atheists, please explain yourselves..

[Jan Ardena]

eddie23,

Word play and, or other peoples definitions still do not prove anything.

It's not "word play", that is the basic definition of "God".
There is only one of two positions you can take on this,
either you believe, or not believe.

I do not need to prove the non-existance of something that there is no evidence og.

You are making a claim, "...there is no evidence of".
Can you back this claim, or are you just following the herd?

However those of you that make the claim need to show the proof.

You should follow your own advice.
However, my claim is that I believe God exists as a Supreme Being.
Would you like me to prove it to you?

A definition is not proof of existance and neither is a book written by people who left no evedince of having ever existed.

Define proof of existence?

If the bible is to be taken as history then those that beleive it must also seriously take the story of atlantis ( another myth or fable.)as fact and real also.

Not necessarily.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

However, my claim is that I believe God exists as a Supreme Being.
Would you like me to prove it to you?

Please.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Please.

I, the claimant, believe in God.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

funny

 

[glaucon]

You claim "God does not exist", please explain how you know this.
What is the logical basis of your knowledge?

My claim was never "god does not exist", rather it was "it is irrational to claim god exists". (I understand that you have difficulty in seeing the distinction)

And as I've already explained numerous times, this is because there is no reason to support such a notion.

Why? Because we cannot see them, which is how we would know if they
existed. If you try to apply the same method to God, then you are either
ignorant, burying your head in the sand, or both

Non-sequitor.

It is the identical method, and if you cannot understand why that is so, it is you who are the confused one.

To choose not to believe in PFE's is subjective and personal.

Incorrect. We have no rationally derived theory that can support the existence of PFE's.

I don't know anyone who believes in PFE's.

But you do....by analogy.

Putting God and PFE's in the same bracket is further evidence that
your atheism has little to do with logic, or is in any way rational. But
is your personal choice, for whatever reason.

Actually, you are the one who consistently displays no grasp whatsoever on fundamental first order logic. Without referring to incidental qualia, speaking strictly in ontological terms, can you differentiate PFE from god? Good luck.

 

[jpappl]

please see the below link for the incredible coincidences between the story of horus and jesus

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparsison_horus_jesus_chart.htm


I'm sorry but i cannot believe in something that was clearly plagiarised by an earlier civilisation

Awesome. Unbelievable no wait, it's believable. I especially like the part where the original was considered a myth and was replaced with a Human-Man-God.

 

[Cris]

This looks too neat. It is worth doing a little extra studying of Horus to verify the website claims. I suspect it is true but I am wary of some past claims like this where over enthusiastic exaggeration had occurred.

 

[spidergoat]

The official monotheist story is the they came from Egypt and taught their new idea of a single God to the inhabitants of Judea, who joined them and became the Jews. For there to be a resemblance to Egyptian religion is a likely proposition.

 

[swarm]

God is heat

Well, no. God, per se, isn't anything. You have some concepts which you call god. Other people have other concepts they call god with are usually not very similar to yours.

You really should work on you metaphors though.

Themometers don't "see" a temperature or explain anything or experience or record.

A good metaphor uses parallels in a common experience to illuminate an uncomman one, like: The economist developed thermometer for taking the economy's temperature and found it was running a fever.

Even if you don't know anything about ecomonics, from the metaphor you can derive that the economy is having its measure taking and it is not well and running "hot."

 

[swarm]

i don't believe in god/s, but i can't prove they don't exist.

So?

The things you don't believe in are innumerable.

None of them are assumed to exist until there is reason to assume they exist.

For example Qerg.

You can't prove Qerg, even though Qerg is by definition greater than any god.

Are you a Qerg agnostic?

Are you seeking Qerg?

Do you want Qerg in your life?

Do you worship and pray to Qerg, just in case?

Theism is based entirely on speacial pleading. They want you to make exceptions for their god, pretend the normal rules don't apply.

Sorry. Empty claims of fantasy gods are straight up false. God isn't even important enough to be an atheist or agnostic over. Its just a fun speculation totoy with and nothing more.

 

[swarm]

You claim "God does not exist", please explain how you know this.

What are you talking about "god?"

What is that supposed to be?

Why do you think it even exists?

Your claims of "god" seem insane.

 

[swarm]

Find a number of dictionaries, type "God" into the search engine, and I am pretty sure "Supreme Being", "Creator", will be the basis of definition.

Your "god" is a dictionary entry?

8. a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Ok, but why do you worship that?

