Atheists what is your proof?

[Greatest I am]

You will find none. Nor will you find a sane atheist who can say, 100% for sure, that there is no god. Only that positive assertions require positive proof (i.e. "I'm a Christian. There is a god."). As no such proof exists, we believe that there is no god. If such proof is provided, then things may change. Even the most die-hard atheist, like Dawkins (in his book "The God Delusion") assert this quite openly.

True atheism is rooted in science. An absence of proof is merely the absence of proof. But such an absence does not justify making up stories and selling them as such proof (religion), or believing in such stories just because they are really-really old and have a cultural place in our lives.

~String

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist without being able to look at every spot in the universe.
Luckily it is to those who cry wolf to show the shit or the tacks and any believer who says that there is a God is just as big a liar as the ones who definitively state that there is none.

It is to the believer to put up or shut up, not to the one who says prove your case.

As to --what is the harm of belief. It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

Google Religulous to see how they hurt all believers. I would link you but the program here will not let me.

They also do much harm to their own.

Please Google African witches and Jesus and Jesus Camp to see the carnage.

Regards
DL

 

[SnakeLord]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist without being able to look at every spot in the universe.

Outside of mathematics and basic logical concepts, nobody can "prove" anything. But your argument has no worthwhile value here: An inability to "prove" that you're not living in the matrix does not mean therefore that you should believe it, which is seemingly exactly what your argument is attempting to say.

We look at the evidence that is available and make conclusions based upon it. In saying that, the conclusion is that god's do not exist but instead are creations of ignorant humans as an attempt to explain the world around them, a world that was by an large very deadly and unfriendly to humans, (hence why gods are typically portrayed as being full of wrath and vengeance).

So no, we cannot "prove" there isn't a god any more than you can "prove" there isn't an invisible leprechaun sitting on your face. That in itself doesn't mean anything.

any believer who says that there is a God is just as big a liar as the ones who definitively state that there is none.

Neither is specifically a matter of "lying" but being wrong or right depending upon what data and evidence is being examined and what conclusions it supports.

Regards,

 

[phlogistician]

it must suck to be normal phlog.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

god is also the most common denominator, and the most comprehensive, and the most impactive.

How can something that has effect on my life be that?

now let's see...we started with epilepsy, now we have mental aberrations, aneurysm, stroke, fit, psychotic episode, migraine, mental episode, hypnagogic dream, bad dream, and drugs, and on top of all that, a liar.

As you refuse to be diagnosed, all I have done it list the possible causes Lori. It would be unscientific of me to specify one based on the limited information.

i burnt those pages along with all other pages, and a notebook, and the stationery that shrunk on my coffee table, after a very disturbing telephone conversation with my wasted ex-husband, because this shit freaked me the fuck out.

You do understand that none of this os very compelling don't you? A strange episode, no evidence left, no 3rd party witness, and everyone involved acting strangely?

your pansy ass would have been at the hospital.

From what, receiving a phone call? LOL

i dug the spiral from the notebook out of the fireplace with the chunks and ashes about a year later.

But how knows how many you've burned? Maybe you do this more than you remember.

the first poem i channeled, i mailed to the person it's message was meant for and it was returned months later refused and unopened. i kept that for years, but two years ago my basement backed up with sewage after a storm about two feet, and i lost it.

Again, conveniently no provenance, and a poem sent to person that might not have even existed, which might explain why it was returned. Still nothing compelling here.

Now, before you invoke a supernatural explanation to explain your episode (I know it's too late, but hey) you really should make sure there isn't or wasn't, a mundane explanation. It may be too late now though, again, your actions have destroyed all provenance either way.

 

[Lori_7]

In this case it could mean that Eve was instucted not to procreate
with a specific (satanic) race of people.
It becomes clearer when you read a direct translation of the original
hebrew text.

jan.

yeah "the demon seed". i've read some on that theory. there's scripture to back it up like genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." and that cain and abel found wives, in nod, where there were a race of giants, the nephilium, which was the result of "the sons of god" breeding with "the daughters of men".

and that was directly before god destroyed the earth with a flood because people were so evil. noah however, was found to be relatively pure, so he was spared to start over. and by "pure", that could be referring to his blood as well as his heart.

