I reject God because.......

How do you prove that I am existing?

http://youtu.be/HEt2XdN_TbQ

 

Although I'm not very experienced with the english language I would say the correct sentence would be: "I cannot believe in god because I believe god is a man made myth to explain what we do not know."

http://youtu.be/yWSJYQpwelQ

 

Hmm - if this universe would not be so unbelievable gigantic with so many possibillities then we would not be able to exist. If you take a look in the cosmos all around then you can see that a living mosquito is much more worthful than a whole planet full of gold.

http://youtu.be/JMK86SdYBpE

 

That's similiar what people also said once in the middle ages about places where they heard "demons are living there". So they seddled down in an area with high natural radioactivity and prefered to die early on cancer. That's why the idiots who believe in demons are surviving while the intelligent atheists are dying out. I remember in this context also a german company - expanding to Asia - who decided to block the way of a dragon to the water with a building - because they did not like to take care in such a nonsense. One year later they had hot discussions with buddhistic monks for help and made everything in the correct way of this country. Now everyone is happy - but no one knows exactly why. If you like then you can try to find out what "don't block the way of the dragon to the water" really means. If I remember well it was a white dragon. If you are able to solve this problem then maybe you will become the next nobel price winner and you are able to drive in a golden private tank to the stone urulu (Ayers rock). Don't forget to drive in your tank without shoes and socks to get the right inspiration for holy places.



http://youtu.be/nWDqG0IvGRc

 

That line of arguing is completely moot against the existence of a generic god. It is however, a part of certain arguments pertaining a good god. Since you have decided to use "God" rather than "a god", "any god", "any supernatural/spiritual being", I am going to assume that you either are a Christian or for some other reason base your reasoning on Christian or other monotheistic theology. Such theologies often assert that God is good and it is that statement which is being rejected with number 1. God could conceivably be evil, and the argument you mention would have no bearing on such a god.

All in all, the argument is useless as an argument against a generic god concept, it is only useful against specific god concepts, specifically a good monotheistic one. As such, one can expand argument one into something along the lines of "finding contradictions between either two parts of the proposed theology or between the proposed theology and reality".

 

The problem is a little in another way. We are able to think about everything - but not everything is existing. Indeed we are using phylogenetic evolved structures to simulate the reality all around us. That's what Platon - ah sorry, in the english language his name is Plato - said: We are only able to see the shadows of the reality on the wall in the cave we are living in. But it's more worse. The wall of the cave is made particullary of our own knowledge - so we are often only able to see what we know. To interpret an x-ray picture is for example sometimes an art and someone has to learn first how to do this. And in general we are only able to sense causes and effects. What is without physical effect on us is for us not existing. Example: A fire without effects on us is not burning. We could live in the middle of a sun - but if this sun has no effects on us then this sun is not existing for us. Additionally the reality all around us has limits. The big bang is for examle such a limit. We are not able to know what was before if there was a before at all. The speed of light in vacuum is such a limit. We are not able to send to someone a message with a higher speed than lightspeed - otherwise we would send a message from the future into the past. And so on and so on. And in all this chaos and cosmos god spoke with his people to tell us that he made this all and we don't have to live in fear because he loves us.

http://youtu.be/MgcY-nSeGUo

 

Not sure exactly how that ties into the issue. You seem to be talking about different interpretations of a spiritual or otherwise non-material world, but I'm not sure. There could be alternate worlds, and depending on your definitions, they could map over our world so that it actually exists in the same location. However, we have seen no reason to believe anything like that. And even so, the difference between those worlds and completely made up ones are quickly approaching nothing.

 

He is basically saying that our perceptions are limited by our senses. Our view of the universe is inherently distorted because we live in a little tiny box and are unable to see beyond it. We therefore can choose to believe that teh universe is the limited by the black box or we can choose to believe there exists something beyond the black box much greater than ourselves. IMO

 

All I'm saying is that we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. People then use this innate sense of right and wrong to judge whether they agree with a particular morality. If they deem a particular morality to be "evil" they would rather sit on a high moral perch and perish than succumb to such a twisted morality.

Having said that, what I see from atheists is they portray God as some evil entity, so it matters little to them whether or not they would be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed by him because they sit on their moral perch in judgement. Conversely, those of faith have a polar opposite view of God as being a loving benevolent being. In short, such perspectives are why God is embraced and rejecte in large part.

 

I too believe that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. It often needs some training, but it is there and when allowing a statistically significant number of people, it will show itself in the end. I do however not believe that these morals are divine or ultimate.

