We'd either be in trouble, or he would have some explaining to do.
I don't know, just posting something as I am getting tired of Christians trying to say we should go to Christianity even though they can not prove their god. Then some of them go and quote parts of the bible, don't they understand that a lot of us use to be Christian?
There's people on here who know more about the bible than I do, who are also atheists. After doing research I found no reason to believe in any god. And the age of Earth VS the age of the universe doesn't prove all things were created in six days. Actually it took the universe like 9 billion years to get around to us, as this Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. The universe was here over 9 billion years before our side of it. It easily disproves the six day myth. The world wasn't ever fully flooded and was once all one piece. I would like to see a christian explain why theses things are not in their bible.
Sorry about my misuse of paragraphs, I never really learned them correctly.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Think about it. God is one of us. Who is he going to believe in?
@Cognostic
He'll believe in my buddy, Fievel Mousekewitz. LOL
Sorry, but god, is one of us. God was a concept of ignorant, goat herding, mythology fanboys, looking for answers without the ability to discover truths.
@doG
yes before we knew the facts, god was a concept as no one knew at one time how everything came to be. We know now many things about how this universe came together, and how old it is too. It was once believed a deity of sorts created it, and many cultures still believe in their concepts of how the universe was created. It takes a little research and an open mind to realize the the Big Bang happened, not that it was exactly an explosion of sorts.
The universe started then time began, as at one time the universe was like the size of a marble. Then it expanded in all directions at such a high rate of speed, that nothing within it could actually travel as fast as it did once expand. Don't quote me on that, but we do know it did expand at high speed. We have also been able to observe that this universe is still expanding into what we don't know I believe. But what did not create this universe is a god.
Mythology is the best way to put it I believe, but we know better now.
The deity concept is a place holder, a book mark until humans were able to turn the page and read on. Science may not have made a deity redundant, or at least made the need people feel for the comfort blanket of religion redundant, but the questions set aside by the assertion "goddidit" are slowly being answered by objective scientific evidence, It's hard to see why the message in religious texts, that for so long were claimed to be immutable truth from an omniscient deity, now so accurately reflects the human ignorance from the epoch that particular deity was created. One might at least have expected it to start with scientific facts.
If only we could piece all these clues together.
@Sheldon
Well we do know today how the universe was born. And I doubt a deity made any of it happen.
Started this cause getting tired of all the Christians coming on here trying to say some god created it.
@Fievel
"Well we do know today how the universe was born. And I doubt a deity made any of it happen."
Indeed.
However , I'm still not quite able to get my head around the notion of something from nothing. I mean 'nothing' in the philosophical sense not the way it's used by Lawrence Krauss .--He kind of argues the universe came from nothing-ish
Yeah, I know that no god means everything from nothing. That I can't grasp the concept makes it no less true--- probably, I'm an agnostic atheist after all. I make no truth claims.
@cranky47
Indeed we don't have all the answers but we are finding new things out about the universe all the time. It is still is a pretty sure thing a deity did not create it. If one exists maybe a life lesson is to not believe in any god? Does that make any sense?
You're making a claim to knowledge there, it carries a burden of proof. A lack of evidence doesn't disprove something, that's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
However a lack of evidence can be cited as a valid epistemological reason to disbelieve a claim.
Remember a lack of evidence neither proves nor disproved anything. This doesn't mean an unfalsifiable claim becomes a 50/50 premise though, as is so often implied in apologetics, or in versions of Pascal's wager, where theists imply a risk to disbelief, without any evidence of that risk existing at all of course, and then ignore the obvious risk of belief which is almost as statistically likely to pick the wrong deity or the wrong version of a deity as not picking one at all.
Think of the odds of winning a lottery, but there is absolutely no evidence the lottery exists, or will ever be drawn, and no one can agree on what you should pick numbers, letters, symbols etc etc, or how many you need to win. Now it must be obvious not picking anything carries no more statistical risk than guessing randomly or subjectively that you've been handed the winning answer by the mere luck of the geography and epoch of your birth.
