The need for GOD...

[=SputniK-CL=]

My view:

Well, im an atheist and I am extremely partial to the idea of myself bieng able to think objectively..LOL

I tend to think only in probabilities, although of two things I can be fairly certain: There is something more powerfull than me in the universe also something wich i cannot comprehend. I revisit this feeling whenever i look at the stars.

No person, i imagine, can deny this sense of awe, althouth some choose to personify this sensation into god, a divine person with a purpose for the lives of humans...

But wait, religion is the ultimate tribute, a way to validate this perception and use its power.

Delusions like these can have obvious immediate benefits: a system of rules to live by, a promise of meaning and the dream of cheating death.

Reasoning in circles gets me nothing, though frequently people i meet have the need to convert me as follows: God exists because the bible sais so, and the bible sais correctly cause God said so in the bible. O, yes, and I feel God.

(If u do not "feel" God, buddy, u burn!)

BTW, since when was the rational kind of thinking only one of the myriad ways to find the truth. Excuse my zealousness when I suggest its the only way of thinking!

So, I challenge any thiest to present a combination of facts that proves the existence of god in !~the religious sense~! without reasonable doubt. The bible or any other "divinely inspired" piece of text can be seen as evidence in favour of your theory but not nearly unquestionable "proof". It is, after all, ink on paper and tainted by human hands. I want scientific explanations please. (As if other types of explanations are valid...)

I wonder if this can be accomplished without once using the word faith once? LOL

"a Conclusion is simply the place where u got tired of thinking" -Confucius

 

[Godless]

=SputniK-CL=

Just cause I'm bored;

Hey it has been 8 days and no one has replied to this post!, so that can only mean that either there aint too many theists here, or they just know that they can't prove their god, by using logic and scientific evidence.

Perhaps you should try this post in Christian board. See what happens before they throw you out!!.

Godless.

 

[Vienna]

Re: =SputniK-CL=

Originally posted by Godless
Hey it has been 8 days and no one has replied to this post!,

Thats because it's a dumb question.

Perhaps you should try this post in Christian board. See what happens before they throw you out!!.

He wouldn't last a second.

 

[sargentlard]

or they just know that they can't prove their god, by using logic and scientific evidence.

yup, about as much as atheists can prove the contrary using the same methods.

 

[SVRP]

So what kind of 'proof' is acceptable to prove the existence of God if logic and scientific evidence is not adequate enough to confirm or deny His existence? Just asking out of curiosity.

 

[sargentlard]

Originally posted by SVRP
So what kind of 'proof' is acceptable to prove the existence of God if logic and scientific evidence is not adequate enough to confirm or deny His existence? Just asking out of curiosity.

There isn't any....for now.

Its pointless, in my opinion, to defend or take down the notion of god with "logic" and "scientific proof". It is faith......you can not deny nor confirm faith. It is what it is.

 

[Godless]

Faith?..

Faith in what? faith that the authority who suppose to know something about god is right?.

Faith is nothing more than belief in the notions of others.

No an atheist can't prove the lack of existence of god, just as any freaking theist can prove the existence of god.

Fact is my view is this;

As an atheist, I do not claim the non-existence of a diety I know nothing about, and no one has been able to explain yet. They try and use rationalisation to explain god, though they know not what god is, just as I don't know what god is, they only tell me what god is not, and god is not man.

Godless.

 

[Redrover]

How about the existance of science? Isn't that proof of the existance of God?

 

[Q25]

since no one can prove the existense of gods,
isnt that proof enough they dont exist?

 

[SVRP]

Q25 wrote

since no one can prove the existense of gods,
isnt that proof enough they dont exist?

Depends on what type of “proof” you are looking for, don’t you think?

National scientific organizations have been publicly reported stating they cannot confirm or deny that God exists. They are neutral on the subject. So if they will not comment on God’s existence, why do some people continue to ask for “scientific proof” of God? Wouldn’t that be like asking for “scientific proof” for the existence of Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar? Is there another way to prove or disprove God’s existence? What are your thoughts (and again just asking from curiosity).

 

[Redrover]

Originally posted by Q25
since no one can prove the existense of gods,
isnt that proof enough they dont exist?

That statement is illogical. Before the discovery of the atom, no one could prove their exitance. Did they not exist?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

=SputniK-CL=

I am going to play devil's advocate here. Although most Christians
are unaware of this fact, the Septuigent (the book that predicts
the birth & life of christ) was carbon dated to 300-400 years
before Christ existed. That's about the hardest evidence that
seems to exist to date; however, it's not a definitive proof of
the existance of 'God'. It does raise an interesting hypothesis
about the paranormal though.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: =SputniK-CL=

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
I am going to play devil's advocate here.

Even the devil should base his advocacy on facts.

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Although most Christians are unaware of this fact, the Septuigent ... was carbon dated to 300-400 years before Christ existed.

