Zone1 There is no "GOD", deal with it!

[Blues Man]

You missed the point of the analogy. Atheists don't need religion to live a meaningful life or live by a code of conduct. Why is morality contingent upon believing in a bunch of religious nonsense?

It doesn't but people believe the dogma.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, in this case, the burden is on you.

You asserted God doesn't exist.
It is up to the person making the original assertion to provide the proof.

If you had instead said "I don't believe" god exists" then you're expressing an opinion and then the burden falls to those claiming your opinion is wrong.

One cannot prove a negative.

to prove the absence of a thing requires that the thing existed in the first place.

Which is the reason I as a rational person am not an atheist.

I don't know id gods exist and if they do I have ne reason to think they bear any resemblance to the gods in the Old Testament, New Testament or Koran.

 

[BrokeLoser]

There is no God, deal with it and move on. Save yourself and enjoy whatever you have left of this life, even if you're living the last chapter or even the last sentence of your life. Live it to the fullest. Stop believing in ghosts and goblins and believe in yourself and only what is real and relevant to your present life, the only life you have and most likely will ever have. Don't be manipulated by anyone, think for yourself, and fear nothing but ignorance and stupidity.

That MEANS I can BE GAY and your false religion shouldn't impact my life.

Translation:
”I hate the idea of God and religion…If I believe, I can’t live the life of a filthy, fucked in the head indecent, immoral piece of worthless dogshit without a bit of guilt and shame.”

 

[Blues Man]

Translation:
”I hate the idea of God and religion…If I believe, I can’t live the life of a filthy, fucked in the head indecent, immoral piece of worthless dogshit without a bit of guilt and shame.”

Hate has nothing to do with it. That is YOU projecting your feelings onto others.

 

[martybegan]

Because I think so without any evidence.

Do you have any real evidence of the Big Bang theory or do you just have to trust others that understand theories on astral mechanics more?

Now things like gravity you can witness because you can drop a ball, things like lift you can witness when a plane flies overhead. But many things we think of as fact are basically treated as fact based on faith.

 

[Red Front]

Actually, in this case, the burden is on you.

You asserted God doesn't exist.
It is up to the person making the original assertion to provide the proof.

If you had instead said "I don't believe" god exists" then you're expressing an opinion and then the burden falls to those claiming your opinion is wrong.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. What does "dismissing" the assertion entail? It entails the negative. If I assert that there is a giant green dragon living in a cave on a mountain, but I refuse to provide evidence or I have no evidence, then you can dismiss that assertion by saying "there is no green dragon on that mountain". You don't believe me and that expresses itself, from your perspective, as there not being a green dragon on that mountain. The burden of proof is upon me, not you. I'm the one asserting that a green dragon exists on that mountain over there but I refuse to provide evidence or the evidence that I have provided is flawed. A picture of me on the mountain, holding a little green turd in my hand, is not evidence. It might be evidence that I'm crazy, but not that there is a green dragon on that mountain.

So you open a thread here on the forum stating "Communist Front: There Is No Green Dragon On That Mountain". Then I post, "prove to me there is no green dragon on that mountain". The burden of proof isn't upon you, I'm the one who made the original claim. You don't have to prove the negative. Why should you believe in the existence of that green dragon? You're just affirming your dismissal of my original assertion.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Hate has nothing to do with it. That is YOU projecting your feelings onto others.

I’ll play along and revise my post to better suit your feelings.
Translation:
”I DETEST the idea of God and religion…If I believe, I can’t live the life of a filthy, fucked in the head indecent, immoral piece of worthless dogshit without a bit of guilt and shame.”

 

[Meriweather]

You missed the point of the analogy. Atheists don't need religion to live a meaningful life or live by a code of conduct.

The point of the cheesecake analogy is that atheists live a meaningful life?

I've known atheists live a meaningful life ever since it was possible for me to know anything.

Why is morality contingent upon believing in a bunch of religious nonsense?

I didn't realize it was, as all the atheists in my family have lived moral lives without belief in God.

Religion is much more than any moral belief or effort. If morality satisfies every purpose/need and provides joy, then I suppose there is no need to look beyond.

 

[Blues Man]

Do you have any real evidence of the Big Bang theory or do you just have to trust others that understand theories on astral mechanics more?

Now things like gravity you can witness because you can drop a ball, things like lift you can witness when a plane flies overhead. But many things we think of as fact are basically treated as fact based on faith.