 

[Lori_7]

You summed it up nicely, esp 'no good reason'.

you believe there is no god, nor a spiritual realm for no good reason. seriously, that is your reason, that there is none. while you have no idea what is not, and while you ignore a lot of things that are.

Not my cop out. I do not believe in the supernatural. It doesn't mean something 'real' either, it means something 'supernatural'. Get a dictionary.

i was using the word "paranormal", and i have a dictionary. but if you want to use "supernatural", ok. you cannot define "nature" in it's entirety; not even close.

Odd, I used to work with a bunch of guys, Astronomers, who looked at 'what was out there'. We never saw God. As to being a woowoo, no, Lori, a woowoo is someone who holds a belief without their being a sound reason to hold those beliefs. That person is not me.



But the gap is getting smaller and smaller. Science is making your God shrink!

do you think god is a planet or a star? you think you're going to look through a telescope and see a literal door out there with the sign "the spiritual realm: enter at your own risk"?

there's nothing about science or nature that contradicts the notion of god or a spiritual realm...nothing. you arbitrarily believe that, therefore you are a woowoo.

OK, so you believe every woowoo and their crackpot theory ? Talk about being so open minded your brains fell out,....

unless i have a damn good reason not to, unlike yourself. in the case of a theory, such as your "there is no god or spiritual realm" theory, i am able to examine someone's reasoning. but if someone testifies to me about a personal experience, i believe what they tell me. the only damn good reason not to, would be if i already knew they were a liar.

Is that supposed to be a reply? Please try to make some effort.

you didn't understand it? ok...

it must be very convenient for you to think you have understanding and to believe that all atheists are sane and theists are not.

Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made extraordinary claims, and these have been explained to you using current medical understanding of brain function. You won't accept that you maybe had a episode.



I do not believe you talk to God. I do not believe in your God. Happy now?

you're wrong, and i am not a liar.

 

[Stryder]

yeah "the demon seed". i've read some on that theory. there's scripture to back it up like genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." and that cain and abel found wives, in nod, where there were a race of giants, the nephilium, which was the result of "the sons of god" breeding with "the daughters of men".

and that was directly before god destroyed the earth with a flood because people were so evil. noah however, was found to be relatively pure, so he was spared to start over. and by "pure", that could be referring to his blood as well as his heart.

You know certain people quote scripture and others use to attempt to hear hidden messages while playing a record backwards, it's pretty much the same only significant to the people that observe it and see importance in it, to everybody else it's just someone screaming for attention.

 

[historicfuture]

to the original poster:

I believe in a pink flamingo that created the universe and he told me to murder you and all people that believe like you. He is god and if you can't disprove him then you have no right to tell me I can't believe it and you're going to choke and die in my hands.

You can't disprove my pink flamingo doesn't exist. He even spoke to me in my dreams.

If I write a book about him and call it holy written by his pink flamingo offspring and in 2000 years someone reads it and then tons of other people you'd arrive at the same madness that you currently hold true and infallible.

 

[Pinwheel]

Pink flamingos exist....!

 

[lightgigantic]

to the original poster:

I believe in a pink flamingo that created the universe and he told me to murder you and all people that believe like you. He is god and if you can't disprove him then you have no right to tell me I can't believe it and you're going to choke and die in my hands.

You can't disprove my pink flamingo doesn't exist. He even spoke to me in my dreams.

If I write a book about him and call it holy written by his pink flamingo offspring and in 2000 years someone reads it and then tons of other people you'd arrive at the same madness that you currently hold true and infallible.

I guess that just leaves you with the problem of forming a functional society or even philosophical system around your tenets
:shrug:

 

[Lori_7]

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

i have tried it, and thank god i was never successful at it. typing that didn't make you feel the slightest bit pathetic?

How can something that has effect on my life be that?

because it's law. the law that makes you and the law you live under.