Really? What manuscript? By whom? With what margin of error?

The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how the Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to the Ptolemy's gracious hospitality, and translated the Torah (or Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, scholars find 282 BCE an attractive date.

- see The History of the Septuagint, and its Terminology [emphasis added -CA]

Also ...

According to the generally accepted explanation of the testimony of the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was carried out in Egypt in the third century BCE. This assumption is compatible with the early date of several papyrus and leather fragments of the Torah from Qumran and Egypt some of which have been ascribed to the middle or end of the second century BCE (4QLXXLev(a), 4QLXXNum, Pap. Foud 266, Pap. Rylands Gk. 458).

- see Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Emanuel Tov

Fabricating manuscripts carbon-dated to the 4th century BCE wasn't very nice (or smart).

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
It does raise an interesting hypothesis about the paranormal though.

What 'hypothesis' and why more so than any other myth.

 

[sargentlard]

Originally posted by Q25
since no one can prove the existense of gods,
isnt that proof enough they dont exist?

By that assertion bacteria didn't cause the plague or was of any cause to many death soccuring due to unsanitary surroundings.

"If you can not see it means it doesn't exist" is totally flawed in todays day and age.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

ConsequentAtheist

Even the devil should base his advocacy on facts.

Well now, thats just silly. I think we both know the 'Devil' is
about as real as Peter Pan.

Really? What manuscript? By whom? With what margin of error?

Sheesh... talk about the 5th degree. I have a book somewhere
that has all the goods but I'm lazy... so rather than go through
a massive pile, I'll give you some links that are 'just as good' (they
carbon date the dead sea scrolls which contain the christ
prophecy that the Septuagint part in question was based on).

SECTION 1 (Radio Carbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls):
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/deadsea.html
Why is this significant? Read the next section.

SECTION 2: (Documentation that Isaiah is part of the Dead Sea scrolls)
http://www.dead-sea-scrolls.net/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html
Why is this significant? Because Isaiah is all about the Christ
prophecy AND a huge portion of the Septuagint holds the greek
translation of Isaiah.

The Bazillion Quotes

Thanks... but overkill. I'm not on the 'believer' side.

What 'hypothesis' and why more so than any other myth.

Well, lets say that the life of Christ really was prophecized. That
would imply an ellaborate setup or that a human being actually
predicted something significant over a significant amount of time.
The hypothesis here would probably be 'some humans may be
able to conditionally perceive matter configurations beyond the
scope of their current location in space and time'. Wouldn't that
be a kick of all those people who see weird shit are really picking
up matter configurations that are out of sync?

Enjoy.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: ConsequentAtheist

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
I have a book somewhere that has all the goods but I'm lazy... so rather than go through a massive pile, I'll give you some links that are 'just as good' (they carbon date the dead sea scrolls which contain the christ prophecy that the Septuagint part in question was based on).

SECTION 1 (Radio Carbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls):
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/deadsea.html
Why is this significant? Read the next section.

SECTION 2: (Documentation that Isaiah is part of the Dead Sea scrolls) http://www.dead-sea-scrolls.net/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

Why is this significant? Because Isaiah is all about the Christ
prophecy AND a huge portion of the Septuagint holds the greek
translation of Isaiah.

You're either a troll or an idiot.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

and all accusations of trolling or idiocy should be fact based... eh
Maynard? It's ok, I understand your FEELINGS and OPINIONS
(much like those of the Christians down the street).

 

[Q25]

Originally posted by sargentlard
By that assertion bacteria didn't cause the plague or was of any cause to many death soccuring due to unsanitary surroundings.

"If you can not see it means it doesn't exist" is totally flawed in todays day and age.

I thought we can see bacteria,
under microscope!

 

[Q25]

Originally posted by SVRP
Q25 wrote Depends on what type of “proof” you are looking for, don’t you think?

National scientific organizations have been publicly reported stating they cannot confirm or deny that God exists. They are neutral on the subject. So if they will not comment on God’s existence, why do some people continue to ask for “scientific proof” of God? Wouldn’t that be like asking for “scientific proof” for the existence of Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar? Is there another way to prove or disprove God’s existence? What are your thoughts (and again just asking from curiosity).

ok
somewhere in the the bible it says:
whatever you ask for,you shall recieve,
my first thought was
I guess depositing million $$ in my bank account isnt too much to ask,but then some super rich smart a@@ might just be able to make my wish come true so,
we'll try something harder,
lets all of us wish/pray for peace on Earth for all people from this day on,no more wars.no terorist attacks,and no violent crimes either!
if God the all knowing all mighty entity can arrange this,I would consider that a pretty good proof.
after all he is suposed to love all his children.

 

[Xelios]

"yup, about as much as atheists can prove the contrary using the same methods."

It is impossible for ANYONE to prove something DOESN'T exist, no matter what that something is. If the onus of proof is on anyone then it is on theists, not atheists.