God doesn't exist

[ra1n]

That's a good quote. I like this one:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."-
Mark Twain

Remember this: If God is manmade, so is science.

I'm staying neutral in this one, but you have to admit that science is a manmade entity, just as many say God is.

Both are man conceived.

But that doesn't change reality, Science attempts to explain things through observation & evidence while God/Religion comprises a system of wishful illusions.

Science is open to criticism, which is the opposite of religion.
Science begs you to prove it wrong - that's the whole concept - whereas religion condemns you if you try to prove it wrong; It tells you to accept it on faith.

Neutral? meaning you're agnostic?

[EminemBase]

That's a good quote. I like this one:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."-
Mark Twain

Remember this: If God is manmade, so is science.

I'm staying neutral in this one, but you have to admit that science is a manmade entity, just as many say God is.

Finally, some interesting debate of which can arise good argument. Okay.

Firstly, I agree with Twain's initial statement premise of truth being stranger than fiction. Absolutely. We can find grand view in nature, there's no need to turn to the supernatural and superstitious.

I disagree with the second part of his statement. I see what he's done but I personally don't take that view. I'll take the first half and champion it though.

As for science being man-made. I have to disagree with you here.

I think it's an obvious submission to say that the tools of science are man-made. But, science itself... Again, the name, the fundamental principles... Man-conceived and supervised but in itself, it's not man-made.

Laws of nature are self-evident and the total opposite of man-made. The laws of mathematics... Were thought of and tested. And they work. They work with nature as do the laws of physics. This proves that these laws, that we've conceived of and tested - Are correct.

This proves these are the true natural laws because of the fact we can test them against nature and they go with it. These laws are nature. Our ways of interpreting them, man-conceived, sure but fundamentally, they're as true as true can be.

This is not the case, with god. Any god. I'll even be loose, not pick on a specific god of any religion. Lets just take a deist-type god. A god which doesn't interfere with human relations or nature, this god is simply a non-personal, eternal intelligence that set the laws in motion.

Now. Science cannot technically disprove this type of god as it cannot disprove many things. So we have to draw up a probability scale and the probability of even a deist-type god existing, is as close to zero as you'd get without saying it's totally impossible.

As we've learned from Evolution by Natural Selection, complex things do not come into existence spontaneously but by a slow, incremental process. So... To postulate a designer, which has to be very intelligent and complex indeed (to have made us and the universe) is not helpful. Or at all likely. It's mathematically of the highest order improbable.

People who like to postulate a designer say well how did it all start. We don't know yet. We do know how we got from simple to complex though. So what we need to explain is how simple beginnings, came into existence at all. If there can be a conceivable answer. But that answer is not that there as an intelligent creator at the start of it. Because that creator that you're posing as the explanation is the very thing you're trying to explain in the first place.

As for a theistic god. Any god of any religious book. We can conclusively say these gods are man-made and all claimed miracles that have tried to demonstrate any of these god's existences have been conclusively disproved. Even without miracles though, a god that made the entire cosmos, just for us. A god that interferes with human relations. A personal god, is even more unlikely. We can quite comfortably say impossible or as close to as it gets. This is no explanation, it's a step backwards.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Neutral? meaning you're agnostic?

Let me put it this way. I won't deny that I adore the concept of Heaven, of an afterlife. My philosophy is this: Why take a chance? I believe open mindedness is more important than being a devout follower of any particular religion. I believe that many religions should be studied from a philosophic and historical standpoint before learning of its deity(s). Even if you have your doubts about said deity(s), I believe if you are to be judged after death, your open mindedness would be taken into positive account.
If a hardcore atheist were to die an atheist, be cast into a purgatory for judgment, the said atheist would be fucked.
The question is, is it really worth it? As for me, if billions upon billions of modern homo sapiens accept religion, then even if it's a .0000001% chance, I'm simply not willing to gamble with eternity.
I don't believe in blind devotion, but I do believe in logic. My logic is simply that it won't kill me to study some theology and decide for myself which philosophy and daily codes, if any, I choose to agree with. If there does turn out to be an afterlife, my prudence would be rewarded. If there is no afterlife, then fuck it, I died a history buff. No sweat off my rotting, decrepit sack.

