- 7,241
- 2,904
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
Official Atheist/Non-Believer Appreciation Thread. Vol. Yes we exist
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Didn't the bible refer to God as he?
I guess I should start by asking what religion are you?
Religion...is that what you're rebelling against?
I dont subscribe to any religion.
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,182
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
I mean god is as fictional as all of the characters I listed...just more harmful
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
God is a 500 year old Germanic word.
If you base your view of the cosmos under that paralyzingly close minded frame of lens, I don't blame you for being confused.
People's thinking is all messed up...Western science is not the beginning or the end of universal understanding.
If you base your view of the cosmos under that paralyzingly close minded frame of lens, I don't blame you for being confused.
People's thinking is all messed up...Western science is not the beginning or the end of universal understanding.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
Lol Atheists are dumb, well at least the ones that go around trying to disprove god and condemning religion. As for me I have my beliefs(I'm a Cartesianwhen it comes to God) But I'm not about to stand here and debate what something means to someone else, Christianity means little to nothing to me, neitherdoes Islam neither does any religion, but if it helps someone get through their day who am I to spit upon it? The argument shouldn't be whether or not webelieve in God, but rather we should argue for the right to believe, without someone telling us that our beliefs are trivial.
sidenote Atheists is literally A-Theists, meaning not that they don't believe in god,but they believe in something else. Classical atheists(byzntainneatheists) actually believed in nature, among other things.
sidenote Atheists is literally A-Theists, meaning not that they don't believe in god,but they believe in something else. Classical atheists(byzntainneatheists) actually believed in nature, among other things.
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,182
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
I don't think your beliefs are trivial or whatever. I just think they are wrong. You do have the right to believe. No one is trying to takethat away.
- 8,157
- 5,338
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
So you don't have to prove that God exists--I do?...
"The burden of proof is the one making the allegations"-- you don't think that goes either way?...
I'm content in my belief system--which just so happens to be belief widely accepted by people even I don't know. It's unfortunate for you, however,to have been birthed under the circumstances you are under now--which is the fact that you live in an arguable Christian nation, and in a world that is (Ibelieve) for the most part, religiously affiliated. You are the one bothered by these state of affairs and you are the one fighting to challenge, disprove, andshow just how much of a sham Christianity and other religions supposedly are.
You are the one making allegations in an attempt to "enlighten", because you just have it all figured out, us religious folk all the while demonizingreligion. Like I said, I'm content with my belief system--which has been in existence longer than you or your parents have. If you want to invalidate mybelief system, then it is YOU who carries the burden of proof on your back.
If you tell me you have an amazing burrito here and I don't believe you, three things will happen. (1) You will try and convince me otherwise, (2) I willtry to prove that you do NOT in fact have an amazing burrito, and (3) We can both say w/e and just not give a damn. So no, don't be silly enough toactually think that the sole course of action is for me to try and disprove your assertion--Think Please...
My evidence to prove god's nonexistence is that there has never been any evidence suggesting otherwise.
And is that proof that the evidence for His existence is then, nonexistent?...
FACT: your existence as an Atheist is very much dependent on this duel you continually rage against religion. Religion is what defines you as an Atheist,because without religion, there would be no such thing as Atheism. Atheism is the insurrection against religion. The SPECIFIC opposite is NOT the same. Andthat's the comedy that is Atheism. Atheism as a system of belief is dependent, validated, and given merit only as long as it continues in the attempt todisprove and invalidate the very "entity" that gives it meaning and/or life.
...
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
The African did not believe the Hawk or the Beetle to be a GOD. In fact they did not know what a God was. They had NETERS, Divine forces of nature developedthrough intense observational analysis, cloaked in esotericism for cultural absorption. When you try to "intellectualize" and dogmatize everything inan inherently spiritual existence, you will be lost.
Too much left brain thinking disguised as irrefutable Universal fact.
If the atom is the basic unit of matter? The uncuttable as the Greeks called it...then how can it be split? And if you keep splitting it, then the very wordatom losses it significance...what is the real most basic and indivisible unit of� existence?
