Atheists are just as deluded as theists...

[sealybobo]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

Just because all human cultures have had some religion/god doesn't prove anything. One culture could have made it up and passed it on. Or, it could be a natural conclusion for primitive humans who are curious and don't know how we got here or where we came from.

Yes, all humans no matter how primitive have wondered about a big spirit in the sky and how we got here and the conclusion was that all this was made for us. But the facts say it wasn't all made for us. It was around millions of years before we existed and will be here millions of years after we are gone.

Now if you show me that dinosaurs had a god too maybe you would have something here. Otherwise, us superstitious humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years.

 

[Taz]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

 

[ding]

Matter cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium so the only solution to the first cause is something not made of matter.

There's your proof.

No it's not. How does that prove a god exists? Whether the universe was created by a god, or by some other means, your statement would still have the same validity or lack thereof.

Because there must be a first cause. You can't get around it.

So your god had a beginning?

Did you even read what I wrote before?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. This we know to be God. Do I need to walk you through the proof again using the final state of fact?

Got it. In other words---"because that's what I believe""

No. Because it is logical.

 

[ding]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

 

[BULLDOG]

No it's not. How does that prove a god exists? Whether the universe was created by a god, or by some other means, your statement would still have the same validity or lack thereof.

Because there must be a first cause. You can't get around it.

So your god had a beginning?

Did you even read what I wrote before?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. This we know to be God. Do I need to walk you through the proof again using the final state of fact?

Got it. In other words---"because that's what I believe""

No. Because it is logical.

The universe had a beginning so therefore --- God

 

[ding]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

And an outlier for the entire history of mankind. So there must be something to this God thing and when we drill into it we find there is.

 

[ding]

I believe that creating reality is a pretty unquestionable way.

Yes, that would be an amazing trick if there was just some way to prove God did it. We're specifically talking about making his existence unquestionable. If there is no way to show reality was created by a god, it doesn't prove his existence, does it?

Matter cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium so the only solution to the first cause is something not made of matter.

There's your proof.

No it's not. How does that prove a god exists? Whether the universe was created by a god, or by some other means, your statement would still have the same validity or lack thereof.

Because there must be a first cause. You can't get around it.

So your god had a beginning?

Not exactly. There had to be a first cause. To avoid the first cause conundrum the attributes of the first cause are that it must be eternal and unchanging. This we know to be God.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, that would be an amazing trick if there was just some way to prove God did it. We're specifically talking about making his existence unquestionable. If there is no way to show reality was created by a god, it doesn't prove his existence, does it?

Matter cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium so the only solution to the first cause is something not made of matter.

There's your proof.

No it's not. How does that prove a god exists? Whether the universe was created by a god, or by some other means, your statement would still have the same validity or lack thereof.

Because there must be a first cause. You can't get around it.

So your god had a beginning?

Not exactly. There had to be a first cause. To avoid the first cause conundrum the attributes of the first cause are that it must be eternal and unchanging. This we know to be God.

This, you believe to be god. If you knew it, you could present verifiable evidence to support your claim. "because I just know it" still isn't verifiable evidence.

 

[ding]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.
So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.
But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.
So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

Ding, you touch upon a few good points:
God is the perfect willing mentor to the sincere student wishing to find his way on the path. The key here is the genuine wish to learn and to exceed the self.
God is known only through direct inward experience spoken to the soul.
God is an inward experience so AFAIK, cannot be proven or shown outwardly to a skeptic without harm except through yogic means, and then, only when done without self.
God is found in the spiritual heart (4th thru 7th chakras) by His advent, through a sincere (selfless) inner desire to know something greater and higher than oneself, so will never be found or proven to the ego-driven skeptic standing on one foot daring him to make himself known through the doubting, skeptical mind, as much as I know that just sounds like a cop out.

That's just the way it is and is the same regardless of faith because all faiths lead to the same place. It is the cosmic safety valve which keeps out people not yet ready to advance within the spirit, which would only cause them to fall lower instead, which is a grave offense.

Which of course all of this is always taken as just a cop out by the doubting, ego-driven individual! But that is just how it is. Much like the lions at the gate. Part of the mechanism of keeping out people unless and until they are truly ready to move past the physical and leave the material effulgence.

So now of course go right ahead and doubt me!

I could not agree more. I’ve studied all the major religions and I firmly believe that they all teach the same basic truth that if you want to see reality you must die to self.

 

[ding]

Matter cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium so the only solution to the first cause is something not made of matter.

There's your proof.

No it's not. How does that prove a god exists? Whether the universe was created by a god, or by some other means, your statement would still have the same validity or lack thereof.

Because there must be a first cause. You can't get around it.

