Empirical Evidence of God

I believe that many atheists simply avoid admitting they believe in God because they dislike religion so much. I believe that that do so to spite religious people. This us against them thinking is a primitive instinct that no longer serve us. We need to embrace the true Truth.
You don't get to dismiss the question with an insane conspiracy theory that atheists are faking it.
 
Well.. It's time for me to go to church. I like going there because even though I don't believe in what they believe, I don't see them as enemies.
Atheist don't see anybody as enemies unless they are being told that somehow they are lacking in perspective. It is the Theist who makes the claim and exercises the prejudicial view of exclusive knowledge status.

And as far as "belief" without following a ritualized organization, what is a God without a religion (pomp and circumstance) to pay homage to that God?

You cannot just make a claim and then say it makes no difference if you believe or not. That's not how it works.
 
Last edited:
I believe that many atheists simply avoid admitting they believe in God because they dislike religion so much. I believe that that do so to spite religious people. This us against them thinking is a primitive instinct that no longer serve us. We need to embrace the true Truth.

I'd like to get this straightened out.

Are you referring to people who simply say they believe in God or say they don't believe in God?

Or, are you saying those people are actually standing face to face with God looking him straight in the eyes and proclaiming they don't believe in God?
 
Do you believe the law of gravity is the truth? Do you break that law? CAN you break it?
You don't seem to understand what a "law" is. You're conflating physical laws with judicial laws.

A physical law describes how the universe operates; it can not be broken. A judicial law prescribes how members of society should behave and how society will treat them if they don't comply; if it could not be broken, there would be no reason for it to exist.

There's no need for either kind of law to have anything to do with gods.
 
Well.. It's time for me to go to church. I like going there because even though I don't believe in what they believe, I don't see them as enemies.

It's unfortunate that your beliefs are causing you to view others as enemies. My beliefs would never allow that.

So, we've discovered a very important aspect of your religion that has a negative effect on society.

Perhaps, those others at the church you attend don't believe as you about seeing people as enemies?
 
You don't seem to understand what a "law" is. You're conflating physical laws with judicial laws.

A physical law describes how the universe operates; it can not be broken. A judicial law prescribes how members of society should behave and how society will treat them if they don't comply; if it could not be broken, there would be no reason for it to exist.

There's no need for either kind of law to have anything to do with gods.
It's always the interplay between subjective and objective facts.

Natural Laws exist. The word Law is a human invention. But that does not mean we invented the natural Law itself. It was there all along as a property and potential of the fabric of the universe.
 
It's unfortunate that your beliefs are causing you to view others as enemies. My beliefs would never allow that.

So, we've discovered a very important aspect of your religion that has a negative effect on society.

Perhaps, those others at the church you attend don't believe as you about seeing people as enemies?
I believe I said I DONT see them as enemies
 
I believe I said I DONT see them as enemies
The problem is that the people at the church see atheist as the enemy. The last time I attended church, the preacher urged his flock to NOT do business with atheists.
These wholly unwarranted attacks on the integrity of atheists produce the religious business owners who refuse to serve atheists and gays as if they were criminals.
It's prejudicial and hubris. Religions are exclusive and prejudiced against all othe beliefs, religious or not.
 
The problem is that the people at the church see atheist as the enemy. The last time I attended church, the preacher urged his flock to NOT do business with atheists.
These wholly unwarranted attacks on the integrity of atheists produce the religious business owners who refuse to serve atheists and gays as if they were criminals.
It's prejudicial and hubris. Religions are exclusive and prejudiced against all othe beliefs, religious or not.
Im sorry you had to go through that. I guess I just got lucky and haven't heard those kinds of messages where I go.
 
Im sorry you had to go through that. I guess I just got lucky and haven't heard those kinds of messages where I go.
No, you don't notice it because you blend in with the crowd of believers.

Just as an experiment, try talking to a theist after you have declared yourself an atheist.
Then you will immediately notice the change in attitude from friendliness to hostility.

On religious blog sites you won't be allowed to post at all, unless you have declared fealty to God.
 
No, you don't notice it because you blend in with the crowd of believers.

Just as an experiment, try talking to a theist after you have declared yourself an atheist.
Then you will immediately notice the change in attitude from friendliness to hostility.

On religious blog sites you won't be allowed to post at all, unless you have declared fealty to God.
///
Not quite all the time.

<>
 
Just as an experiment, try talking to a theist after you have declared yourself an atheist.
Then you will immediately notice the change in attitude from friendliness to hostility.
Saying that God doesn't exist is fundamentally wrong, of course it will get a bad reaction
 
Ok but not many will understand it that way
Not sure whether that refers to my first of my second sentence...
However your comment "Saying that God doesn't exist is fundamentally wrong" is a perfect illustration of the problem: i.e. the statement that disagreeing with theism is "fundamentally wrong" shows a very limited mindset.
Is disagreeing with someone's taste in music "fundamentally wrong"? How about showing a preference for steak well done as opposed to medium rare?

We are allowed to question people about their politics or ethics and expect them to defend their beliefs, or at least hold their own in any other important matter by recourse to evidence, yet somehow on the massive subject of God and how he might have us behave, all rational discussion must stop the moment we hear 'I believe'. - Derren Brown.
 
Back
Top