What I might say to:

Except far worse! I agree with you entirely. I read recently that Saint Justin Martyr, one of the great leaders and apologists of the early Christian church in the second century, martyred under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, taught that "those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are accounted atheists." Too bad we don't have more like him today.

 

Bible God is an atheist - he doesn't believe in a God - so that's good enough for me. Although He did say "They (mankind) want to be like US," so he was either talking to Satan, Jewsarse, or another God. Who knows, maybe He too needs saving because His missus ate a Granny Smith that their God nixed!

 

Yep, and I am the most vulgar by a cuntry mile. Speaking of cunts, this about sums up what I'd like to say to you, you surreptitious old Tampax taster.

 

I see your point here. I really do. However the disbelief in a sense is what proves it.

The original issue is that nobody knows whether he/she/it exists for sure. This stirs up the different ideal and theories.

Religion and the disbelievers and the undecided. In essence, the undecided are the smartest out of all of us. They see they evidence for both. And they truly know that they don't know. Therefor they are man enough to stand up and say they don't know.

Religious personnel advocate the stories and tales of happiness, love, and a being that can guide them through the hardest times. This is the nicest thing to think. I wish I thought like this.

Then there are the atheists who focus on what is presented to them. At this point, the bible does not give any backing up for religion. It contradicts itself so many times. Math errors, scientific errors, missing links, and far fetched tales lead us on a journey to find a different answer. And science as provided EVIDENCE of an alternate creation and functioning method. In other words: the science has given us another "story" for the creation of the world. And how it is run.

This scientific evidence provides us with one step higher fact than you guys have. Our beliefs are essentially coming from real evidence. Fossils, chemistry techniques, rocks, and so much more. Stuff that we can actually hold in our hands. None of that is present in support of religion. Religion has ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence backing it up. It is clearly and positively 100% theory and belief. With no physical properties to supply support. I'm not saying its wrong to believe in things you cannot prove or cannot see. But I am explaining how your OP is not quite accurate.

 

It is not quite true that you cannot prove that a particular god does not exist. If your description of god involves a logical contradiction then I can claim to know that your god doesn't exist. An object which is completely green and partially red cannot exist (please don't be pedantic and bring up objects whose colors change depending on the visual angle, because that is different in relevant ways) so I don't have to scour the universe searching for such an object to prove that they don't exist. I claim to know that the christian god does not exist, because I believe that the traits ascribed to the christian god contain logical contradictions.

 

OP, I didn't read your post in it's entirety, it was much to obnoxious and superior sounding for that.

But you ask why we discuss things.... Well I, for one, am certain there's no god, and I feel that others wasting their time and lives, and destroying their and many other lives over god, or even killing over god, without me at least trying to tell them better, would be evil on my part. I'm now atheist, but sure as FUCK not christian, muslim, or anything even similar to those evil faiths.

So I feel the need to ask you, why are you online deriding people for arguing? You're just arguing, only with a high and mighty tone that talks down EVERYONE, as though this protects you from people seeing that you're doing the same damn thing you're accusing them of....

God: come at me, bro.

 

OP:

1. You present a false dichotomy. There are many First Cause and deity concepts that have been posited throughout recorded history. Your El/Yahweh, Yeshua and Holy Spirit are no more extraordinary or special than, say, Zeus, Ra, Apsu, Isis, Loki, Ba'al, Monkey, Thor, Gaia, Neptune, Mithra, and the thousands of others said to exist in one form or fashion.

2. Pascal's Wager is so played out that for you to present it as some sophiscated argument has me laughing at how shallow and tired it is. Please, pick a different angle. Pascal's Wager is guilty of the above, bifurcation fallacy. Try again.

3. Atheism is not a position of One-who-rejects-the-Abrahamic-gods, as theists like to assert or believe. It is a rejection of theism. Theism comes from the Greek word "theos" so atheism means lack of theism. Atheism simply means without a god or godless. It is a rejection of theistic claims and deities. Modern theism posits a specific type of First Cause or deity. One that is anthropomorphic, omnimax and intervenes in human affairs. In modern Western culture it has come to be associated with classical [Abrahamic] theism because it is the dominant tradition in the West. It is not a position of sticking one's middle finger up at the Abrahamic gods. It is not a position of being stubborn and wayward just because one's had a negative experience with mainstream theism in the past. It is not a position of rejecting the Abrahamic gods because one has faced a tragedy and blamed the gods for it. It is not out of disillusionment or anger. A good chunk of nontheists were Christian or theist and were very religious prior to their de-conversion. Their rejection of the claims classical theism posits has nothing to do with feelings and emotions and everything to do with the claims not holding up to critical and objective examination (e.g., stepping outside one's presuppositions and weighing the information and "evidence.") It has everything to do with the claims falling short against the body of information one has acquired.