So your god had a beginning?

Not exactly. There had to be a first cause. To avoid the first cause conundrum the attributes of the first cause are that it must be eternal and unchanging. This we know to be God.

This, you believe to be god. If you knew it, you could present verifiable evidence to support your claim. "because I just know it" still isn't verifiable evidence.

It isn’t my job to prove it to you. The evidence is all around you. When you are ready you will find it.

 

[ding]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.

So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.

But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.

So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

So you have nothing. Got it.

Thanks for proving you aren’t agnostic.

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

 

[ding]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.
So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.
But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.
So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

Ding, you touch upon a few good points:
God is the perfect willing mentor to the sincere student wishing to find his way on the path. The key here is the genuine wish to learn and to exceed the self.
God is known only through direct inward experience spoken to the soul.
God is an inward experience so AFAIK, cannot be proven or shown outwardly to a skeptic without harm except through yogic means, and then, only when done without self.
God is found in the spiritual heart (4th thru 7th chakras) by His advent, through a sincere (selfless) inner desire to know something greater and higher than oneself, so will never be found or proven to the ego-driven skeptic standing on one foot daring him to make himself known through the doubting, skeptical mind, as much as I know that just sounds like a cop out.

That's just the way it is and is the same regardless of faith because all faiths lead to the same place. It is the cosmic safety valve which keeps out people not yet ready to advance within the spirit, which would only cause them to fall lower instead, which is a grave offense.

Which of course all of this is always taken as just a cop out by the doubting, ego-driven individual! But that is just how it is. Much like the lions at the gate. Part of the mechanism of keeping out people unless and until they are truly ready to move past the physical and leave the material effulgence.

So now of course go right ahead and doubt me!

So any religion will do? I’ll become a Muslim or Mormon. One of those stories must be true

Why not? If you seek him you will find him.

It’s not like there’s a smorgasbord of Gods that exist. There is only one Creator. He goes by many names.

 

[ding]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Yeah. The terminology does get blurred, sometime intentionally. I think it's usually done to promote the idea that atheists are anti-religion. Some are, but most aren't. Many actually support religion for various reasons, even if they don't subscribe to one personally.

I agree with that. That’s why I use the distinction of militant to distinguish between the two. A militant atheist condemns respect for people of faith and tries to subordinate religion; mostly the dominant religion of the land. In our case that would be Christianity.

 

[Taz]

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

 

[Taz]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.

So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.

But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.

So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

So you have nothing. Got it.

Thanks for proving you aren’t agnostic.

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

 

[ding]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.
So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.
But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.
So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

Ding, you touch upon a few good points:
God is the perfect willing mentor to the sincere student wishing to find his way on the path. The key here is the genuine wish to learn and to exceed the self.
God is known only through direct inward experience spoken to the soul.
God is an inward experience so AFAIK, cannot be proven or shown outwardly to a skeptic without harm except through yogic means, and then, only when done without self.
God is found in the spiritual heart (4th thru 7th chakras) by His advent, through a sincere (selfless) inner desire to know something greater and higher than oneself, so will never be found or proven to the ego-driven skeptic standing on one foot daring him to make himself known through the doubting, skeptical mind, as much as I know that just sounds like a cop out.

That's just the way it is and is the same regardless of faith because all faiths lead to the same place. It is the cosmic safety valve which keeps out people not yet ready to advance within the spirit, which would only cause them to fall lower instead, which is a grave offense.

Which of course all of this is always taken as just a cop out by the doubting, ego-driven individual! But that is just how it is. Much like the lions at the gate. Part of the mechanism of keeping out people unless and until they are truly ready to move past the physical and leave the material effulgence.

So now of course go right ahead and doubt me!

So any religion will do? I’ll become a Muslim or Mormon. One of those stories must be true

All religions have elements of truth. They all teach the same core behaviors because they are true behaviors.

 

[ding]

God is not a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into and be experienced.

So if you make a sincere effort to enter into that relationship, God can be proven through experience.

But you’d have to understand what that proof would look like.

So it is possible to prove or disprove God through experience.

So you have nothing. Got it.

Thanks for proving you aren’t agnostic.

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

 

[ding]

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

You do realize that was based on an actual person who really did exist, right? So there is an element of truth in the story of Santa Clause.

 

[Taz]

So you have nothing. Got it.

Thanks for proving you aren’t agnostic.

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

 

[Taz]

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

#21

Why there is no god

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

You do realize that was based on an actual person who really did exist, right? So there is an element of truth in the story of Santa Clause.

And Jesus is possibly, even probably, based on an actual person. But we all figured out that Santa ain't coming down no chimney with prezzies!