As you refuse to be diagnosed, all I have done it list the possible causes Lori. It would be unscientific of me to specify one based on the limited information.

would it? would it be unscientific of you? :thumbsup:

your information is a lot more limited than you think it is, and yes it would be unscientific to arbitrarily leave out a known cause.

You do understand that none of this os very compelling don't you? A strange episode, no evidence left, no 3rd party witness, and everyone involved acting strangely?



From what, receiving a phone call? LOL

if you had been through everything i had up to that point, you would have been committed and doused with drugs.

and none of those things my ex-husband had any way of knowing about, and yet he called me up while blacked out from prescription pills and alcohol, and proceeds to tell me all about it in a taunting evil voice. i felt like i had just gotten off the phone with satan himself, and yes, it freaked me the fuck out. i have never been that scared in my life. i didn't know what else to do so i went to my knees to pray (which i very very rarely kneel to pray), and as soon as my knees hit the floor, god bellowed at me, "GET UP!" which startled me enough that i wasn't so scared any more. now i was angry. what my ex said made me feel like something evil was watching me, and so i went downstairs and gathered anything that had to do with what i had been going through and burned it in the fireplace.

But how knows how many you've burned? Maybe you do this more than you remember.

are you serious? :wtf:

first of all, i don't write...ever. i've always hated writing. hated poetry. the only time in my entire life i've ever written anything i didn't have to was during this time. i specifically bought a spiral notebook and the stationery because i felt like i had to write it down. i had an entire notebook full by then, trying to write down everything that was happening to me.

secondly, i never use that fireplace. it's in the basement. in the '70's my home was rental property and there was an apartment down there. now, it's a basement with a random fireplace and toilet in it. the ONLY times i've ever used it are when i burnt the notebook, and one night for a halloween party. i had the entire house opened up, three fires going, and the basement was the designated pot smoking zone. i cleaned the ashes from the notebook, along with the spiral before that party, and i sat and looked at it and remembered.

Again, conveniently no provenance, and a poem sent to person that might not have even existed, which might explain why it was returned. Still nothing compelling here.

Now, before you invoke a supernatural explanation to explain your episode (I know it's too late, but hey) you really should make sure there isn't or wasn't, a mundane explanation. It may be too late now though, again, your actions have destroyed all provenance either way.

nothing about what i went through was mundane. the person that the poem was addressed to does in fact exist, and the address was correct. it was a po box for fan mail, and they receive letters and packages all the time. some letters written in blood (not mine). there was no reason why my package should have been returned unopened, but it did.

 

[Lori_7]

You know certain people quote scripture and others use to attempt to hear hidden messages while playing a record backwards, it's pretty much the same only significant to the people that observe it and see importance in it, to everybody else it's just someone screaming for attention.

it doesn't have to be someone screaming for attention. it could actually be meaningful (even if just to that person) and interesting.

 

[Syzygys]

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist without being able to look at every spot in the universe.

Yes, but I already did...

I looked under every rock in the Universe

 

[phlogistician]

you believe there is no god, nor a spiritual realm for no good reason.

Not true. I just don't believe they do exist, and my good reason, is because there is no evidence for them. There's a whole bunch of things that fall into the same category.

i was using the word "paranormal", and i have a dictionary. but if you want to use "supernatural", ok. you cannot define "nature" in it's entirety; not even close.

They are synonyms, and oh yes we can define them, because they are words, and WE choose the definition of words.

do you think god is a planet or a star? you think you're going to look through a telescope and see a literal door out there with the sign "the spiritual realm: enter at your own risk"?

I don't know what to expect. But if there was a God shaped gap in a scientific observation, I should think it would stick out. So far, we haven't seen that gap.

there's nothing about science or nature that contradicts the notion of god or a spiritual realm...nothing.

There's nothing is science or nature that reasonably leads us to the conclusion that God exists either. That is my point. No reason -> no belief.

you arbitrarily believe that, therefore you are a woowoo.

