Why can't people just be honest about religion?

[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?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

Zombie movies? LOL... lighten up. Are you really that clueless?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had the intelligence to make the connection between biblical metaphors and analogies with the exact same type of characters you seem to be at eternal enmity with while insisting that there is no such thing as talking serpents or talking donkeys. You are as blind as the people that you deride for their blindness.

They argue to prove true what the bible is not about and you argue to prove false what the bible is not about. How stupid is that?

Did you never stop to consider that whoever wrote the stories never intended them to be taken literally by intelligent people?

You might as well be arguing with mannequins that the story of the three little pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses.
.
My advice to you is to take your head out of your ass and smoke a friggin joint or something....


Caphiche? LOL....

I agree that the Bible should NOT be taken literally. I also must point out that you really should stop taking zombie movies literally, and to also put the joint down and sober up, because, damn.

 

[hobelim]

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?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

Zombie movies? LOL... lighten up. Are you really that clueless?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had the intelligence to make the connection between biblical metaphors and analogies with the exact same type of characters you seem to be at eternal enmity with while insisting that there is no such thing as talking serpents or talking donkeys. You are as blind as the people that you deride for their blindness.

They argue to prove true what the bible is not about and you argue to prove false what the bible is not about. How stupid is that?

Did you never stop to consider that whoever wrote the stories never intended them to be taken literally by intelligent people?

You might as well be arguing with mannequins that the story of the three little pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses.
.
My advice to you is to take your head out of your ass and smoke a friggin joint or something....


Caphiche? LOL....

I agree that the Bible should NOT be taken literally. I also must point out that you really should stop taking zombie movies literally, and to also put the joint down and sober up, because, damn.

Who the fuck said anything about zombie movies? WTF? Are you drunk? How many hours have you wasted trying to reason with people who for all intents and purposes are completely brain dead and devoid of intelligent life? These types of people are the dead that Jesus restored to life, the mentally ill that Jesus restored to a right mind the blind that Jesus gave sight to and the paralyzed that Jesus healed and then stood up and walked.

If there is nothing supernatural involved, why can't you restore them to sanity?

Perhaps you should stop trying to prove false what the bible is not about and start trying to figure out what it is about. Try to remember that authors sometimes use analogies, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole etc., when writing stories intended as instruction for children..

I read it in a friggin book when I was in the second grade ....... professor.

 

[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?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

Zombie movies? LOL... lighten up. Are you really that clueless?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had the intelligence to make the connection between biblical metaphors and analogies with the exact same type of characters you seem to be at eternal enmity with while insisting that there is no such thing as talking serpents or talking donkeys. You are as blind as the people that you deride for their blindness.

They argue to prove true what the bible is not about and you argue to prove false what the bible is not about. How stupid is that?

Did you never stop to consider that whoever wrote the stories never intended them to be taken literally by intelligent people?

You might as well be arguing with mannequins that the story of the three little pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses.
.
My advice to you is to take your head out of your ass and smoke a friggin joint or something....


Caphiche? LOL....

I agree that the Bible should NOT be taken literally. I also must point out that you really should stop taking zombie movies literally, and to also put the joint down and sober up, because, damn.

Who the fuck said anything about zombie movies? WTF?

Erm, so you are denying posting this?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive?

Zombies.

 

[I.P.Freely]

all religions are a right load of old bollocks.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

I do understand probability. I use it all the time in my work and I wouldn't last long making predictions if I did it without any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support any argument for the existence or non-existence of god. To say the odds are in favor of non-existence is merely wishful thinking.

No need to take anything personal. I think what I said was absolutely accurate and you can replace the word "I" for "you" in that as well. I have no idea what it is. But do prove me wrong. Tell me what God is.

You tell me I am ignorant and have no idea what I am talking about (and you say this despite the fact that you don't know me much less know what I do and do not know) and then tell me that it is nothing personal. You should try that joke in Vegas. I'm sure it will get a lot of laughs. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that god exists. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible and just about every other religion does not exist. One large bit of evidence is that every religion uses the god of the gaps argument (none more so than Christianity), the argument being that god can be found in the gaps of our knowledge. (i.e., We don't know what causes the rainbow, that must be a gift from god, or god is punishing us for our sins by striking us with that tsunami). The problem with that argument is that science keeps filling in those gaps with sound scientific explanations and principles that don't require the existence of god. And so when we look at the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, geology, and biology, we see a universe that acts exactly as if no god exists because all these laws and principles tell us that the supernatural is not needed to explain anything. In fact, "god did it" doesn't explain anything at all.

