If God did not exist

[pacer]

Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?


People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.

That's true, that's true!

Just 'cause my God is imaginary to you doesn't make Her any less real to me.

At least no more so than my skepticism regarding your God makes Him/Her/It any less real to you in your heart.



Care to know how many belief sets, or 'religions' there are on any given day?

Count humanity.​

Beliefs are like nipples... Everyone gets a set, and no two sets are identical.



Attitudes, on the other hand, are like genitals... Everyone gets a set and inability to control more than one set can be... frustrating.

​

That is so true.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith. I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.

So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god? Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God. I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.

The greater question is this: Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god? There are infinite potential explanations for existence. Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?

As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever. The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not). If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you. If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you. Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith. I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.

So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god? Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God. I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.

The greater question is this: Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god? There are infinite potential explanations for existence. Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?

As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever. The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not). If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you. If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you. Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.

Proved, proven, disproved, disproven. . . I've gotta brush up on my vocabulary

 

[AVG-JOE]

I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God?? ..

Same reason evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hari Krishnas, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. are hell bent on spreading the Word... They think they know in which direction happiness lay.



Tolerance really is the key.

Unless one God or another reestablishes provable contact via a burning bush or some such on CNN & FOX pretty soon, we're going to have to figure out a better way to get along while we wait.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?


People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.

For the most part, distinguishing people of faith -and- atheists seems redundant.

 

[hortysir]

haha You have that reversed.

Did you, or did you not, start this thread?? ..

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment. Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?

Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?

 

[AVG-JOE]

haha You have that reversed.

Did you, or did you not, start this thread?? ..

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment. Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?

No.

That would be an official USMB and more red ink would be spilled.

 

[pacer]

"The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture." Richard Dawkins

 

[AVG-JOE]

Check this out for your reading pleasure. There is a ton of material.

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

Cool web site. Thanks.

Question for you: How many miracles would it take to convince you that the supernatural is real? One? Two?

Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Love the attack the messenger approach. "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."

Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.

A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it. Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Did you, or did you not, start this thread?? ..

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment. Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?

Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?

Do we have to?



Sounds like paperwork.

 

[percysunshine]

By definition, the existence of a supernatural being can be neither proven nor disproven.

Yet people keep trying to do both. Oh well.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure that a loon who maintains that teaching children the Bible is *worse* than molesting them is the go-to person with regards to the validity and value of the Bible. Why should we listen to an admitted reprobate regarding our value system? He has no particular expertise, he isn't a historian, archaeologist or Biblical scholar. So why would we not consider his background and the insanity he is currently spouting when we're being asked to give him credence?

The analogy wouldn't be Manson and the color of the sky..but rather should we lend Manson credence regarding the value of human life?

 

[koshergrl]

And is a man who maintains that child molestation is not as harmful as Sunday school be taken seriously on the topic of the sins of religion?

 

[hjmick]

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment. Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?

Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?

Do we have to?



Sounds like paperwork.

Sounds like there might be math involved...

 

[pacer]

Love the attack the messenger approach. "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."

Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.

A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it. Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?

I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."

 

[daws101]

Did you, or did you not, start this thread?? ..

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment. Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?

You are not allowed to post PM's without the senders permission. Sorry to burst your bubble but God exists.

wrong. there is no proof that god does or does not exist..that conundrum is not a licence for believers to exploit it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant. He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions. Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.

Good God, kids. Turn your logic on.

 

[koshergrl]

Another progressive gasbag who thinks he knows what people think.

Why don't you just focus on what people actually say, hmm? Leave the mind reading to the professionals.

 

[pacer]

Love the attack the messenger approach. "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."

Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.

A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it. Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?

I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."

Disregard this post. I quoted the wrong thread.