Oh you mean:

7. any deified person or object.

or is it:

6. an image of a deity; an idol.

This dictionary stuff is fun. So you believe in deified people and objects?

If its in the dictionary it must be true after all.

 

[swarm]

I, the claimant, believe in God.

So you are nuts. Big deal.

 

[codanblad]

So?

The things you don't believe in are innumerable.

None of them are assumed to exist until there is reason to assume they exist.

For example Qerg.

You can't prove Qerg, even though Qerg is by definition greater than any god.

I'd say the number of christians around me was reason enough to question whether god exists. likewise with other religions i've had a look at. unlike with qerg.

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

My claim was never "god does not exist", rather it was "it is irrational to claim god exists". (I understand that you have difficulty in seeing the distinction)

Not necessarily.
What is irrational, is to judge everybodys understanding, experience, and knowledge, by your own, not to mention claiming that God doesn't exist.
Also, try and conduct this conversation without resorting to insults please.

And as I've already explained numerous times, this is because there is no reason to support such a notion.

You mean, there is no reason for you.

Non-sequitor.

It is the identical method, and if you cannot understand why that is so, it is you who are the confused one.

Wrong again.
If a PFE existed it would be a physical being, therefore we would be able
to see evidence directly.
God is not defined as physical being.
And people who believe in God, do not believe him to be a physical being.
If your not able discuss God in that context, then we can proceed no further.

Incorrect. We have no rationally derived theory that can support the existence of PFE's.

So we choose not to believe they exists.
Choosing to come to a conclusion is both subjective, and personal.

But you do....by analogy.

That sound like a "God does not exist" claim to me.
By analogy, I don't, that's just plain silly, even idiotic (ijf your being serious).

Actually, you are the one who consistently displays no grasp whatsoever on fundamental first order logic. Without referring to incidental qualia, speaking strictly in ontological terms, can you differentiate PFE from god? Good luck.

Your basically asking me the difference between the two subjects, based on
ability of sight. A trick question.
Removing the "incedental qualia" renders this discussion pointless.

jan.

 

[GAY!]

Uhm here....I don't know.

That's why I don't believe in gawd...cuz I don't believe in things that I simply don't know about. I realize that I know absolutely nothing in this fucking miserable life that I have. But that doesn't mean I'll believe in gawd.

And if there is a gawd...why the fuck should I love him? What because he treats us like his ass slaves? Cuz he lets all the evil in humanity continue on? Cuz he created us in his image which is something so revolting, so disturbing it induces disgust in a reflection? I don't believe in something that absolutely has no proof, just because a good amount of society accepts bullshit doesn't mean I will.

And even if there is a gawd I fucking hate it/him/her. And would do all I could to kill it, even if that meant going to hell and being tortured for all eternity. I could never live with myself in heaven while others are being tortured in hell for not believing in a selfish and jealous gawd that gave no perceivable evidence to his existence.

 

[(Q)]

I, the claimant, believe in God.

jan.

So, the claim has been made. Now, how do you support the claim without referring to myth and superstition?

 

[EmeraldAxe]

Dawkins covers everything brought up so far and more in the first 50 pages of God Delusion. Maybe another thread should be started refuting some of the explanations given in his book.

There were a number of issues raised in the book which I had not formally entertained. He contends early on that atheists are actually an oppressed minority. It's obvious enough when given pause to see the lengths at which religious institutions go to obtain power and the lack of humility shown on their part (i.e. incapability to be proven wrong) borders on authoritarian and tyrannical. I've also never understood how someone can be a pure capitalist and at once advocate for any one religion. Make your own decisions, not the government, except that you should believe this and this and that and also give us a tithe (Mormons).

This is and since I was a child, has been my problem with most religions. They claim to have the answers to some of the questions we all seem to ask at some point. But the precedent set up by giving people the answer instead of encouraging them to seek the answer themselves (and in the process perhaps unsubscribe from the religion) is downright dangerous.

 

[(Q)]

Dawkins covers everything brought up so far and more in the first 50 pages of God Delusion. Maybe another thread should be started refuting some of the explanations given in his book.

You won't see that here. Any theist who has ever commented on Dawkins here hasn't come up with a single argument, but instead they bluster and guffaw till their faces turn blue. That in itself is quite entertaining.

 

[S.A.M.]

He contends early on that atheists are actually an oppressed minority.

He also says that most highly educated people like the top scientists and politicians are more likley to be atheists. I'd hate to think what the un-oppressed ones look like. Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il?