I've currently got a hard line believer demanding that I produce evidence for my claim that gods don't exist. I explained to him that the onus is on those who argue that gods exist to prove it. To which he responds that I am the one who asserted that gods are not real and it is my responsibility to prove that statement. How do you argue with that mentality? So I told him that the lack of (or complete non-existence) of evidence is my evidence. Even if I have no definitive evidence that gods don't exist it doesn't automatically mean that they do. If your entire faith rests on the idea that there is no evidence that gods don't exist it's pretty damn sad.
There is no way to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Just imagine something, like an invisible, empty object on the table and ask someone to prove that the object doesn't exist. They won't be able to do it. If they try to touch it, you tell them it is untouchable, if they try to move the table, tell them now it's on the floor, etc, etc, etc. So, what they will do is tell you that you are crazy and you imagined that object. And that's exactly the way to prove that gods doesn't exist. The only way to demonstrate people that their gods are just imaginary beings in their minds is proving exactly that, that they just preserved "objects" in their minds that someone else imagined before. And to do that you have to learn and explain all the tricks that religions use to preserve those "objects" alive. Not an easy task :-)
LJY08 Oh I know! I have spent hours on hours debating religious people on line. Only to have them eventually say "well I'm still going to believe no matter what". It's exhausting :-)
LJY08, just ignore them. You see now they are all up in arms about that phil Robertson getting fired, they are boasting about free speech. Yeah if we express free speech, then we get burned in eternal flames, so much for freedom right. Jim Morrison of The Doors belived in a more Liberal God, a god who lets you be who you are.
We all conceptualize, that is one function of the mind. And religion is a specific system of concepts that is based on spiritual and wordly experiences of its founders and important followers. Whether indigionous or conquered with swords, it is a believe system. The scientific (believe) system is based on axioms, and subject to (subjective) observation and experiment. All conceptualization creates believes. Some you might call knowlegde (eating vegetables will support my physical health)
But then, that is subjective from my side. What matters most to me is how you use your believe system: for love or for hate, that is my main question I guess....
Imagine what the world would be like if everybody believed that they would be severely punished for every immoral deed or thought. To me, it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. I choose to believe.
Dave So you're telling me the Catholic church didn't burn people for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe? Religion has always prevented progress and will continue to do so until science proves it wrong.
myfistsbleed You're suggesting that the church is a religion. It isn't! Christianity doesn't support those deeds. I've never heard anything to convince me that religion has always prevented progress.
Dear david, it is not faith that means that someone is an athiest, its rational thought, looking at the facts, and deciding to believe the results that there is not one shread of scientific evidence or historical fact to show the christian god or any god exists, the faith comes into to it when the evidence is 0 but you still want to believe. Athiest and anti thiest resd the facts then decide not to believe based on the proof showen to them, their decision is not faith based, quite the opposite
That wasn't just the best religious discussion ever... it was the fastest.
I believe that if Christians just give me $10,000, that would make me peaceful.
If not everything needs to make sense, then why does anything need to??
Nice one, covers everything.
Hahaha! What show is this?
I've currently got a hard line believer demanding that I produce evidence for my claim that gods don't exist. I explained to him that the onus is on those who argue that gods exist to prove it. To which he responds that I am the one who asserted that gods are not real and it is my responsibility to prove that statement. How do you argue with that mentality? So I told him that the lack of (or complete non-existence) of evidence is my evidence. Even if I have no definitive evidence that gods don't exist it doesn't automatically mean that they do. If your entire faith rests on the idea that there is no evidence that gods don't exist it's pretty damn sad.
There is no way to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Just imagine something, like an invisible, empty object on the table and ask someone to prove that the object doesn't exist. They won't be able to do it. If they try to touch it, you tell them it is untouchable, if they try to move the table, tell them now it's on the floor, etc, etc, etc. So, what they will do is tell you that you are crazy and you imagined that object. And that's exactly the way to prove that gods doesn't exist. The only way to demonstrate people that their gods are just imaginary beings in their minds is proving exactly that, that they just preserved "objects" in their minds that someone else imagined before. And to do that you have to learn and explain all the tricks that religions use to preserve those "objects" alive. Not an easy task :-)
macrojd
LJY08 Oh I know! I have spent hours on hours debating religious people on line. Only to have them eventually say "well I'm still going to believe no matter what". It's exhausting :-)
the story of my life haha
LJY08, just ignore them. You see now they are all up in arms about that phil Robertson getting fired, they are boasting about free speech. Yeah if we express free speech, then we get burned in eternal flames, so much for freedom right. Jim Morrison of The Doors belived in a more Liberal God, a god who lets you be who you are.
We all conceptualize, that is one function of the mind. And religion is a specific system of concepts that is based on spiritual and wordly experiences of its founders and important followers. Whether indigionous or conquered with swords, it is a believe system.
The scientific (believe) system is based on axioms, and subject to (subjective) observation and experiment.
All conceptualization creates believes. Some you might call knowlegde (eating vegetables will support my physical health)
What you think we haven't understood yet closely ressembles the supernatural.
That's deep, hahahahaha
But then, that is subjective from my side. What matters most to me is how you use your believe system: for love or for hate, that is my main question I guess....
It’s called love and peace Linda…. It is not about a god we cannot know and people are happy about it
yups :-) but some ppl get there inner pease from soaps as well:p.
That is deep. Hip deep, if you catch my meaning.
Imagine what the world would be like if everybody believed that they would be severely punished for every immoral deed or thought. To me, it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. I choose to believe.
Imagine the progress humans could have made if religions were not preventing science.
myfistsbleed They're not!
Dave So you're telling me the Catholic church didn't burn people for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe? Religion has always prevented progress and will continue to do so until science proves it wrong.
myfistsbleed You're suggesting that the church is a religion. It isn't! Christianity doesn't support those deeds. I've never heard anything to convince me that religion has always prevented progress.
myfistsbleed How is religion preventing science "today"? What the church did centuries ago is irrelevant.
I'm not really "Religious Fanatics" but i find this vid is so funny :D
Your prayers remain in the brain, they do not influence anything else but you.
I cant tell if that white chick is the worst actress ever or the best.
Dear david,
it is not faith that means that someone is an athiest, its rational thought, looking at the facts, and deciding to believe the results that there is not one shread of scientific evidence or historical fact to show the christian god or any god exists, the faith comes into to it when the evidence is 0 but you still want to believe.
Athiest and anti thiest resd the facts then decide not to believe based on the proof showen to them, their decision is not faith based, quite the opposite
how is this pro-religion?
then you're not an atheist.
Some you might call delusion (my God)
agnost ;-)
not a speck of evidence of any deity or demon .... no reason to believe in such myths.