I never said the Big Bang was anything but a theory. The truth is we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the so called big bang so we don't really know how the universe came to be.

The thing is that I am of the mind that we may never know because we are simply incapable of the the thought processes that are required.

Think of it this way.

My dog no matter how smart I think she is will never be able to understand algebra because she is incapable of that type of thought.

Now my dog's brain and my brain are made of basically the same stuff organized in basically the same way. Why then should I assume that a human brain does not have any limitations as to what it can understand ?

Humans are too proud and arrogant to admit that they may be incapable of understanding everything which is why we make up explanations for the things we don't understand. The very first explanations we made up were that powerful beings caused the things we feared the most or were responsible for the things we did not understand.

 

[Blues Man]

I’ll play along and revise my post to better suit your feelings.
Translation:
”I DETEST the idea of God and religion…If I believe, I can’t live the life of a filthy, fucked in the head indecent, immoral piece of worthless dogshit without a bit of guilt and shame.”

Detest is just a synonym for hate.

So you really didn't say anything different.

 

[Red Front]

The point of the cheesecake analogy is that atheists live a meaningful life?

I've known atheists live a meaningful life ever since it was possible for me to know anything.

I didn't realize it was, as all the atheists in my family have lived moral lives without belief in God.

Religion is much more than any moral belief or effort. If morality satisfies every purpose/need and provides joy, then I suppose there is no need to look beyond.

The meaning of the analogy is that, just because you make a claim that Biden ate a piece of cheesecake today, that doesn't prove to anyone else, that he ate a piece of cheesecake today, nor would it make any type of "faith" in that event reasonable or rational. Now if you present video evidence, as I described, then having faith that Biden ate that piece of cheesecake today, even if it doesn't show him biting into the cheesecake, is still a reasonable faith. It's a reasonable assumption that he ate a piece of cheesecake today.

If a person claims that the religious dogmas of Christianity are true and that their faith in these dogmas is reasonable, then they should be able to present some reasonable evidence, otherwise, why should anyone consider their faith reasonable? It's not, it's just a faith based on feelings, fear, confusion, wishful thinking, and desperation.

 

[martybegan]

I never said the Big Bang was anything but a theory. The truth is we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the so called big bang so we don't really know how the universe came to be.

The thing is that I am of the mind that we may never know because we are simply incapable of the the thought processes that are required.

Think of it this way.

My dog no matter how smart I think she is will never be able to understand algebra because she is incapable of that type of thought.

Now my dog's brain and my brain are made of basically the same stuff organized in basically the same way. Why then should I assume that a human brain does not have any limitations as to what it can understand ?

Humans are too proud and arrogant to admit that they may be incapable of understanding everything which is why we make up explanations for the things we don't understand. The very first explanations we made up were that powerful beings caused the things we feared the most or were responsible for the things we did not understand.

Some people are too arrogant, most of them are Atheists.

 

[Red Front]

Some people are too arrogant, most of them are Atheists.

How so? We don't believe in your fairytales, so we're "arrogant"?

 

[Blues Man]

Some people are too arrogant, most of them are Atheists.

Most people even the religious are arrogant.

 

[martybegan]

How so? We don't believe in your fairytales, so we're "arrogant"?

It comes with being erroneously absolutely sure about a concept no one knows the answer to absolutely.

 

[martybegan]

Most people even the religious are arrogant.

Arrogant Atheists are a special breed of Arrogant, pretending to surely know the answer to a question no one has the answer to.

 

[there4eyeM]

Because a genuine, unique creator of all and everything could never be defined to any significant extent, it becomes something of a tautology to say such a one doesn't exist. The most one can state is that, by the definitions of "God" in the mind of the person speaking/writing, "God" cannot be.

 

[Red Front]

It comes with being erroneously absolutely sure about a concept no one knows the answer to absolutely.

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim. If the evidence they present doesn't support their assertion then there is no reason for anyone to believe it.

 

[LibertyKid]

Humans, for as long as humans have been around, have been spiritual in nature, with no reason to be. With no physical evidence for a god or afterlife, why have humans pointed to spirituality? Gods as a way to explain natural occurrences doesn't make sense to me either. If I was alive 2 thousand years ago, and it rained, why would I attribute that to something that isn't tangible?

 

[ding]

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim.

You are the one who made the claim there is no God. So make your case. I'd love to hear you prove something doesn't exist.

Maybe you should research the concept of falsifiability and what that means for your claim.