[ra1n]

Neutral? meaning you're agnostic?

Let me put it this way. I won't deny that I adore the concept of Heaven, of an afterlife. My philosophy is this: Why take a chance? I believe open mindedness is more important than being a devout follower of any particular religion. I believe that many religions should be studied from a philosophic and historical standpoint before learning of its deity(s). Even if you have your doubts about said deity(s), I believe if you are to be judged after death, your open mindedness would be taken into positive account.
If a hardcore atheist were to die an atheist, be cast into a purgatory for judgment, the said atheist would be fucked.
The question is, is it really worth it? As for me, if billions upon billions of modern homo sapiens accept religion, then even if it's a .0000001% chance, I'm simply not willing to gamble with eternity.
I don't believe in blind devotion, but I do believe in logic. My logic is simply that it won't kill me to study some theology and decide for myself which philosophy and daily codes, if any, I choose to agree with. If there does turn out to be an afterlife, my prudence would be rewarded. If there is no afterlife, then fuck it, I died a history buff. No sweat off my rotting, decrepit sack.

ahhh, Pascal's wager. lol.

Everyone would love to go to Heaven. Meet up with family and friends. Play wii with Jesus. It would be awesome. I'm all for that.

So the only reason you would believe in God is just to make sure you don't go to hell? That is no reason to believe in God, that's false belief. And if God truly is real and omniscient, he'd be able to see through your veil, consequently you will BURN with the rest of us.

another thing to take into consideration is - Say you eventually accept one particular religious doctrine (Christianity for example) and you accept Jesus as your savior,
then you die and find out you were worshiping the wrong God all along. Hah, you'd be fucked.

As for me, I can't imagine a personal God that rewards and punishes his creatures. And I can't imagine a God that needs to be worshiped all the time.

[EminemBase]

Even if you have your doubts about said deity(s), I believe if you are to be judged after death, your open mindedness would be taken into positive account.
If a hardcore atheist were to die an atheist, be cast into a purgatory for judgment, the said atheist would be fucked.
The question is, is it really worth it? As for me, if billions upon billions of modern homo sapiens accept religion, then even if it's a .0000001% chance, I'm simply not willing to gamble with eternity.

This is of course famously, similarly expressed in Pascal's wager.

I like the... Initial, seemingly clever premise but I don't think it's right and I don't agree with it.

Here's my answer to why I take the risk.

If it is true, that there is a personal god that will judge me at the end of my life. And will judge my belief or non-belief in him / her / it, then surely this all-intelligent, ever-respectable god would respect my honesty?

I simply do not believe in a god, it defies logic and I can't just believe in something for its sake. So in order for me to 'pretend' or 'not take the risk' - I'd have to lie to myself.

Now if this god is all-knowing, surely this god would know that I'm lying about my faith and trying to cheat my way into eternal bliss. Surely this god would be aware of the fact that I'm trying to con-job him / her / it into thinking I believe when I don't.

That alone, must be true if this god to be true at all and if that's true, the original argument falls apart. And it's far more likely also, that this god would respect honesty and integrity and being true to yourself instead of lying and trying to con your way into something.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Neutral? meaning you're agnostic?

Let me put it this way. I won't deny that I adore the concept of Heaven, of an afterlife. My philosophy is this: Why take a chance? I believe open mindedness is more important than being a devout follower of any particular religion. I believe that many religions should be studied from a philosophic and historical standpoint before learning of its deity(s). Even if you have your doubts about said deity(s), I believe if you are to be judged after death, your open mindedness would be taken into positive account.
If a hardcore atheist were to die an atheist, be cast into a purgatory for judgment, the said atheist would be fucked.
The question is, is it really worth it? As for me, if billions upon billions of modern homo sapiens accept religion, then even if it's a .0000001% chance, I'm simply not willing to gamble with eternity.
I don't believe in blind devotion, but I do believe in logic. My logic is simply that it won't kill me to study some theology and decide for myself which philosophy and daily codes, if any, I choose to agree with. If there does turn out to be an afterlife, my prudence would be rewarded. If there is no afterlife, then fuck it, I died a history buff. No sweat off my rotting, decrepit sack.

ahhh, Pascal's wager. lol.