I think the issue comes completely off the fact that most people view their gods as good. I haven't heard of anyone who says they worship an evil god. A few might say that it is an angry god, or that humanity's view of what evil is is flawed, but I have simply never come across anyone who says they worship an evil god.

Casting doubt on whether any monotheistic version of God is evil or not is not an argument against God's existence per se, but an argument against the validity of those sources that claim it is. In doing so, it "removes" (if you accept the argument) one of the arguments for such a God, eventually ending up in argument no. 2 anyway.

 

Doesn't make any matter.

http://youtu.be/qxTpvA-pUG0

 

As far as I understand it, the argument still stands. The non-existence of concepts that on all points are given the ability to avoid detection is impossible to prove. That goes for Monte-Python gods, spiritual worlds, vague concepts that can't be properly defined, and anything else which has the ability to hide. Therefore, if you expect proof that that kind of entity does not exist, you are not open to the possibility that it does not, which means that your investigation will amount to nothing, and therefore, was not a good method for determining whether it exists or not.

 

You are right: the marmelade on your monitor is not existing so it would make no sense to believe in marmelade on your monitor.

 

But why do you believe that there's no marmeldade on his monitor and why is this belief true?

 

Atheist threads like this is why I can't take their arguments serious and look, to me, just plain stupid.

 

What exactly are you not taking seriously about an atheist?

 

I visit many debate sites and one thing I notice……the huge amounts of time spent by atheists talking about the God they reject.

 

Yep. It's called having a conversation. Why do you have conversations about being pro-life? You know you're pro-life and you know where you stand, yet you continue to talk about it. How is this any different? Does it mean you question being pro-life, or you're just not sure, or you're looking for reassurance that it's the right position to have?

 

Turtle, I've been on this site long enough to see the stupidity of the militant atheist.

 

I see no difference between a militant atheist and a militant <insert any cause here>. The overzealous religious people aren't much different than an overzealous atheist, it's just two sides of the same coin.

 

Agreed. I often argue against both.

 

We have a tried and tested method for determining whether there is marmalade on the monitor. We look at the monitor and take careful note of any visible stains. This is why I say that negatives are indeed provable. If the marmalade was given the option of hiding, the question becomes much harder.

Many analogues to this question, beer in fridge, teapot around moon, marmalade on screen, specify a location. This means that the location in question can theoretically be extensively searched and thus proving said negative. Gods are supposedly in a undetectable realm or otherwise hiding with infinite skill, making it indeed impossible to prove its non-existence regardless of whether it exists or not.

The question becomes "what methods exist for determining whether a god exists?". I have previously shown how "let non-believers provide proof" is not a viable option. That leaves only argument number two if we wish to have an honest discussion.

 

I visit and post in all sorts of threads. But one I do not go too on a regular basis&#8230;..are ones atheistic. Why do I want to engage with people talking about God who reject God? And I go to abortion threads because I work in the field and want to hear and see the latest&#8230;.but as I said&#8230;more for entertainment. Your side amuses me although I think your positions are immoral. You know the hypocrisy of it all.

I know my position is right. And the thing is&#8230;.I think you do too. That is the ironic part. I won't compromise on this issue. YOU WILL. WHICH SAYS&#8230;&#8230;HEY I AM NOT SURE&#8230;.ABOUT MY POSITION SO I WILL COMPROMISE IN CASE I AM WRONG. Which you know you are&#8230;but you look away and don't care really.

 

You are 100% wrong. I do not think you are right, and there hasn't been a time in my life since I became old enough to understand the debate on abortion that I've thought otherwise. Even in high school in the small rural town I grew up in, surrounded by religion and small town values, did I ever think for a second that an abortion should be anyone's choice except the mother's. The entire idea that a mother should not have control of her body seems completely asinine to me, in every possible way.

If you think being willing to compromise means a person is unsure of their position is laughable. Do you seriously think that's what compromise is always born from?

In any case, to keep this related to the topic of the thread, it's no different having a conversation about pro-choice or pro-life than it is about believing or not believing in God. These are both intensely personal issues, and people talk about them for all sorts of reasons. Some for reassurance, some to learn, some for opposing viewpoints which they'll either use to challenge their own opinions on the issue or to reinforce them by pretending to see how "wrong" the other side is. God and religion especially since there are no right or wrong answers here since we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity. It's all about belief and personal feelings. That's why people talk about it, from both the atheistic and the intensely religious perspectives.

 

You claim your position is right but you can not support it with anything other than your own claim. When you come across arguments that refute your claims you either ignore those arguments or the post altogether.

While this type of denial allows you to be sure of your position in your own mind, there is little your claims "other than your claim" to convince others that your claim has merit.