Brush up on the variations of atheism from weak and strong, implicit and explicit, to relative and absolute. There are actually dozens of positions that fall under nontheism. Distorting the position to suit your argument just makes you look obtuse and ignorant.

4. You might want to familiarize yourself with various areas of study like: metaphysics, skepticism, epistemology, comparative mythology/religion, ancient history, religions of the Ancient Near East, Church history, first century history, and Biblical hermeneutics and studies. What you discover may reveal many things. You might learn something.

 

HA! What a load of BS.

 

i'm pretty sure the op is an atheist troll

 

Oh Goody Goody Gum drops, a real live Evangeloon to lampoon!!

Tell me, Jetho. Why does your Jewish Juju have such a low opinion of himself that he desperately needs the widgets he turns out by the billions, the poor wretched Weeble People he tortures from conception to extinction, to love him?

Maybe his sadism and his abysmal low self-esteem stem from his parents spanking the divine derrière instead of giving him loving time-outs??

 

And 'accepted religions ARE?
By what qualification.. better bullshit?

 

I think the ideas proposed about agnostics are some of the most naive things I've ever heard.

 

If someone yells in my face that there is a leprechaun in their garden, and I need to believe in it or I'll be tortured horribly, I believe it is up to them to prove such a ridiculous thing to me. As it stands, with all human knowledge and evidence, there is no leprechaun in anyones garden. That is the fact as it stands. That may well change one day as we make new discoveries, but whoever discovers the leprechaun will have the prove its existence rather than insisting that everyone believes in it blindly, just as all scientists have had to prove their findings before they become widely accepted truth.

Imagine a world where you are ostracised for not believing in wild claims which have no evidence. You're told you'll burn, and people all around you are killing eachother because of they're arguing about what colour hats the invisble leprechauns wear...

That's this world. I call myself an atheist to show that I am not in that nonsense club. Atheist simply means I do not have a set belief in god. It's not anything that should offend or concern you.

 

i can dig it

 

Arguing or even debating with bible thumpers is nothing but a waste of time.

 

I posted here before, but missed this important note on word definitions, so, OP:

Religion doesn't involve theories, theories are systems of reasoning based on what you do know, to explain what you don't yet know.

Religion could have been called a theory ten thousand years ago. Or two thousand years ago. Or two hundred years ago. But it's now firmly out of the realm of theories and into the realm of imagination and wishful thinking.

That is all.

 

The same question that started this thread could be asked of most anything. For instance, can I prove that I'm not asleep and dreaming right now? No. I can't prove it. But that doesn't mean that I'm then forced to just stay in the house all day because the doorknob on my front door is just a fantasy.

Theists don't have the monopoly on faith. There is a certain kind of faith---a different kind than the theist may have, but neither better nor worse--- necessary to be an atheist. I, myself, don't know (i.e. cannot prove) that God doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, I go about my Being as though He doesn't exist. I don't seek theological explanations for why things are the way they are, and I'm able to make plenty of successful predictions about the world without appealling to God.

I start from a point of certainty (knowing that I do, in fact, exist) and have faith about the uncertainty lying ahead of me (namely, my ability to succeed in the face of events which have yet to occur). That's the faith of an atheist.

But no, I can't prove God doesn't exist any more than the theist can prove that He does. Theology deals in faith; science deals in empirical evidence. The existence of God is a theological issue, not a scientific one.

 

it looks like you made an error by assuming atheists have to prove that "god" does not exist. this is not necessary. just as it is not necessary to prove that leprechauns don't exist. Fingermouse already made this point. you can't make any claims about non-existence.

the questions you ask are about the existence of "god" or proof-of, or whatever. and i agree that from a logical point of view that proving the non-existence of evidence is proof that "god" exists. it just can't be done ( or it isn't known how it could be done to be more accurate). that's why the burden falls back on those that claim "god" exists. i also think it's kind of rude to make claims and let others do the work of finding proof.

 

OP, I couldn't finish your long boring post

 

I don't like to label myself because I don't really care

I think the idea of divine text is an insult to my intelligence (lacking and wasted as it may be)

Religion based on theological text will never be a viable beleif system for me

I wouldn't dismiss god or aliens, creation and infinity or explosion and chaos

anything is possible