It is the irrational interpretation of evidence that leads to god.
Why do atheists compare God to Thor, Zeus, FSM, etc...?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
God is a word created by humans to try to understand something eternal and divine, impossible to fit in our brains.
To not believe such a thing exists, is only ignorance.
To not believe such a thing exists, is only ignorance.
You cannot give an evidence of eternity in this realm, but it exists doesnt it?
The Universe, if it ends, whats beyond that? A multi-universe maybe? And the end of the multi-universe?
Were did it all start? and what was before that?
Were will everything end, and what is beyond that?
No one can honestly anwer this questions with a closed mind, like ours.
Even numbers imply eternity, and infinity, all over the place.
If you say that the Universe has a start or an end, wether is timely or physically, you would be speaking without really thinking.
OK, let's try this again, shall we?
Of course different gods have different characteristics. But how do you know what those characteristics are? You have no evidence of what they are, you can only go on what their believers tell you. You have no way of knowing if those gods really have the characteristics their followers claim they do (let alone if they actually exist). So how do you go about choosing a god to believe in? It would appear you simply choose the one whose description (as described by his/her/its followers or their writings) you like the best.
This is no different than if I made up ten imaginary animals of varying sorts, and sent ten different people to describe them to you, and to tell you they believe in them for whatever reason, and you choose to believe in one of them because it's the cutest, or funniest, or whatever criteria trips your trigger.
I did not say that. You anti-rationalists keep persisting in this misunderstanding. Science does not aim to "prove" anything or to find what's "true" because those are impossible goals. It tries to find out what is most likely to be true. So no, evidence doesn't make something true; it makes it much more likely to be true than something without any evidence. In other words, evidence makes something more worthy of belief than something with no evidence. There are an infinite number of things we could dream up that have no evidence. But without varying levels of evidence by which to judge belief-worthiness, how do you choose which one(s) you want to believe?
Of course different gods have different characteristics. But how do you know what those characteristics are? You have no evidence of what they are, you can only go on what their believers tell you. You have no way of knowing if those gods really have the characteristics their followers claim they do (let alone if they actually exist). So how do you go about choosing a god to believe in? It would appear you simply choose the one whose description (as described by his/her/its followers or their writings) you like the best.
This is no different than if I made up ten imaginary animals of varying sorts, and sent ten different people to describe them to you, and to tell you they believe in them for whatever reason, and you choose to believe in one of them because it's the cutest, or funniest, or whatever criteria trips your trigger.
I did not say that. You anti-rationalists keep persisting in this misunderstanding. Science does not aim to "prove" anything or to find what's "true" because those are impossible goals. It tries to find out what is most likely to be true. So no, evidence doesn't make something true; it makes it much more likely to be true than something without any evidence. In other words, evidence makes something more worthy of belief than something with no evidence. There are an infinite number of things we could dream up that have no evidence. But without varying levels of evidence by which to judge belief-worthiness, how do you choose which one(s) you want to believe?
Last edited:
Man this comment is........why do you believe in some theories in science even before there's any evidence for them?
You have no way of knowing what the actual truth is....so why believe anything or have any theories or thoughts?
The reason I can believe in some God is because its fits my own rationality and thinking...just the sameway you can believe in some theory...otherwise go away with the "evidence causes something to become true people" and wait all your life for evidence (even though this phase in time is only a short period in history, and the truth exists without evidence) instead of seeking the truth on your own
Its very different from this...its like someone saying "well the bigbang theory and the superstring theory are like the same because people made them up in their minds first"...uhm NO...the reason they're different is because they have different properties, attributes, descriptions, etc....the fact that they were both thought up by people doesn't mean ANYTHING......Liege-Killer said:
No, this is incorrect and very flawed. Before something is proven true, it still was already true, the evidence only revealed the truth....therefore there are innumerable possibly unlimited things that exist without any shred of evidence right now.....you atheists really think that evidence makes something true...like say for instance if in the future telepathy is a proven scientific fact...after that time atheists will believe that its true just because there's evidence....they have no type of independent mind at all.....Liege-Killer said:
How do you choose which to believe in? You use your own rationality and logic...
VitalOne: even after my post explicitly explaining how science is not about "proving" anything "true," you keep on babbling about how atheists try to "prove" things "true." And not for the first time, you demonstrate that you haven't the faintest shred of an idea how analogy works or the ability to recognize an accurate one. I don't know if you truly don't understand what other people are writing, or if you are dishonestly distorting it on purpose. Whichever it is, you clearly show that you are lacking in either intellectual capacity, or intellectual integrity, or possibly both. You're a lost cause.
But, at least you're not a one-liner troll like IceAge. You do respond at length to your opponents, I'll give you that (even if it's more quantity than quality).
But, at least you're not a one-liner troll like IceAge. You do respond at length to your opponents, I'll give you that (even if it's more quantity than quality).
Last edited:
Jeremyhfht
Registered Senior Member
James R owned this thread. and nobody even bothered to quote him. Sad really. His assessment is true. There is no more evidence for any other God then there is for the Spaghetti monster, or the Turd Burglar God of Toiletry.
This from someone who has spent the better part of his teenage years pouring over countless hours of research, historical documents, debate forums, etc. If theists have some secret concise evidence to offer, they've yet, in all my years of study, to do so.
So I implore someone to actually do so. In a PM if need be (I advise it). If it's something I've not heard or addressed before I'll respond to it with something other then a simple rebuttal of possibly a link or two.
Numbers are part of the universe, as it is now. Just because numbers don't end does not imply or indicate that the universe won't.
Start = most likely the big bang.
End = big crunch, heat death, whichever.
