Why do the God-haters persist?

[MaryL]

God, WHY does this thread persist?

 

[HUGGY]

I for one am dissappointed this conversation did not entertain MaryL.



This little nitch topic of those that believe in god and those that don't would be more usefull if it covered something more important.

 

[Montrovant]

Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?

First, 'science' wouldn't say anything. Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to. If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand. I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope. It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s). Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.

What is the probability that such a god exists? Very low. The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something. And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense. We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist. But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows. Anyone who claims to know is crazy. And christians and muslims claim to know.

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god. God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them. But most thinking people know this is a lie. SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla. At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us. All you have is phylisophical think. LOL.

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

 

[sealybobo]

First, 'science' wouldn't say anything. Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to. If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand. I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope. It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s). Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.

What is the probability that such a god exists? Very low. The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something. And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense. We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist. But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows. Anyone who claims to know is crazy. And christians and muslims claim to know.

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god. God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them. But most thinking people know this is a lie. SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla. At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us. All you have is phylisophical think. LOL.

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

 

[sealybobo]

Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.

Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work. Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims either. Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities. Miracle claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test like the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance. Want to show me a miracle? Show me a limb grow back overnight. A priest putting his hands on 100,000 people and one of them with a brain tumor is cured is not a miracle. Show me a priest who can cure every person with a brain tumor then we’ll talk.

 

[sealybobo]

Odd that some people understand all the organized religions are completely made up and yet they still believe in a god. The only evidence we supposedly have is the lies christians muslims and jews have passed down to us for thousands of years. Without their fake stories we have absolutely zero evidence of a god.

 

[sealybobo]

Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration.

 

[sealybobo]

First, 'science' wouldn't say anything. Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to. If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand. I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope. It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s). Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.

What is the probability that such a god exists? Very low. The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something. And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense. We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist. But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows. Anyone who claims to know is crazy. And christians and muslims claim to know.

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god. God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them. But most thinking people know this is a lie. SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla. At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us. All you have is phylisophical think. LOL.

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Weak atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Unlike strong atheism, there is no positive assertion that no god exists. Weak atheism is occasionally called negative atheism, negative meaning it makes no positive claims.

Strong atheism implies certainty, perhaps even beyond the scientific certainty with which we regard scientific theories such as gravity or germs.

A strong atheist would argue that the idea of a god is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist as most theists define the word. The Christian god is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, aware being which created and was responsible for the universe. The problem of evil is one example of a logical impossibility that comes from believing that the god is also omnibenevolent, this can be avoided by relaxing the requirements on God's qualities.

If there were in fact a deity delivering the divinely inspired word of the one true religion to the human race then it would be expected that all religions would converge on the same answers, yet that is not what we see. There are so many different religions with vastly different beliefs that one should question whether there really is an intelligence behind it all. Since religions diverge rather than converge, this should count as evidence against the proposition of a Theistic deity.

50 reasons to believe in God - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[Hollie]

Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.

Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.

Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.

Not Christians.

I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like. I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here. Man I hope that happens. Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.

That's a bit harsh. Who would be left for the true believers to hate, other than themselves and each other?

 

[Montrovant]

What is the probability that such a god exists? Very low. The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something. And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense. We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist. But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows. Anyone who claims to know is crazy. And christians and muslims claim to know.

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god. God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them. But most thinking people know this is a lie. SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla. At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us. All you have is phylisophical think. LOL.

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

 

[sealybobo]

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

The only thing that is ridiculous is believing in something when you have absolutely zero hard evidence. Yes we give it a .000001% chance because you never know. There is also a slim chance that space men from other planets have visited earth. What percent chance do you think there is of that? That's right, about .00001% chance. So without any evidence I/We are 99.9999% sure there is no god. There is no evidence, the claim is ridiculous, science has explained how/when/why humans came up with the notion, and yes any thinking rational open minded person would have to agree there is probably no god. But of course our brains are hard wired to want to believe and we've been brainwashed since birth and they say its in our dna to believe in a god but other than all that there is no evidence. If you are a scientist and you use science as your basis for thinking then you must rationally conclude there is probably no god.

 

[sealybobo]

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

 

[sealybobo]

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

The existence of one or more deities and relationship between science and religion has been debated for thousands of years.

Some claims about the existence of gods or about their actions may be shown false - such as the claim that Helios pulls the sun across the sky.

Other beliefs can not be proven in the negative.

 

[HUGGY]

Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.

Not Christians.

I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like. I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here. Man I hope that happens. Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.

That's a bit harsh. Who would be left for the true believers to hate, other than themselves and each other?

It is a silly daydream. I discourage scenerios that include the symptoms of the schitzophrenic hallucinations comon to religist myth.

Death is final. There is nothing after the blood stops flowing to the brain except a few seconds of dream as the last remaining oxygen is consumed. I even have a pretty good theory for the "bright white light". It goes like this. When man was evolving accidental death was comon, drowning being one of the many reasons. Calming down in the last moments of such a crisis and attempting to swim towards the sun probably saved some of the victims and over time grew into the lexicon and fable as a "truth". The drowning people that made no attempt to "find a way to survive by swimming towards the light" obviously just died. Those that stopped flailing and applied thier brains over their terror obviously stood a better chance of coming back from the brink of death to talk about it.
This theory would have been especially useful for victims falling through the ice using the reference of the sun to find a way to safety.

 

[sealybobo]

Ask Morgan Freeman: When TheWrap asked the man with the magnificent voice about one of the coming episodes, titled "Did we invent God?," the distinguished actor didn't hold back.

Yes [...] Well, here's a scientific question: Has anybody ever seen hard evidence? What we get is theories from our earlier prophets. My belief system doesn't support a creator as such, as we can call God, who created us in His/Her/Its image.
Freeman said answering whether he was an atheist or agnostic was "hard" because the actor thinks "we invented God."

"So if I believe in God, and I do, it's because I think I'm God," he said.

 

[HUGGY]

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

 

[Montrovant]

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

 

[Montrovant]

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

This has what, exactly, to do with my post?

I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists. What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible. God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed. It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.

So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).

Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.

 

[sealybobo]

Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs. There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion. Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods. If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'? You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'. I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine. That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove. It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer. I don't like religion. Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though. Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.

Google whynogod and educate yourself. Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open. Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god? Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller. Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist. We made it up. No fingerprint. Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept. So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to. No other reason. Sorry.

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

  In recent years scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's "DNA." They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence (including "imaging" studies of the brain at work), that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around. Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times