Ah, but the reasons I reject God go beyond observations of nature. They are largely due to the arbitrary claims people make about God. Contradictory and illogical claims, that have no reason to be made. That god we can reject.

unless i have a damn good reason not to, unlike yourself. in the case of a theory, such as your "there is no god or spiritual realm" theory, i am able to examine someone's reasoning. but if someone testifies to me about a personal experience, i believe what they tell me. the only damn good reason not to, would be if i already knew they were a liar.

So your brains have fallen out. You believe in leprechauns, and faeries, and BigFoot, and the Och Ness Monster, and all the crap that CommonSenseSeeker posts, and astral project, and witchcraft and the list is endless. See, here you show lack of discernment. You have no aceptance criteria. That really puts a dent in your credibility.

it must be very convenient for you to think you have understanding and to believe that all atheists are sane and theists are not.

Well, all theists must be a little insane, you have to admit that.

you're wrong, and i am not a liar.

I'm wrong that I do not believe? Eh? You make no sense. And you are a liar, you are just very good at lying to yourself.

 

[phlogistician]

i have tried it, and thank god i was never successful at it. typing that didn't make you feel the slightest bit pathetic?

Then if you tried and failed, you never knew what it was like to feel normal. And no, I don't feel pathetic. Maybe that's how you felt before you self aggrandised to become God's contact on Earth?

because it's law. the law that makes you and the law you live under.

If it's the law, nobody is enforcing it around here.

known cause

The known cause is human nature. Flawed perception. Less than 100% cognitive capability. You had an episode. Deal with it. Here are some examples of how your brain interprets what you experience. You have two eyes, but you only see one version of an object in front of you. You have two ears, and we use this to locate sounds, but we don't hear the separate sounds, ... our brains processes both inputs and gives us one result. Our brain is also comprised of two hemispheres. Did you know that dolphins can let one side sleep, while the other takes control? Do you think all of your brain is awake, all of the time you experience consciousness? Do you not think it possible, for an unconscious mind to implant it's dreams into the conscious one? Well, it does work like that. It has been shown that sleep deprivation causes parts of the brain to fall asleep, and then dreams appear to be reality. This may have happened to you. You may have part of your brain permanently asleep if you regularly experience these feelings. Either way, you need a professional diagnosis.

if you had been through everything i had up to that point, you would have been committed and doused with drugs.

I somehow think it's the drugs you admit to taking that might be the cause of your problems.

and none of those things my ex-husband had any way of knowing about, and yet he called me up while blacked out from prescription pills and alcohol, and proceeds to tell me all about it in a taunting evil voice.

Assuming that wasn't just part of your dream.

are you serious? :wtf:

How do you know this wasn't your first episode?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You have officially rendered your perspective irrelevant.

You are welcome to provide objective evidence for your subjective claim.

 

[SolusCado]

You are welcome to provide objective evidence for your subjective claim.

That's just it. I have proposed an alternative (to the mainstream) interpretation of scriptures that is consistent with known science. You seem to dismiss it because you choose to make your own interpretations - and you use the English language as your 'evidence'. Since none of these scriptures were originally written in English, I don't see how you have any evidence whatsoever. That your only response is to continually ignore my suppositions, and cling to your own - for no reason other than you can dispute your own - well, as I said before... it has rendered your perspective irrelevant. Do you have a reason to refuse my suppositions beyond the fact that you can't show them to be false? Because if not, that is a pretty flimsy position to take.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no interpretation of scripture that is consistent with known science.

 

[SolusCado]

There is no interpretation of scripture that is consistent with known science.

If you're going to make such a statement, kindly note the flaws in the interpretations I have provided.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That's just it. I have proposed an alternative (to the mainstream) interpretation of scriptures that is consistent with known science.

Your interpretation ignores the English words actually being used (at least in English translations). If you want to go the path of Hebrew, that's fine; however, you are going to have to learn Hebrew first before you can "interpret" it.

You seem to dismiss it because you choose to make your own interpretations - and you use the English language as your 'evidence'. Since none of these scriptures were originally written in English, I don't see how you have any evidence whatsoever.