Yet Pascal's wager tries to imply the choice to believe or not as if it's a 50/50 premise, with all the risk falsely attached to disbelief. As if no one has noticed that the belief comes with baggage, much of which is deeply pernicious.
We know for an objective fact that natural phenomena are real, and we know, as far as we can objectively know anything, that the material universe exists. Everything we so far have objectively understood about reality requires only natural phenomena, and not once in all of human history has a supernatural cause ever achieved any objective evidence, let alone anything like the objective evidence science gathers to establish facts like species evolution. So we cannot even say if supernatural causes are possible.
This then is enough justification for me to withhold belief. I no more need to prove deities don't exist than I need to prove invisible leprechauns aren't real.
It's a non question for me, and will remain so until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support the claims of religions. Simply waving away this request as bias won't wash either, since no theist has ever offered any rational justification for theism being the one belief that is excused sufficient objective evidence being required, as if assuming deities are a special case, and the assumption they exist and can't be tested is a trump card in a debate, rather than an absurdly biased position in itself. After all once theists grant a deity this exception, you're back to square one again, evidencing which version of which deity is real, and of course if they could do that this dodge theists use to excuse deities from sufficient objective evidence would hardly be necessary anyway.
A belief is the affirmation of a claim, and must therefore carry a burden of proof.
Disbelieving a claim is not a contrary claim, and unless someone makes a contrary claim, as you did in your post, they have no epistemological or rational burden of proof.
Your claim means you now have an epistemological and rational burden of proof to supply sufficient objective evidence to support that claim.
For me, the claim is a step too far.
Quite a well done teaching moment, Sheldon.
@CyberLN
I got a bit carried away, but it's kind of you to say so. I try always to aim for brevity, but sometimes I get a little caught up in the moment.
@Sheldon
Am yeah.
If I believed in a deity which of the millions?
I wont blindly believe in a thing without solid proof of that thing existing. There's no evidence Jesus ever really existed. But in any case I don't believe in Christianity.
Kind of high.
@Sheldon: Thanks! I get so tired of calling Fievel on his ignorant claims that I fear it seems I am picking on him. He just doesn't get it. Nice to see someone else step in for a change.
@ Fievel Mousekewitz
"It is still is a pretty sure thing a deity did not create it."
We do not know what came before the big bang. We can not rule anything out. But all of the evidence indicates a naturalistic cause, while there is absolutely zero evidence of anything supernatural.
"If one exists maybe a life lesson is to not believe in any god?"
Be a perpetual skeptic, do not believe ANYTHING until you have proven it. That applies to religion, politics, even how you cross a street.
@Fievel
"It is still is a pretty sure thing a deity did not create it. "
A bold claim.
From where I sit that has not been shown to be true. I stick to my position that god cannot be argued into or out of existence.
An agnostic atheist I do not believe, but make no claims.
The existence of god is one of THE great questions. So far, it has remained unfalsifiable . So I'm unable to agree with your claim. The non existence of a god who then created the universe is a long way from anything approaching a sure thing.
However, I'll be thrilled to see any actual proof you might have.
@cranky47
Wasn't saying that, was saying I agree with Morgan Freeman in that "A god wasn't necessary to create the universe." He is an atheist too.
edit
edit
@Fievel: ""A god wasn't necessary to create the universe." 1. Morgan Freeman is an actor and not a cosmologist. Not a theologian. Not a scientist. Certainly he is NO ONE anyone should be quoting about anything other than an acting career.
2. Asserting that a god was not necessary is a claim. Please demonstrate the evidence you have to prove a god was not necessary? Given that we do not know how the universe came to exist, if it came to exist and is not eternal. please share with all of us HOW IN THE FUCK YOU RULED OUT A GOD. and concluded it was unnecessary?
You just don't get it...do you? You can not hold theists responsible for the claims they make in one breath and then turn around and avoid the very same responsibility in the next. Stop making inane assertions. Just stop,.
@Cognostic
In other words how can I be sure there's no god without proof?
There's certainly no proof one exists either, so we're at square one then?