Thats what happens when you go from ATUM to ATOM. Thats the type of confusion that is inevitable when you try to encapsulate the ALL into to a human outline, asingle word and a pretty painting.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
We are all atheists.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by HueyP in LouieV
The African did not believe the Hawk or the Beetle to be a GOD. In fact they did not know what a God was. They had NETERS, Divine forces of nature developed through intense observation and analysis, cloaked in esotericism for cultural absorption. When you try to "intellectualize" and dogmatize everything in an inherently spiritual existence, you will be lost.
Too much left brain thinking disguised as irrefutable Universal fact.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
Hows this, Something can't come from nothing, so whether you call it God or Science it doesn't rightly matter. This is a fact that youcan't deny, I happen to call the "great mover" God, you can call it the Big bang, but what put that there? I don't believe in an old whiteguy sitting there that is all good, all powerful and all knowing, but I do believe in a action, an event that started it all. While I recognize there is noproof, I do like to think of someone there listening when I pray, or when I'm down and out. Thats not something,as an intellectual you should trounce on,or even argue about. Like I said your not arguing against God with your Atheism you're arguing against humanity, you're arguing against something thatgets people through their day. Would you seriously look at a 13 year old sex slave from russia, that has nothing but the hope in a good after life, that thereis no God? Would you tell a slave that there is no God? Hold your beliefs discuss them with your peers, but remember that discussing God is discussinghumanity. The world is bigger than the one you live in, there are grave injustices that only a belief in God could make somewhat bearable.
- 571
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
Checkin In . . .
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,182
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
My allegation is that the unproven doesn't exist. That isn't as much of an allegation as it is the evident. You are making the outlandishclaim that there is a god. Not me. That is the allegation. That's where burden of proof comes into this.Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
So you don't have to prove that God exists--I do?...
"The burden of proof is the one making the allegations"-- you don't think that goes either way?...
I'm content in my belief system--which just so happens to be belief widely accepted by people even I don't know. It's unfortunate for you, however, to have been birthed under the circumstances you are under now--which is the fact that you live in an arguable Christian nation, and in a world that is (I believe) for the most part, religiously affiliated. You are the one bothered by these state of affairs and you are the one fighting to challenge, disprove, and show just how much of a sham Christianity and other religions supposedly are.
You are the one making allegations in an attempt to "enlighten", because you just have it all figured out, us religious folk all the while demonizing religion. Like I said, I'm content with my belief system--which has been in existence longer than you or your parents have. If you want to invalidate my belief system, then it is YOU who carries the burden of proof on your back. ...
- 645
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Whatever that force inside of us that actually makes us ALIVE....that is what I consider GOD, to be.
An energy, is probably the best way I can put it.
That which makes us ALIVE.
Y'all are looking at god as if he/she is an extension of ourselves. A bigger, badder, omnipotent version of us.
They say god made us in his image, NO we make god into OUR image.
An energy, is probably the best way I can put it.
That which makes us ALIVE.
Y'all are looking at god as if he/she is an extension of ourselves. A bigger, badder, omnipotent version of us.
They say god made us in his image, NO we make god into OUR image.
lobotomybeats
Supporter
- 9,182
- 18,481
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
You're asking if I'd lie. I don't know. If they asked me, I would probably lie. So what? The only reason they'd ask me is because theyalready believe in god anyway. So you are suggesting that letting them believe in god is good because it gives them something to hope for. I guess that'sfine. If a lie can give someone hope, have at it. It's worked for the churches for a long time. People that believe in god live longer because they havesomething to believe in. Keep in mind that people that have cats live longer too.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
You're seriously that anti-God that you don't see the good the belief in it is doing in the world?
* oh and please use your arrogance to come up with something more than just "The burden of proof is on the accuser" that is a weak and prettychildish way to preform logic...it's like saying "nope I have no reason to believe what I believe, niether do you but since you are the one accusingme that my beliefs are false you should have to prove it" how about the reverse, since you are the one maintaining your truths to be correct how about youprove it. I can't prove mine, I'll tell you that from the mountain tops, but the fact that I believe is proof enough to me, you haven't even comeclose to the logic (I've already explained why I believe in the something from nothing paradox)
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
If you really cared about logic and reason, you wouldn't be atheist.
You just want something that sounds good and fits neatly into the constraints of this Western society.
Its easy to shoot down these dogmatic and evangelical religions with omnipotent men hiding in the heavens dictating Earthly matters from up high. Its easy todo that and consequently to denounce the spiritual, throw away GOD and call yourself and atheist....Thats easy to do, but its not logical.