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

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.

 

[Hollie]

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

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.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

 

[Meriweather]

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

Zombie movies? LOL... lighten up. Are you really that clueless?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had the intelligence to make the connection between biblical metaphors and analogies with the exact same type of characters you seem to be at eternal enmity with while insisting that there is no such thing as talking serpents or talking donkeys. You are as blind as the people that you deride for their blindness.

They argue to prove true what the bible is not about and you argue to prove false what the bible is not about. How stupid is that?

Did you never stop to consider that whoever wrote the stories never intended them to be taken literally by intelligent people?

You might as well be arguing with mannequins that the story of the three little pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses.
.
My advice to you is to take your head out of your ass and smoke a friggin joint or something....


Caphiche? LOL....

I agree that the Bible should NOT be taken literally. I also must point out that you really should stop taking zombie movies literally, and to also put the joint down and sober up, because, damn.

Who the fuck said anything about zombie movies? WTF?

Erm, so you are denying posting this?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive?

Zombies.

Hobelim was taking a dig at Catholics for their celebration of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He considers us Catholics as dead, and feels he must ever proclaim the bad news.

 

[danielpalos]

Because the right is too cognitively dissonant to realize they subscribe to the collectivism of the social morals of Religion.

It is one reason they had to practice their Communism, in Cuba.

 

[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.

Atheism is just another belief system. There is absolutely nothing moral about it. All you are really saying is "This is what I believe and everyone should think like me." Just another true believer.

If your religion doesn't make sense to us, just like Islam or Mormonism or the Greek Gods don't to you, isn't it moral to speak the truth? If we think religion is a lie that holds people back, shouldn't we speak up? Look at how ISIS uses god. Its not a healthy concept. "They" use it to brainwash/control you.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to a hand ful of people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

 

[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.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is just another belief system. There is absolutely nothing moral about it. All you are really saying is "This is what I believe and everyone should think like me." Just another true believer.

If your religion doesn't make sense to us, just like Islam or Mormonism or the Greek Gods don't to you, isn't it moral to speak the truth? If we think religion is a lie that holds people back, shouldn't we speak up? Look at how ISIS uses god. Its not a healthy concept. "They" use it to brainwash/control you.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to a hand ful of people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

Claims require evidence. The whole "extraordinary" adjective is pointless. But yes, I have none. So?

 

[sealybobo]

1. There is a being who has more knowledge and power than humans? Do you have any proof of this? Seems more to me we made up this character.

I imagine you mean scientific proof, which entails being able to set up controlled experiments to observe in a laboratory setting that produces the same result over and over again?

I often wonder how many true scientists are embarrassed by people demanding physical proof of the spiritual realm? That is rather like a demand that a rock be used to prove water--so childish it causes one to cringe.

2. Who loves us and cares about us? This is wishful thinking.

Or, the experience of many down through the ages even til today. A comparison: The desert contains mirage after mirage. There are also springs of water. Stories have been told of people missing these springs, having convinced themselves all is mirage.

3. You can take out the "love god" part and just say "Love our fellowman as oneself" and then I'd agree with you. The god part isn't necessary.

Nor is an airplane necessary for one to reach the West Coast from the East Coast. But many find it the preferable way of traveling.

So you believe in magic then. That is what it all boils down to. You believe that a god came here and fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish. That must have been one very watered down soup.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapiens evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

The Greeks who passed down Christianity to us believed in the Greek Gods before they believed in Christianity. And you want us to continue worshiping their gods? Time for you to evolve.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

If your religion doesn't make sense to us, just like Islam or Mormonism or the Greek Gods don't to you, isn't it moral to speak the truth? If we think religion is a lie that holds people back, shouldn't we speak up? Look at how ISIS uses god. Its not a healthy concept. "They" use it to brainwash/control you.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to a hand ful of people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows a total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

We learn about all the similarities between Christianity and the Greek Gods and we realize if the Greek Gods were made up, so too might Christianity.

Then we hear Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish and we just can't get past it. Anyone who accepts this is moving forward with gullible eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're telling us you have none?

Claims require evidence. The whole "extraordinary" adjective is pointless. But yes, I have none. So?

"Extraordinary" is not pointless when placed against your claims to the supernatural.

 

[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.

"Being honest about religion." Made me laugh. Can't be honest about a lie can ya?

Faith in something isn't the same thing as a lie.