Everyone would love to go to Heaven. Meet up with family and friends. Play wii with Jesus. It would be awesome. I'm all for that.

So the only reason you would believe in God is just to make sure you don't go to hell? That is no reason to believe in God, that's false belief. And if God truly is real and omniscient, he'd be able to see through your veil, consequently you will BURN with the rest of us.

another thing to take into consideration is - Say you eventually accept one particular religious doctrine (Christianity for example) and you accept Jesus as your savior,
then you die and find out you were worshiping the wrong God all along. Hah, you'd be fucked.

It's not a veil, it's a legitimate interest. I find theology to be an interesting field, mostly because of its inherent sociological implications.
Like I said, no religion is usurping anything from my life, so I'll just live with a thirst for ethereal knowledge... knowledge that just may prove useful in the future.

[EminemBase]

^ Take a look at my answer to the wager I believe that's fair and proper?~

What do you think... Expand...

[ra1n]

"What if God is something like a great scientist (which any being capable of designing and creating something as complex as our entire universe would almost certainly have to be), who disdains belief for the sake of belief? If God endowed us with our five senses with which we are able to observe the world around us, and an ability to reason with which we are able to interpret these observations, why would He then want us to believe in something just because it is written in a certain "holy" book, or worse yet, just because we thought we would be rewarded for believing it? Wouldn't He be much more pleased if we investigated for ourselves, and used the abilities He gave us to draw our own conclusions?"

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

^ Take a look at my answer to the wager I believe that's fair and proper?~

What do you think... Expand...

I did.
I never said con, I said be open minded.
More of my philosophy: I believe that if any God does exist, then, without fail, said God wishes more that their beloved creations live life to the fullest rather than squander it in devotion or denouncement.
What I mean is, theists want the same thing that atheists do: To spend the life we have, evergrowing in strength and wisdom, until our time has expired.
But you have a fantastic point, perhaps God values honesty to self over a false faith. Great thinking. This really gives me something to ponder.

[EminemBase]

^ Yes but also, more importantly, you're... Emphasizing on the con the... Purposely effective wording too much.

What matters more is the idea of... If god knows what you think which this type of god proposes too...

Then simply pretending to believe won't work anyway as this god will know you're not sincere.

Being open-minded means being open to the facts. There are no facts. No reasons to believe IN god, therefore it's assumed false. If i said to you I could fly but that I couldn't prove it. Surely you would say that the probability of me flying is still nearly impossible. It doesn't become more probable just because I made the claim.

Neither would it be closed-minded of you to say "no you can't". Until proven otherwise. This is logical.

MORALITY

I do have to disagree about theists and atheists having the same moral goal though.

Firstly, I think some humans all have the same moral goal(s) in mind and there are obviously good-meaning and bad-meaning theists and atheists. However. Religion appears to be the only thing that can make a fundamentally good person do an extremely evil thing (such as child genital mutilation) and think it's fine, because it's "god's word".

Not only that but inherently... If you really want to get technical. No religion is moral. Not even in the slightest.

Core belief of Christianity for example is that Jesus died for your sins. Not your's specifically but the original sin of human-kind which you had no hand in. Original sin that your filthy, putrid self was born into, unescapable.

Also, for your sins. As if a human sacrifice is a) a cure for anything and b) a moral thing.

So this loving celestial dictator had a human, his son, humiliated and sacrificed so that you could off-load the responsibility of your original sin, of which you had no hand.

This human sacrifice too by the way, you had no hand in. You had no say in it. You also have no say in whether you want to even be under this government. It's simply an uncontrollable fact. You're born into it, you cannot escape it and you MUST accept god's 'beautiful' offer of human sacrifice.

It's optional though. Optional... Because the alternative by the way is... Either accept the burden of this human sacrifice under the command of your celestial dictator or forever burn in hell.

This? Moral? No way. And to teach it to kids... Disgusting.

This type of thinking is made for the minds of people who wish to be slaves. Who want a 24/7 celestial dictatorship watching their every move, punishing their thoughts (thought crime) and judging them for all eternity.