We haven't even scratched the surface of discovery here on Earth and we are constantly chasing an ever changing truth but you are quick to denouncealternative understandings of the unseen?
Thats not rational at all.
We know there are things beyond the plane of our basic five senses of perception...yet we are trying to measure them with spectrometers and other pieces oftechnology, which are only extensions of those senses.
You have to switch your mind into a spiritual mode and deal with spiritual sciences when pondering matters beyond the physical. You have to use spiritualterminology and logic, then things will begin to make more sense. Not everything is black or white. Emotions and dreams can't be found on the periodictable.
As advanced as we think we are now, we are really a shadow of our former selves spiritually. And as we advance technology, we begin to develop theories aboutthe Internet and interconnected machines evolving independently of humans, developing "mind" of their own, independent consciousnesses and straddlingcloser to our scientific definitions of humanity. As we begin to delve further into quantum science, the walls of traditional western scientific thinking beginto slowly crumble. Everything becomes circular and infinite...you can't extract the basic unit of infinity. And thats what GOD is. GOD is the ALL.
- 2,448
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
Ya dudes can worship that magician all ya want
- 17,144
- 1,167
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
Great input. Classic.
- 87,776
- 50,200
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
The burden of proof always rests on the person making the claim not the person discrediting the claim. It does not go eitherway. Yall believers should just stick to the whole I don't have to prove something I believe in because I have faith argument. That's morelogical than trying to make a nonbeliever prove something that you should be proving if you want to jump in that arena.
Yall forget that if you have faith in a higher being you can only do so by having doubt. If you have no doubt, you have no faith. Faith without doubt is notfaith but certainty. Now if you're certain that this higher being you believe in exists you should be able to prove that without a shadow of adoubt. Seeing as the claim would now be it's a fact that this higher being does exist.
And Huey you gotta make up your mind when correcting concepts that are only limited to man and other labels. You talk about "GOD" being a 500 yearold Germanic word but you initially referenced the higher being whose existence you claim makes more sense than any other theory ppl come with as GOD.
Yall forget that if you have faith in a higher being you can only do so by having doubt. If you have no doubt, you have no faith. Faith without doubt is notfaith but certainty. Now if you're certain that this higher being you believe in exists you should be able to prove that without a shadow of adoubt. Seeing as the claim would now be it's a fact that this higher being does exist.
And Huey you gotta make up your mind when correcting concepts that are only limited to man and other labels. You talk about "GOD" being a 500 yearold Germanic word but you initially referenced the higher being whose existence you claim makes more sense than any other theory ppl come with as GOD.
- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
Wait aren't you making the claim that there is no God?...Prove it...
- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
My mind is made up but I have to speak to people in the language that people understand.
Thats why i'm trying to elaborate as much as possible.
Like I said before, all of this is a game of linguistic semantics. The unbiased definition of the word God is the culmination of the supernatural, theamalgamation of universal divinity.
Once you start plugging in specific religious versions of the concept of GOD, then you can startpicking it apart with different forms of logic.
I can ascribe my belief in GOD to an immeasurable and unseen cosmic element that you can't quantify...that can be proof enough for me but how do youdisprove that?
Its all flawed arguments and backwards thinking. When discussing the spiritual, you have to deal with spiritual science, history and language. Its a science onits on.
Unless you can tell me that Western science has a definitive answer for everything in the cosmos and prove it to me, then the concept of GOD always hasvalidity. And you will see that more and more.
GOD has been with us from the beginnings of humanity and will be with us until the end of humanity. It may evolve and take on different understandings andnames but the concept of GOD will always remain.
People think we will move away from GOD as time advances but we will only move closer to the original concepts of GOD. We are beginning to understand that noteverything is quantifiable and there is nothing that is indivisible. It is only Western arrogance and cultural indoctrination that prevents us from having atruer understanding of existence and causes us to assign these supremely vague titles and definitions to things as important as "dark matter".
There is a spiritual component to existence and if you deny it you are only denying yourself. You'll be walking around with sunglasses and earplugs on,thinking that your are seeing the world as it really is.
