I have read 10s of thousands of posts and opinions concerning why I should never ever say "there is no god".
Believers state that I cannot disprove a god so it is incorrect to state that there isn't one.
Agnostics state that there is a possibility of a god, therefore, it is incorrect for me to state that there isn't one.
The thing is concerning what the believers state is, that I didn't make up a god and it is not my responsibility to prove a god or disprove a god. A millennium has passed with absolutely no proof that there is a god or has ever been a god. Referencing the bible as proof is invalid because:
1) It is nothing but hearsay and uncorroborated testimony.
2) There are so many variations that are not consistent with each other.
3) It has been edited and rewritten to fit political objectives and narratives.
4) There are no independent sources that corroborate the bible or any version of the bible.
5) The first bible was probably written 4 centuries past the events it describes.
The thing is concerning what agnostics state is, that anything is possible. An invisible purple cow billions of miles wide could be hiding behind the sun could be controlling everything, but I would say that there isn't one and I'd be correct in saying so.
So I emphatically state with complete confidence that "there is no god" and I am correct in stating so! Unless someone, anyone, can prove otherwise, that is the case!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I agree with you about the lack of evidence for a god or gods. The burden of proof lies with the theist who claim a god is real. The bible is not evidence, it's a collection of stories written by bronze and iron age people.
We have plenty of evidence that supports a totally natural universe and no evidence to support anything supernatural, such as a god, so I agree that the statement "there is no god" is valid.
Freefromgod: "We have plenty of evidence that supports a totally natural universe and no evidence to support anything supernatural, such as a god, so I agree that the statement "there is no god" is valid."
________________________
"Totally natural universe...." that made itself...... from nothing at all, not even "gravity" which Stephen Hawking says is "all that is needed." Really? What is "gravity" when there is no mass?
The ultimate atheist "gotcha" is "Who made God?"
As Professor John Lennox so clearly argues, "If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" Just so.
Atheists have murdered and starved over 100,000,000 human beings in just the 20th Century, far surpassing the deaths at the hands of Christian Crusaders. And as Vladimir Lenin said, "Atheism is an essential component of socialism."
Atheists are consummately arrogant, condescending, pretentious. How consummately anti-scientific and unintelligent is such conduct.
"Atheists are consummately arrogant, condescending, pretentious."
Yep, that's me.
You can't blame genocide on atheism or atheists. Millions of people were not murdered by atheists because those people believed in a god. The "purges were purely political and had NOTHING to do with atheism.
And your numbers are really fuzzy.
There were 11 crusades that killed millions for decades. There were over forty years of Charlemagne forcing christianity on innocent people with the threat of death. Christians committed wholesale genocide wherever they went in the name of jesus. The Americas, Africa, Asia, all suffered slavery and murder in the name of jesus.
If you want to just include the 20th century, christians still committed more murder and other atrocities in the name of jesus. The 3rd Reich is a purely christian idealism.
This statement by you is just projection "Atheists are consummately arrogant, condescending, pretentious. How consummately anti-scientific and unintelligent is such conduct.". There could be nothing more unscientific, arrogant, condescending, unintelligent, and pretentious than believing in a myth that has no evidence whatsoever to be true and forcing that myth on everyone else.
Also, your claim that 100,000,000 people were murdered by atheists, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER? 100,000,000? You pulled that out of your ass! That is just batshit crazy! I suspect that so are you!
mykcob4: "You can't blame genocide on atheism or atheists. Millions of people were not murdered by atheists because those people believed in a god. The "purges were purely political and had NOTHING to do with atheism.
And your numbers are really fuzzy.
There were 11 crusades that killed millions for decades. There were over forty years of Charlemagne forcing christianity on innocent people with the threat of death. Christians committed wholesale genocide wherever they went in the name of jesus. The Americas, Africa, Asia, all suffered slavery and murder in the name of jesus.
If you want to just include the 20th century, christians still committed more murder and other atrocities in the name of jesus. The 3rd Reich is a purely christian idealism.
This statement by you is just projection "Atheists are consummately arrogant, condescending, pretentious. How consummately anti-scientific and unintelligent is such conduct.". There could be nothing more unscientific, arrogant, condescending, unintelligent, and pretentious than believing in a myth that has no evidence whatsoever to be true and forcing that myth on everyone else.
Also, your claim that 100,000,000 people were murdered by atheists, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER? 100,000,000? You pulled that out of your ass! That is just batshit crazy! I suspect that so are you!"
How consummately ignorant and irrational of you to engage in vulgarity, pettiness, hatefulness, and ignorance. How consummately ignorant and irrational, not to mention in violation of the rules of this forum. You don't debate. You scream insanely.
Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1] See also: Atheism and communism
Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people[2] according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997).[3] and according to Cleon Skousen[4] in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.[5]
It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7]
Conservapedia.com
I hope never again to bother reading a single word from mykcob4 after that insane rant. "Go from the presence of a foolish man."