You're lucky to be alive. Spend your life grovelling and apologizing to an all-knowing god who feels no need to assert his existence. This is not moral. This is very immoral. And it's insane.

[ra1n]

"The lack of an explanation for life opened up to me in this great harrowing abyss, and fear of the unknown gripped me in a most awful manner. For the first time I realized that my life was only my own and I was alone with it. I felt the pace of life and realized it was going faster than I had imagined, my mortality staring me down and making me feel powerless and small.

Then I realized that there doesn't need to be an explanation because no one has ever had one. It's the same old pattern anyone who has ever lived has faced. The fear is nothing new, it's an old hat, and all the thoughts about it have been tread and retread. Even the most brilliant minds of the past have had to live and die without a definitive answer.

So, "figuring it all out" is a pointless task everyone inevitably takes on, but it should be approached without the deathly serious grip since it won't be resolved. I came to the conclusion that I should maintain a sense of humor about it. "

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Haha. You really like that flying analogy, don't you? I mean, what if the person who said "I can fly" really meant that they had just received their aircraft flying license, and couldn't prove it because he/she hadn't their documents at the moment?
There's always a loophole for the straw man.
All I know is, it's really fun yelling "The power of Christ compells you!" when you blow a payload on a chick's face.
At this particular moment ,I'm content knowing just that much.

[EminemBase]

Haha. You really like that flying analogy, don't you? I mean, what if the person who said "I can fly" really meant that they had just received their aircraft flying license, and couldn't prove it because he/she hadn't their documents at the moment?
There's always a loophole for the straw man.

Yep, really like it. Because it works perfectly and I've yet to hear a good refute as to why it doesn't.

You did a little linguistic get-out claws there which was okay, clap clap

But doesn't answer anything. And it's in no way a straw man argument.

It's a claim that is assumed impossible because it defies the laws of nature, in this case, gravity. It has yet to be proved and most would agree it cannot be proved unless nature defies itself.

This is the exact case with god.

I'll make it more specific then. A human says "I can defy gravity by floating my entire being in suspended animation"

This claim, although assumed impossible, would be mathematically more probable than any god.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

EmBase, tell me something.
Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkings have all wrote great books denouncing the existence of a god.
I'm really just curious. Do you have something entirely new or different to bring to the table in your atheistic writing? Because, I'm sure you already know, you can't just say the same shit they said.
I guess I'm just wondering what makes your philosophy differ from theirs, even if ever so slightly. Because if your work is a duplicate of already popular atheist beliefs, then to be honest, that well is dried out.
Another fact that may displease you is that in 2007, after Richard Dawkings' "The Delusion of God" came out, atheist literature sales increased by 50%... while the Holy Bible's sales increased by 120%!
I'm just warning you, Christians live for that kind of stuff. You may end up working against the atheist community if you're not careful.

[EminemBase]

^ Can you kindly point out the Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris views I've said here?

I don't need to resort to other people's works, I fight on the side of logic, it's very easy when you have reason behind you. If anything all I've re-phrased is my take on Hitchens' view on the morality of religion. FYI, I've only partially read Dawkins' book. That's it. I haven't read either of Sam Harris' and haven't read Hitchens' either.

I'm interested to know how you have the audacity to claim I'm spouting their views with no justification. Can you go and kindly point out the flying analogy in any of their works?

Also, on the point - Neither three of them, or any other atheist in recent times has brought anything new to the table. I've been an atheist since the age of 8. And many of the arguments you see me making now, I've been making since early teens, long before ever hearing of them.

Only difference of course was the way I articulated things. That's the only new thing they bring too, the way they're illuminate their literacy but none of their views are new or radical. They don't need to be. Science and logic have been posing the same challenges for centuries, yet to be answered.

Feel free to ask me any question you like which you feel they haven't been asked or written about and I think you'll find I answer it in the same manner, with the same style of views I've proposed throughout.

Also what do the sales of the books have to do with... Like I care if an atheist book increased Bible sales. In spite of that do you know what's happening? Atheism is rising.

Religious belief goes up and down but atheism is the only single group that is on the constant rise.