Oh, I said that without thinking.
Hehe, ok we can talk about this forever, and none of us could actually prove one or another theory.
However, I find it quite illogic how the Universe would have a start and/or end. What was before the big bang? or after the end, what is next?
You would say a big black nothing, but that is something indeed isn´t it?
That's true, but God is the only living God. The Bible tells us to not be afraid of the other gods since they are made of wood and other earthly materials and cannot do anything, cannot walk or move or see. The Bible ridicules the people obeying the statues of gods and pictures of them as if they could do anything to change their situation. God is so to say the true God, the others are mere representations of the idea.
James R said:
You and James R are again using logically flawed arguments that make no sense. Your logic fails on every level.
Although there is no evidence for the superstring theory, the many-worlds interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation, etc....it does not mean that I make it seem like all these theories are the samethings....you would never say "I don't believe in the superstring theory because I think the many-worlds interpretation is false" simply because it makes no type of sense at all. The many-worlds interpretation and the superstring theory are two completely different things so you can believe in one and not the other.
Also using the Zeus analogy is also flawed, its like me saying "I don't believe in the geocentric theory, an ancient theory in science and a theory now ridiculed that no one believes in (Zeus) so thats why I don't believe in the superstring theory, another theory in science" The two things have completely different attributes why are you making it seem like they're the same?
And also your logic about evidence also fails since everyone knows that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I guess the heliocentric theory was false until proven true? wtf?
Jeremyhfht
Registered Senior Member
You know, when I read this, I had to reread it. Since it had the mark someone that didn't even know what rationality or logic was. Then I saw it was you. Then I decided to ignore the rest. Since, y'know, it's obviously wrong.
But to sum it up: you misunderstood. again. Lack of evidence or not, it's still comparable to other religions and gods such as Zeus. Even if simply on the basis that there is no evidence. comparing Zeus to String Theory is an apple-buick comparison. There is no comparison.
Speaking of flawed logic...
So next time will I have to word it as if I'm speaking to a 3 year old, or do you not want to be that degraded?
Nothing you said addresses the substance of my argument...this is typical of atheists with blind atheistic faith...why read something that contradicts your faith-based belief system?
Also, you're really the one who doesn't know what logic is and your second paragraph clearly shows this. First you say something is comparable because there is no evidence for both, then you say there is no comparison between the superstring theory and Zeus, but there is...because there is no evidence for either...
The rest of your stuff is just vain insults that have nothing to do with the substance of the argument...you're really the one who sounds like a 3-year-old your post clearly demonstrates this...
Jeremyhfht
Registered Senior Member
Nevermind the fact it directly addressed the logic of your arguments, and ended up pointing out why it was incorrect of you to say what you did.
Yeah, I totally didn't address the substance of your argument. 'cept I did. Your little baseless attacks of "omfg blind atheist faith obviously atheist and faith filled and stuff!!!111oneoneoneoneelevenone" do nothing to support your argument.
The original thing to remember is that there is no proof any of those gods are the right one, since there's no evidence any of them exist. Even assuming that the lack of evidence does not equate to absence, there's the simple fact that every god claims to be the real one. Either directly or indirectly.
"superstring"? I've never heard of it. I thought you were referring to string theory. Ah well, simple mistake. You can ignore that comparison then. I'll revise it right here:
It still applies, since Zeus is a god form. Superstring theory is a theory. It does, in fact, have some evidence (though highly disputed). Unlike Zeus, Superstring has the advantage of admitting it *doesn't exist*.
By the same coin, comparing those theories with each other doesn't work. Since they're all based on some amount of evidence, and rarely collaborate on anything. Gods, on the other hand, share a lot in common. Ranging from interfering with humans, to having superhuman sons that go down to earth (Jesus, Hercules, etc), to having no proven evidence to back them up. It's a completely rational comparison, when you compare all the beliefs to one another to prove a simple fact.
This fact normally proves that there are so many similarities between the Gods it's highly unlikely that any one of them is the true or unique one. And each of them suffer from the same lack of evidence as the next. If a group of scientific theories shared this trait, it would be more like a pseudoscience theory then a real theory.
It's still, largely, an apple-buick comparison. Comparing a deity to a scientific theory is ridiculous.
P.S: "I know you are but what am I" summarizes the first sentence of your statement above. Childish much?
The rest, hmm? So I suppose labeling us as flawed, etc, isn't an insult? Double-edged swords, Vital.
In either case, I have addressed the substance of your argument. Even revised how I addressed it when I found it lacking. Stop constructing straw-men to inflate your ego and hide your arguments failure.
P.S: And while absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence, absence of the things that are said to happen can prove that it's absent. For example, the "end times" that creationists have been screeching about for so long.
Absence of evidence which their own literature claims to have goes a long way into proving absence of it altogether. Especially when it claims historical actions that are proven to either not have happened, or happened without such bias (The Victor writes history).
another example of this particular type of cognitive dissonance would be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance.
Last edited:
Even when Gautama Buddha was teaching, he said to his disciples: "You can ask me about anything you want, but do not ask me about God."
Why do you think this is? It is because God cannot be explained to us, it is WAY beyond our understanding. This is the reason why atheists are atheists, is because their Ego does not let them believe in something they do not understand.
But the fact is, the true God is the one that is inside each one of us, and we don´t let HIM be, because our Ego, created since we are little kids, doesn´t let us listen to HIM.
So this is my understanding of the Old Testament and the metaphor of Satan, that because of his Ego, he didn´t obey the Lord.
And when you say that every God claims to be the real one, you should really question yourself if it was really God who did this claims, or it was a man´s Ego.