The need for GOD...

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by =SputniK-CL=, Dec 12, 2003.

  1. =SputniK-CL= Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    69
    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    =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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vienna Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,741
    Re: =SputniK-CL=

    Thats because it's a dumb question.

    He wouldn't last a second.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    yup, about as much as atheists can prove the contrary using the same methods.
     
  8. SVRP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    262
    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.
     
  9. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    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.
     
  10. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    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.
     
  11. Redrover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    234
    How about the existance of science? Isn't that proof of the existance of God?
     
  12. Q25 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    since no one can prove the existense of gods,
    isnt that proof enough they dont exist?
     
  13. SVRP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    262
    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).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Redrover Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    234
    That statement is illogical. Before the discovery of the atom, no one could prove their exitance. Did they not exist?
     
  15. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    =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.
     
  16. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Re: =SputniK-CL=

    Even the devil should base his advocacy on facts.

    Really? What manuscript? By whom? With what margin of error?
    Also ...
    Fabricating manuscripts carbon-dated to the 4th century BCE wasn't very nice (or smart).
    What 'hypothesis' and why more so than any other myth.
     
  17. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    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.
     
  18. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    ConsequentAtheist

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

    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.

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

    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.
     
  19. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Re: ConsequentAtheist

    You're either a troll or an idiot.
     
  20. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    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).
     
  21. Q25 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    I thought we can see bacteria,
    under microscope!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Q25 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
     
  23. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    "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.
     

Share This Page