Sigh, I'm just talking to myself aren't I?
@Sheldon
Sorry man.
What's up?
@ Fievel Mousekewitz
"In other words how can I be sure there's no god without proof?
There's certainly no proof one exists either, so we're at square one then?"
I suggest you read up on the Black Swan fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Fievel: NO! We are not at square one. You remind me of this fucking philosophy professor I know. He runs through all the apologetics and each time he does so he shifts the burden of proof at the end of the lecture and calls it a "push." (Tie.) It is not a FUCKING TIE. The theists have once again failed to provide facts and evidence supporting their claim.
The theists have been making claims for 10,000 years. All of them have fallen short. They have insisted each and every one of their gods was real. Not one has stood solid against critical inquiry. We have millions of failed gods and millions of failed assertions concerning any present day gods. We have no solid foundation for belief in any god or any god claim. We know for a fact that prayer works no better than chance. that miracle claims are unsubstantiated, that claims of prophecy are bogus and that apologetics for the existence of God or gods have all failed. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.
When an experiment fails or when an assertion is not validated with facts, examples, or some form of logical validation, it can be dismissed. We no longer need to repeat that experiment. We no longer need to make that argument. It has been done and it has failed. We no longer need to look in that direction. If god is to be found, it will not be there.
The score is no place near zero. It is no place near a "Starting Point." The score is more like a billion to one in favor of God not existing.
Does that mean there is nothing out there that could be called "God.?"
NO! It means that we have absolutely no reason at all to believe such a thing might possibly exist. CLAIMS ARE BELIEVED BASED ON THE DEGREE OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. While all current evidence does not support the existence of a god....... YOU HAVE ONLY THE FAILED CLAIMS MENTIONED ABOVE COUNTING AS EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD. These claims are not all inclusive and say nothing about places we have not looked. They are persuasive but can not rule out the existence of a god completely.
GET THIS - "The evidence does not support the existence of a God or gods." This is not the same thing as making an assertion that God or gods do not exist. When you make the assertion that God or Gods do not exist, you are adopting a burden of proof. How in the hell are you going to prove something you say does not exist, does not exist?
We are not at square one. To think so is nearly as delusional as believing in a God.
@cranky47
If there would happen to be a god and a soul I will find that out when I die.
But I figure it is just like Morgan Freeman says, when you die that's it, just like before one is born.
Proof of any of this, No I don't. I am just very sure a god does not exist.
Very sure, really? I don't believe in any deity, and I "very sure" no objective evidence has been presented for any deity, and until it is I will continue to disbelieve god claims, but to claim to be very sure god does not exist
i mean seriously, which god,, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for this CLAIM!
Sigh....
@Sheldon
I have no evidence that any god exists, Christian or otherwise.
You ask which god, I wouldn't know. I said if I find out different when I die, great!
And if death is nothing as Morgan Freeman says, then I still lose nothing.
I don't even know if I would want to live forever, what the fuck would I do with myself for an eternity?
I think you're missing the point. You made a claim to knowledge, in that first quote, yet can demonstrate no evidence to support your claim. As of course your second quote clearly indicates. Atheism is not a claim, nor is it a belief, but your post was both, thus you have a burden of proof for them. Pointing out that theists can't demonstrate any evidence to support their belief is not enough if you want to make a contrary claim, it is enough to justify disbelieving their claim. There is a difference between atheism and atheistic.
@Sheldon
I don't have belief in any god, they are all bullshit.
I believe in science, which has never proved a god exists, or ever existed.
Or were you trying to pick on me claiming God is one of us?
Was trying to get further away from the god subject, not closer.
Feivel ...no one is “picking” BUT
“ believe in science, which has never proved a god exists, or ever existed.”
I fuckin don’t “believe” in science. Shit, which “science”?!?!? Confidence? Depends. Like most medical experts I’m awaiting the peer reviewed data on COVID-19 for example (and playing the “safe” side)... who knows, people can be “right” about things and science “wrong” but it’s the scientific method that helps me in my decision making.
Pages