"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."
"A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb
Moderator, if you do not ban this thug, you certainly must at least warn him not to make future insane outbursts.
GeniusIsDisruptive: "It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives."
Your logic is flawed.
Communists are atheists. Communists killed people. Therefore atheism killed people.
Communists drink vodka. Communists killed people. Therefore vodka drinkers killed people.
Communism killed people because of expansionist empire-building and the need for oppression to keep people in line under a failed economic system. I don't recall a great atheist war of extermination based on purely religious grounds.
The Crusades, the 30 Years War, the massacre of Protestants in France were all specifically Christian actions done in the name of Christianity to promote Christianity or brands thereof. The conquest and depopulation of the Americas was sanctioned by the Christian church. Christianity was the justification for the Atlantic slave trade.
Genius is disruptive: "And as Vladimir Lenin said, "Atheism is an essential component of socialism."
But socialism is not an essential component of atheism. You'll find atheists in all areas of the political spectrum. You'll even find them in foxholes.
"Atheists have murdered and starved over 100,000,000 human beings in just the 20th Century, far surpassing the deaths at the hands of Christian Crusaders."
Well I didn't know that guilt was a numbers game. I think one person killed in the name of a religion is enough to prove the utter immorality of that belief. Those millions killed in Russia and China were murdered in the name of tyrants' paranoia, not atheism. It's also worth noting that Stalin grew up in an Orthodox environment and studied for the priesthood, while Mao was schooled in Buddhism and Confucianism. And Mao was the pope and god of his own personal religion.
So where are the murders carried out in the name of atheism?
The Crusades, like the 30-year War, were specifically Christian in cause and nature. The atrocities in the Crusades were committed by Christians wearing the cross and acting under the orders of Popes, who gave them absolution from any and all crimes while they were on Crusade. Where's the atheist equivalent of that?
Don't forget "snarky"! Atheists are snarky.
GeniusIsDisruptive
What proof do you have that Atheism is the cause of 100 Million people?
Some say that saying there is no god, but the lack of evidence of a god is the same as there being no god by default.
Yep. Basic logic dictates that the side making the claim, (especially an extraordinary claim,) has the burden of proving it. Basic communication of ideas concepts and trade breaks down if people must disprove any idea/concept instead of proving any idea/concept.
Examples:
"You there! Stranger I just ran into on the street, you owe me 1 million dollars! Prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that you do not, otherwise pay up right now."
"You there! You stole my toy fire truck! I demand you replace it with a new one right now! Unless you can absolutely positively prove you did not steal it"
"This clear liquid vial I am selling will cure you of all ills, it will take 30 days before the effects to kick in. You would be a fool to not buy one from me for 1000 dollars cash." - traveling salesman that offers no credentials/id.
"I am the president of the world until you prove otherwise, meanwhile I have all the powers of the world president over you. I demand a back rub!"
The term "atheist" is a simple negative of: "god believer." It is a negative, a lack of, there is no burden of proof there. Just like there is no need to prove to the person you are talking to: "you there! you do not owe me 1 million dollars! You do not have to pay me!"
Scientifically speaking, disproving a hypothesis is more efficient than attempting to prove it. When you conduct statistical research, you do so by testing the null hypothesis. If you fail to disprove the null hypothesis, that means your own hypothesis was wrong. You can cast the burden of proof on others all day long, but that is just intellectual laziness. Find a null hypothesis for God, and prove it.
Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. If it were, evolution would fall apart at every fossil that is still missing.
P.S. whats up with the forum asking a math question every time I post lol. I don't have the brain power for all this math.
No John Breezy that is NOT how science works or law works or logic works. You don't try and prove a negative.
BTW DNA proves evolution.
The math problem is an effort to stop the cyber attacks that we have been experiencing. There has been an effort to use spamming to shut down the site.
Disproving a hypothesis is nice if there is a way to do it. Without any physical testable evidence or material for god, that option is not available. It is just like disproving my made up rainbow farting unicorn god. It would be nice to create a null hypothesis. But it is unavailable. The theist community long ago pushed god out to the ethereal because they knew it would fail any null hypothesis quickly.
Also, this is not statistical research.
Speaking of fossils..
There is plenty of examples of null hypothesis in the bible though, many versions of the bible (and other religious text) says the world was completely covered in water for 100+ days around 5000 years ago (depends on version,) If that were true, how come their is no fossil records of kangaroos anywhere but in Australia? How did they get there?
This is just one example of the many many flaws in the bible. But god it self they took out of reach of a null hypothesis. (But also made it impossible to prove or disprove any made up god.)
First you need to make sure there isn't a null hypothesis, and not just that you can't think of any. This does require some creativity and intellect. It took thousands of years for someone clever enough to think outside the box, and argue that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.