If you are wasting your life worshiping something that doesn't exist. But I guess it makes sad people feel better about themselves. Are you really worried about where you go when you die? I'm not. I'm just enjoying my time while I have it. Remember what it was like before you were born? That's what it'll be like when you are dead.

I'm not going to criticize your beliefs, why do you have to make fun of mine?

I have the right to believe what I want. I'm not going to allow somebody to tell me what I can or cannot believe in. Faith is a personal matter and frankly it's nobody's business what I choose to believe. As long as my faith doesn't infringe on your life I think you shouldn't waste another moment dwelling on how I choose to live my life.

I think that humans believing in god(s) is not good. The ancient Greeks believed if humans didn't fear Zeus they would be evil and society would fall apart. Do you believe that? I don't.

You absolutely have the right to be stupid. I'm just trying to help you/society get over this ancient and primitive idea. Us humans are still so superstitious.

And maybe you aren't infringing on my life but your religion sure it. In fact many Christians want to make their religion the official religion of the USA. What better argument against that then to point out your god isn't even real?

Christianity today is a lot more harmless than it was 200 years ago. That doesn't mean it is completely harmless.
Here is a great example of how stupid belief in god is. You can't even be elected to political office in America unless you say you believe in god. Now, knowing that, please tell me how good our Christian politicians are. They all believe in god, right? A lot of good that does us. Look at how greedy and corrupt they are. Look at how money controls them and they'll say/do anything that their $ masters tell them.

 

[sealybobo]

It isn't the evidence that counts in this instance. It is the glaring lack of evidence that counts.

A lack of evidence means that no conclusion can be arrived at. It does not support a negative conclusion any more than it supports a positive one. Your position is pure belief, and belief is belief whether negative or positive.

That isn't actually true. A lack of scientific evidence drastically reduces the probability of there being a god. And yes, even a probability of 0.0001 is not 0, but it is close enough in my book.

It is actually true. What is not true is that a lack of evidence reduces the probability of anything.

If you believe that, then you don't understand probability.

You have no idea what it is you are saying does not exist. You have no idea what evidence for its existence would be. You are in a state of absolute ignorance and you think you have arrived at a rational conclusion? That conclusion is utter fantasy and it is no different than the conclusion the thing your know nothing about exists. The only rational application of probability in this issue is 50/50, because there is no evidence of any sort to support higher odds on either side. Anything other than 50/50 is pure, unsupported belief.

Your position isn't rational. It is not scientific. The only word which would come close to describing it is "religious".

Wow, so you are going to make this personal, are you? Careful what you wish for.

When there is no scientific evidence to support the argument for the existence of a god, the notion that the probability for or against are somehow 50/50 is merely wishful thinking.

I do understand probability. I use it all the time in my work and I wouldn't last long making predictions if I did it without any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support any argument for the existence or non-existence of god. To say the odds are in favor of non-existence is merely wishful thinking.

No need to take anything personal. I think what I said was absolutely accurate and you can replace the word "I" for "you" in that as well. I have no idea what it is. But do prove me wrong. Tell me what God is.

That's what everyone told my great, great, great x 10 grandfather when he told people Zeus didn't exist.

And if you are talking about a generic god, I might not argue with you so much. You, just like my uneducated father point out to the universe and to the beauty of the earth and say, "how could this have happened all by itself"? You, just like our caveman ancestors could not imagine all this without a creator. This was the argument our ancient ancestors came up with. Keep in mind this is before science could explain how the universe started and how life evolved.

But even back then, we had thinkers who could explain that if something must have created the universe then something must have created god. And if you disagree because you say god is eternal, maybe you just need to drop the god and say the universe/cosmos is eternal. God is unnecessary. It is wishful thinking.

In the Ancient Greek times, they used god(s) to explain why bad things happened. Today we know those things didn't happen because god was mad. So why do we still even believe in god(s)? Because we want to be gods someday. We want to live in paradise forever too one day. Wishful thinking.

But I guess if it makes you feel better.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You commit a fallacy common among religionists of attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims to spirit realms, supernatural entities and partisan gawds. Therefore it's not up to me to accept your "it's true until disproved" meme. You commit another fallacy common to religionists whereby you selectively "quote" edited and parsed components of comments posted by others. That's dishonest but not unexpected.

The "utter lack of evidence" you describe is on the part of folks like you who make claims that do in fact suffer from "utter lack of evidence". I'm not responsible for disproving your claims that are void of meaningful support.