- 8,157
- 5,338
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Originally Posted by lobotomybeats
My allegation is that the unproven doesn't exist. That isn't as much of an allegation as it is the evident. You are making the outlandish claim that there is a god. Not me. That is the allegation. That's where burden of proof comes into this.Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
So you don't have to prove that God exists--I do?...
"The burden of proof is the one making the allegations"-- you don't think that goes either way?...
I'm content in my belief system--which just so happens to be belief widely accepted by people even I don't know. It's unfortunate for you, however, to have been birthed under the circumstances you are under now--which is the fact that you live in an arguable Christian nation, and in a world that is (I believe) for the most part, religiously affiliated. You are the one bothered by these state of affairs and you are the one fighting to challenge, disprove, and show just how much of a sham Christianity and other religions supposedly are.
You are the one making allegations in an attempt to "enlighten", because you just have it all figured out, us religious folk all the while demonizing religion. Like I said, I'm content with my belief system--which has been in existence longer than you or your parents have. If you want to invalidate my belief system, then it is YOU who carries the burden of proof on your back. ...
I don't have to prove that something isn't. That doesn't even make sense. What evidence would conclude that something isn't? What would happen that hasn't already happened to confirm there isn't a god? See I have the benefit of assumption. You don't. You make the claims there is a god. I don't.
Here are a few nice Christopher Hitchens quotes:
"Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence."
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
I'm not mad that I live in a society that mostly believes in god. That is changing and that has me hopeful. Logic and reason can win.
The funny thing about you is the fact that you're so blinded by your "hate" for this Being you claim in nonexistent, that you fail to see justhow double sided your arguments against Him are--or in other words, you fail to see how your very own arguments could be used in support and validation of God.
Like I stated previously, your circumstances (being born in a Christian nation, which occupies some fraction of a very religious world) put you at adisadvantage in the sense that it is YOU who must "fight" and argue about the nonexistence of God. I don't have to do that. I have the benefit ofbeing a member of the dominant belief system, in a world where such a belief is the norm.
You're the minority looking to "change" things because the current state of affairs does not suit your constitution. THAT'S THE TRUTH.That's why the burden of proof is on you because in order for you to bring about change, you MUST provide indisputable evidence that will foreverinvalidate the concept and Being known to us as God.
I mean that's essentially what science and the scientific method is all about. If I propose that Chickens are more closely related to us, humans, thanLemurs are, on the evolutionary branch, then it is my job--as usher of this hypothesis--to provide evidence that proves this assertion/validates andcorroborates my hypothesis, all the while disproving the established notion that lemurs are more closely related to us than chickens.
The established notion is the accepted notion and the one that must be evicted if the new notion is to accepted. With respect to this thread, and what is beingdiscussed, the established notion is that there is a God because Christianity has argued for it, and has done so for many many centuries. More importantly,this notions are widely accepted as proof that there is, at least, some sliver of merit surrounding the existence of God.
You the Atheist, who was but recently birthed--in the last, what, 30 years (I'm specifically talking about You and not the group that falls under theumbrella that is Atheism)-- in your attempt to supplant Christianity and its teachings with your hypothesis that God does not exist, must bring forth theevidence that shows this. In my Chicken vs. Lemur hypothesis, it is NOT the job of the established scientific community, and those who accept the believedprinciple that humans are more closely related to Lemurs than to chickens, to provide evidence that proves your hypothesis otherwise. Especially when you arethe one doing the challenging.
The burden of proof is ON YOUR BACK, as you are the challenger to an already believed notion.
But this is where the problem with Atheism comes in--the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE to corroborate your claims in your attempt to enlighten us"sheep". You cannot disprove the existence of God. I don't have to worry about proving the opposite because like I stated previously, I have thebenefit of being a member of the dominant group is a world that greatly identifies with my belief system, or something similar.
- 87,776
- 50,200
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
No. I'm not an atheist. The actual stance for a nonbeliever would be a religious person making the claim that GOD does exist and a simplerequest for the ppl making this claim to validate it. Furthermore, yall are not claiming "Well you can't prove GOD doesn't exist" There areppl in this thread saying he does in fact exist. I never said he doesn't but that's how it works in an argument. You make a claim, bring forthproof/evidence that validates your claim on the opposite side we bring forth ideas/theories among other things that arises doubt in that claim to no longermake it a certainty.
Any person who claims they are certain GOD exists CAN NOT say they have faith. It's contradictory.