Essentially you are claiming that all translations are incorrect. Again, I am fine with going directly to Hebrew. It's just as invalidate-able.

That your only response is to continually ignore my suppositions, and cling to your own - for no reason other than you can dispute your own -

Do you remember when I asked which Bible to use? You said any. If you really meant to use Hebrew manuscripts then you should have said so. That is why we have language. To communicate. Regardless, I would be willing to bet that the Hebrew manuscripts do not support your "suppositions" either.

well, as I said before... it has rendered your perspective irrelevant. Do you have a reason to refuse my suppositions beyond the fact that you can't show them to be false? Because if not, that is a pretty flimsy position to take.

Well, your suppositions are supposedly based on the Bible. I asked which one to use to demonstrate you incorrect. You said any. I then used a random Bible to fulfill what I claimed I would do. Next you are saying that all translations of the bible are incorrect; therefore, my argument doesn't matter. Of course, your suppositions are not based on Hebrew manuscripts as you do not know Hebrew.

So basically, if you are going to claim your "god" is the biblical god, then please provide explicit biblical documents that you are basing your "suppositions" off of and I will demonstrate them incorrect.

 

[SolusCado]

Your interpretation ignores the English words actually being used (at least in English translations). If you want to go the path of Hebrew, that's fine; however, you are going to have to learn Hebrew first before you can "interpret" it.

And in some cases I have. But even current translations of Hebrew aren't infallible. As I said before, languages change and evolve over time. To apply modern-day meanings to ancient texts is just plain stupid. And that is precisely what you are doing, which is why your perspective is irrelevant.

Essentially you are claiming that all translations are incorrect. Again, I am fine with going directly to Hebrew. It just as invalidate-able.

Not the translations (necessarily) but the interpretations. Day as an example, even in today's language can mean an epoch, and yet you refuse to accept that as a meaning for Genesis 1's use of the word. Upon what grounds? You have yet to provide any, which is why your position is barely worth my time to respond.

Do you remember when I asked which Bible to use? You said any. If you really meant to use Hebrew manuscripts then you should have said so. That is why we have language. To communicate. Regardless, I would be willing to bet that the Hebrew manuscripts do not support your "suppositions" either.

I said any because my proposal is such that ANY text must be looked at through the lens of the time in which it was written, but translations are invariably provided in the lens of the time in which it was translated, and that gap is prone to error. SO, ANY translation is going to be subject to generous interpretation.

Well, your suppositions are supposedly based on the Bible. I asked which one to use to demonstrate you incorrect. You said any. I then used a random Bible to fulfill what I claimed I would do. Next you are saying that all translations of the bible are incorrect; therefore, my argument doesn't matter. Of course, your suppositions are not based on Hebrew manuscripts as you do not know Hebrew.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between the words interpret and translate? You applied your interpretation to a translation you selected, and ignored my interpretation. As long as that is your approach, you aren't worth talking to.

So basically, if you are going to claim your "god" is the biblical god, then please provide explicit biblical documents that you are basing your "suppositions" off of and I will demonstrate them incorrect.

I find it hard to believe that you can truly be this obtuse. My claim is that to understand the Biblical God we must think about things in the context of the authors (not the translators) of the Bible. Furthermore, we must recognize that these people didn't even have a language that was adequate to fully convey the meanings of things that were revealed to them by God. So, to apply their vision of God to our modern-day knowledge, we must apply our modern-day knowledge to what they did write down. Noah's environment is a prime example. Regardless of the word they used, his knowledge of "the world" would have been restricted to the areas travelled by him and those he knew (and those that they knew). Thus, a depiction of a flood of the world he knew would have simply used words that apply to "the world". Just because we have since learned that the world is much bigger doesn't magically increase the scope of the flood, as you would attempt to make people believe. And the worst part about your position is that you don't even believe it. You are painting a picture that you can show to be false just so you can show it to be false. You are resistant to a picture that you cannot show to be false because you don't want to be wrong. To that, I say grow up.