. Not all truths have to be logically established or proven by science in order to be accepted as valid.

For example, who is favored in a sporting match is based on which team the most money is placed on which teams so that book can be made. Determining the most likely team to win by this method has a very long and successful track record. There is nothing logical about that.

The 'truth' of love and emotion, of the value of honesty or generosity all universal truths and all run against logic and yet they make our lives so much better if we follow these virtues and practice them.

Yes, logic is great where applicable, but some things are axiomatic and simply cannot be demonstrated logically and yet are still as true as the laws of physics.

Intuitive belief in God is like that and the universality of certain beliefs being internally valid via winning the competition of ideas is also.

 

[G.T.]

You are not grasping my question or else its significance. IT is the UNIVERSALITY that is significant, not that it is belief itself. And not all children believe in our version of Santa, thank God. Santa is an actual saint and gift giving was just a way of honoring his memory, but of course in the USA we had to commercialize it and coat it with candied bullshit.

How does making an irrational belief that is essentially putting reality out of focus if untrue, how does that give an evolutionary advantage?




I don't agree with the scientists conjecture as to why its true, but it reinforces an impression I have had for years; most atheists claim atheism for reasons other than having made a calm reasoned decision after investigating the facts. They think they get something out of it.

A universal belief still doesn't make that which is believed in true or false.

That doesn't rationally or logically follow.

That is irrelevant. Not all truths have to be logically established or proven by science in order to be accepted as valid.

For example, who is favored in a sporting match is based on which team the most money is placed on which teams so that book can be made. Determining the most likely team to win by this method has a very long and successful track record. There is nothing logical about that.

The 'truth' of love and emotion, of the value of honesty or generosity all universal truths and all run against logic and yet they make our lives so much better if we follow these virtues and practice them.

Yes, logic is great where applicable, but some things are axiomatic and simply cannot be demonstrated logically and yet are still as true as the laws of physics.

Intuitive belief in God is like that and the universality of certain beliefs being internally valid via winning the competition of ideas is also.

You haven't demonstrated how universal belief equals truth.

We can close our eyes and universally believe in god as hard or as long as we want to. It has no bearing on if he/she/it exists or not. None. zilch. nadda.

Only that it CAN equal truth, such as in successful sports betting.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A universal belief still doesn't make that which is believed in true or false.

That doesn't rationally or logically follow.

That is irrelevant. Not all truths have to be logically established or proven by science in order to be accepted as valid.

For example, who is favored in a sporting match is based on which team the most money is placed on which teams so that book can be made. Determining the most likely team to win by this method has a very long and successful track record. There is nothing logical about that.

The 'truth' of love and emotion, of the value of honesty or generosity all universal truths and all run against logic and yet they make our lives so much better if we follow these virtues and practice them.

Yes, logic is great where applicable, but some things are axiomatic and simply cannot be demonstrated logically and yet are still as true as the laws of physics.

Intuitive belief in God is like that and the universality of certain beliefs being internally valid via winning the competition of ideas is also.

You haven't demonstrated how universal belief equals truth.

We can close our eyes and universally believe in god as hard or as long as we want to. It has no bearing on if he/she/it exists or not. None. zilch. nadda.

Only that it CAN equal truth, such as in successful sports betting.

No, obviously it CAN equal Truth, but universality or winning the competition of ideas is one of the BEST indicators of truth we have.

 

[G.T.]

That is irrelevant. Not all truths have to be logically established or proven by science in order to be accepted as valid.

For example, who is favored in a sporting match is based on which team the most money is placed on which teams so that book can be made. Determining the most likely team to win by this method has a very long and successful track record. There is nothing logical about that.

The 'truth' of love and emotion, of the value of honesty or generosity all universal truths and all run against logic and yet they make our lives so much better if we follow these virtues and practice them.

Yes, logic is great where applicable, but some things are axiomatic and simply cannot be demonstrated logically and yet are still as true as the laws of physics.

Intuitive belief in God is like that and the universality of certain beliefs being internally valid via winning the competition of ideas is also.

You haven't demonstrated how universal belief equals truth.

We can close our eyes and universally believe in god as hard or as long as we want to. It has no bearing on if he/she/it exists or not. None. zilch. nadda.

Only that it CAN equal truth, such as in successful sports betting.

No, obviously it CAN equal Truth, but universality or winning the competition of ideas is one of the BEST indicators of truth we have.

The best indicator of truth that we have is repeatable experimentation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

However if 100% of people actually believe, this construct does not speak to the truth or falsity of God's existence and so it doesn't advance the search for the Universe's origins.

So true.