That said, explain the kangaroo thing again lol?
@John 61X Breezy: "explain the kangaroo thing again lol?"
Bible literalists tell us us that Noah's Ark landed somewhere in Turkey. The lions, chimpanzees, tigers, and zebras could have walked home from there, but how did the kangaroos get back to Australia, the kiwis to New Zealand, and the armadillos to South America? And why on earth would anyone save the estuarine crocodile and the funnel web spider?
I see, I feel like there's information missing in the question tho. Because presumably "How did the kangas get to Australia" is a question that needs to be answered by evolutionists as well. I doubt they evolved there from scratch, after all, I got marsupials in my own back yard in Florida (opossums).
So if your question is how they crossed the ocean to reach Australia, my answer would be the same as yours for how their ancestors crossed it.
But if they got there on land, say, before Australia broke off or something. Then I have no idea.
What's your answer?
100+ million years. Australia split off from the super continent roughly 180 million years ago. Plenty of time for evolution to split off into a different path from a base species that was able to travel there originally. The fact their are possums in florida helps reinforce the idea of evolution, continental plate movement and there was not a great flood that covered the entire earth 5000 years ago.
I'm fine with that, so long as you use that same narrative to explain the rest of the non-marsupial animals on Australia. Which presumably got there around the same time, in the same way. Specifically those that aren't unique to Ausralia.
Think about what you are saying: why would all the species of a region, arrive in that region at the same time?
Well because Australia broke off as a single event. Once that happened nothing comes in or out. They had to have been there before that event.
You don't think birds, insects, seeds, etc could make the trip once it broke off?
---------------------------------------------
But even if we accept your cartoon version, that once it broke off it was isolated: you set up the strawman that they had to all get there around the same time. Now you are being more reasonable in telling us they had to all get there before the event. That is why I told you to think about what you said.
I do think birds, insects, seeds, and even bigger animals could have made the trip. But you need to specify the extent that you think that's possible. Because the moment you make it possible for animals to get there once it breaks off, you inevitably provide an explanation for how they got there from the Ark.
Which I'm assuming is what everyone is saying isn't possible.
Australia breaking off into its own continent away from pangea was not a single event. It is something that slowly occurred over millions of years. With ice ages coming and going creating land/ice bridges, major plate movements creating temporary land bridges to islands that eventually moved and connected etc. Things that happen on a 180 million year time scale, Not a "in the last 5000 years" time scale.
What is also cool is how much reinforcing evidence this gets. We go look at fossil records, and it reinforces these ideas. We study animals and how they adapted, and it reinforces this idea. We study evidence of ice ages and tectonic plate movement, again it reinforces it, the timelines match up, they reinforce each other, evidence compounds, we discover something new, we apply these theories to it and it works.
Religion does not have that. They just rely on the crutch of "god is all powerful" and "god works in mysterious ways." To answer all questions, no supporting evidence or concepts that helps piece it all together. Some theist point to the bible or other holy books, but the bible further undermines the god idea, not support it.
That's like saying 9/11 was two separate events, not one. It doesn't matter how long it took for Australia to separate, the moment it separates and its inhabitants are isolated, that's the event that matters.
Creationists and evolutionists don't agree on timescales, that's pretty much obvious. But your question wasn't "when" did they get there, you asked me "how" they got there.
My answer is that they got there the same way they got there in your theory.
Any modern person with access to the internet who thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, is more than just a creationist, they are an idiot: they are dumb on purpose.
9/11 the day was one event. A plane crashing into the building could be commonly described as one event.
Most people would say the events of 9/11. Notice the plural. Besides, trying to equate 9/11 as an argument for an event that is similar continental plate movement.. is like saying a A380 superjumbo jet is similar to a fruit fly to try and draw some comparison/truth about the A380. Yes, they both fly, but that is where the similarities end.
Even still. The event of a land bridge or short swim breaking off and then later reforming, recurring in multiple different forms, over millions of years, I think any sane person would say, was not a single event.
The how in my theory, was land/ice/short swim/ island movement, is completely reliant on time scales. Time scales that simply can not happen in 5000 years unless god "magically" made kangaroo travel happen, but not in an easy way, (poof there are kangaroos I just created here in this land eventually called Australia!) but in a way that mimics huge time scales, then hid all evidence of it planted a whole shit ton of counter evidence that goes against gods existence, and to do what, purposely mislead people that like to use real world evidence instead of just taking some people's (that collect a lot of money and power from followers,) word for it?
The problem is (according to the Bible) the flood happened around 4500 years ago. 4500 years ago the distance between Australia and other land masses was essentially the same as it is today. Which would make it very difficult for say a kangaroo to make it to Australia from some other location.
Of course, but you're mixing two separate ideas. That's like me saying the problem with your explanation is that if kangas crossed a land bridge, then how did they survive the flood? Obviously the two ideas don't coexist.
Pages