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gawds exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gawds. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of your simplistic argument, it is just not good enough of an argument to sway people like you from making unsupportable and outrageous claims.

I'm left to liken people such as you to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. The belief in Santa Claus is endearing in the very young, but if a child should grow to an adult with an assured belief in the existence of Santa Claus, most people would think of that person as stunted in his or her growth. We, collectively and individually, do ourselves no favors by believing in an other-worldly justice, a Great Leveler who rewards us with presents if we've been good, but hands us a cold rock if we've been bad. Justice beyond the grave is not justice, it is a balm for those left behind. How much better to create a world where justice is natural, flowing freely because each person recognizes the importance and utter rarity of those around him?

Certainly shifting the burden of proof is a common fallacy. But it is you who is trying to do it, not me.

It is interesting that this thing you claim you don't believe in is seems to be completely accepted by you. You have a very clear idea of what God is, despite the utter lack of evidence. Yet you don't operate on belief? Sure. But don't assume what you believe God is is what I believe. It isn't. That particular version is your baggage, not mine.

I'm not shifting any burden. Requiring you to support your claims (specious as they are), is just one of the rules of engagement.

I just have to find it comically tragic that you suffer such confusion. When asked for evidence of your beliefs. You respond with: "I haven't got any. That is why it is a belief." So, your belief is you have no belief! Does the question really confound you so?

I've never claimed I don't believe in gawds. Similarly, I make no assumptions about gawds. I conclude your gawds and the gawds of others don't exist, just as I conclude that Bigfoot and Leprechauns dont exist. This is where you continue to hope to shift the burden of proof. Gawds and other supernatural entities are extraordinary claims and remain absent any and all material support.

Your continued defense of your gawds while disingenuously claiming you take no position and have no evidence is more than just comical. There are, of course, many conceptions of gawds and many divisions between people. Competing religions and the gawds invented to manage those religions add to those problems, and historically they always have (and always will). Look around, and see how many people have grown to believe in so many different variations of the same theme. In certain parts of the world, these different groups make endless war upon one another, bombing each other, killing, maiming and destroying. Why do your gawds lend themselves to such barbarity? Rationalism and reason does away with almost all of that. When the standard for acceptance of reality becomes evidence and proof, everyone automatically operates from the same level playing field. With few exceptions, we now all believe the world is a globe, not flat. But it took a long time to convince people of this; it was once a cherished belief. What changed people's minds? Proof and evidence. That is the standard by which rationality and reason operates, and this paradigm helps humanity strip itself of all the unnecessary baggage that supernatural fairy tales encumbers them with.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If we are to be honest about religion, we should also be honest about militant atheism and acknowledge the fact that those who categorically deny the existence of God are speaking from the same sort of assumptions as those who claim absolute knowledge thereof.


As far as Religion, however, I see it as a subset of ideology, and any ideology chosen freely should be subject to all the scrutiny in the world. If it isn't chosen freely (like the vast majority of those following Islam), then it is suspect to begin with.

 

[PratchettFan]

1. There is a being who has more knowledge and power than humans? Do you have any proof of this? Seems more to me we made up this character.

I imagine you mean scientific proof, which entails being able to set up controlled experiments to observe in a laboratory setting that produces the same result over and over again?

I often wonder how many true scientists are embarrassed by people demanding physical proof of the spiritual realm? That is rather like a demand that a rock be used to prove water--so childish it causes one to cringe.

2. Who loves us and cares about us? This is wishful thinking.

Or, the experience of many down through the ages even til today. A comparison: The desert contains mirage after mirage. There are also springs of water. Stories have been told of people missing these springs, having convinced themselves all is mirage.

3. You can take out the "love god" part and just say "Love our fellowman as oneself" and then I'd agree with you. The god part isn't necessary.

Nor is an airplane necessary for one to reach the West Coast from the East Coast. But many find it the preferable way of traveling.

So you believe in magic then. That is what it all boils down to. You believe that a god came here and fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 3 fish. That must have been one very watered down soup.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapiens evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

The Greeks who passed down Christianity to us believed in the Greek Gods before they believed in Christianity. And you want us to continue worshiping their gods? Time for you to evolve.

No, I don't. That is your version of God, not mine. You are operating on belief and are limited to accepting the very beliefs you claim to have rejected. If you don't believe them, why do insist upon them being the only option?

I have told you this many times before, but you just can't seem to get your head around the concept. I am not a Christian. Not even a teeny, tiny bit.