Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
A touch difficult considering he is dead.
Also, Signals have been received using optical light pulses that could be hawking radiation.
However, it is still under scrutiny and up for debate.
And that is fine, providing that you concede that you can't possibly know if any of your claims are true.
Therefore they are no more true than anything else any single individual concocts within their minds.
''And that is fine, providing that you concede that you can't possibly know if any of your claims are true.
Therefore they are no more true than anything else any single individual concocts within their minds.''
Yes you CAN possibly know; albeit not in a naturalistic manner.
''Also, Signals have been received using optical light pulses that could be hawking radiation.
However, it is still under scrutiny and up for debate.''
You're evading the question. Is Hawking radiation real then, yes or no?
Well by all means, please do.
It would be nice to see someone explain the cosmos without relying on naturalism and science, without touching base on a black and white fallacy.
How did I evade the question? In actuality you tried to make a claim regarding someone's inability to find something when they are dead, I would like my own statements before questioning others.
The true answer to Hawkins Radiation is, we don't know.
It's possible, there is some evidence to lean towards the positive,
and it doesn't violate the laws of entropy, thermodynamics and so on.
@JazzTheist
"I'm intending to explain EVERY known and unknown natural phenomenon; which includes existence itself."
And every time the conversation looks like this ....
Why is there air?
god.
@JazzTheist
I don't feel like I am getting upset. I am confident I have a better understanding if I am upset then you do, you do not even know my first name. I also like how I stated: "It seems to me like you are getting increasingly upset." Stating it is an opinion and seems like. You go straight for the absolute statement. Hmm what does that remind me of?
Never stated you being upset had anything to do with the validity of your position, I was just pointing out an observation I made that may or may not be correct, unlike your absolutist statement that I was upset. If you are not upset, great, lets keep debating.
I never denied that I called you a 12 year old girl. I am aware of what I did, hopefully that is obvious to you.
What makes you see that? What do you see about me in my writing that I cannot see about my self? Even after self reflection after you stated I am hurt by your arguments. Again I do not feel upset. I have been on these boards for over 2 years now, and on other boards like it for a lot longer than that, you think suddenly your arguments make me get hurt? Do you think I never seen your arguments before? I must of argued first mover arguments at least a dozen times on these boards in the last year alone.
Great, would love to debate a theist that does not over react.
Yikes, you feel you have to fight back to every perceived slight against you otherwise you think people think you were conceding? Well that seemingly helps explain a lot about you actually.
Uh when you start throwing around accusations like that you might want to check to see if you are actually correct. Someone requested to not use the word girl in negative way, so I edited my post. And I even stated in bold at the bottom of my post that I edited my post to remove the offending language. I also never denied that I brought up the 12 year old girl first, however I think it could be argued I did not bring it up in quite the derogatory attack style when you bounced it back at me. Just like when I stated "it seems to me like you are getting increasing upset" then you bounce back: "YOU are getting upset."
We agree here. I try not to insult anyone, but it does happen, typically I go after religion ideas as a whole, not the individual arguing them. But I do get that an attack on religion, yours (or any) does feel like an attack on you because you practice religion. I actually do work to keep personal attacks out of it as they achieve nothing constructive.
Try, try to understand what you write. You/other people create this idea of "god" you then tell us he is completely from outside this realm and therefore undetectable, then you try to prove this idea by saying it is the only explanation for a first cause, and that it, it self is timeless. Except, you cannot prove one unproven thing with another completely unprovable idea. You still have nothing for any sort of argument that can be taken at all seriously. It is like a child playing a game where they make up the rules as they go along, it may be fun for the child making up the rules as it suits them, but its a childs game and nobody else is going to want to play a game where 1 person gets to make up rules as they go along, even if they contradict each other. It is not a game anymore it is just a child's wild imagination playing a game the child wants to play at a given moment.
How do I know this idea/concept of god as you present it is garbage? Because it is unfalsifiable, I can create any number of ideas or concepts that would fit those standards. My made up rainbow pooping unicorn god does not exist on this realm, so you cannot prove it via normal common sense everyday means, but.... the universe "MUST!!" have a first mover, and my unicorn god is that first mover, and that proves my unicorn god. The argument is exactly the same as the argument you setup for for your god proof of existence. Don't like unicorns? Then I will make up a god about bunnies. Cows, moonpies, what is your favorite color? Every single one of any of these ideas has the same "proof of concept" as your particular god idea does. It is unfalsifiable, your method of proving existence of your god is as worthless as a handful of sand in the middle of a sandy desert.
Not yet, they are working on it though! This is why Hawking radiation remains just an idea, a theory they would like to begin to prove before it begins to be widely accepted. However his theory is supported by other scientific findings in related fields, where parts not yet understood are helped answered by this theory, like a piece of a very large and complex jigsaw puzzle. It does look like this theory might match up well, but even still the scientific community does not embrace it until it can be better proven.
Explain everything? What are you claiming to be omniscient now? Oh I get it, no you are not, you are just trying to say your god explains everything, but obviously because it is "god" your god cannot be explained. Not even a little bit. Yet you think you understand your "god" idea better then us atheist so you want to explain why your idea is right, and anyone that does not believe in your god idea is wrong. Except again, without any actual evidence, proof, testable reality, you are just speaking hot air about a fantasy. We try to point this out, but as expected by most theist that take the trouble to argue with atheist on an atheist debate board, you like a tick just burrow into the fat deeper even when we try to pull you out to see the light of reality.
I have debated long enough on these boards and others like it that I do realize one common pattern of theist that visit these boards. They frequently desperately desperately! need their particular chosen god concept to be real. So much so, they need to visit atheist boards to argue their idea and show themselves within their delusion that they are right and the atheist got it wrong. Easy to do when you ignore every point atheist bring up when they counter argue your argument.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''I don't feel like I am getting upset. I am confident I have a better understanding if I am upset then you do, you do not even know my first name. I also like how I stated: "It seems to me like you are getting increasingly upset." Stating it is an opinion and seems like. You go straight for the absolute statement. Hmm what does that remind me of?''
Either way we can both agree that the projection effect is taking place.
''Never stated you being upset had anything to do with the validity of your position, I was just pointing out an observation I made that may or may not be correct, unlike your absolutist statement that I was upset. If you are not upset, great, lets keep debating.''
Good; thanks for clearing things up.
''I never denied that I called you a 12 year old girl. I am aware of what I did, hopefully that is obvious to you.''
But you acted as if I was the first one to insult you. Sounds like a dick move to me.
''Uh when you start throwing around accusations like that you might want to check to see if you are actually correct. Someone requested to not use the word girl in negative way, so I edited my post.''
Indeed I did not notice that. I apologize.
''We agree here. I try not to insult anyone, but it does happen, typically I go after religion ideas as a whole, not the individual arguing them. But I do get that an attack on religion, yours (or any) does feel like an attack on you because you practice religion. I actually do work to keep personal attacks out of it as they achieve nothing constructive.''
Nicely said. We can agree to disagree.
''Great, would love to debate a theist that does not over react.''
My pleasure.
''Yikes, you feel you have to fight back to every perceived slight against you otherwise you think people think you were conceding? Well that seemingly helps explain a lot about you actually.''
Maybe.
''How do I know this idea/concept of god as you present it is garbage? Because it is unfalsifiable, I can create any number of ideas or concepts that would fit those standards.''
But the naturalistic worldview that provides ground for atheism is also unfalsifiable; for it rejects the supernatural by default and has a methodology that would never grant the possibility of the supernatural. For example, let's say God heals an amputee during collective prayer; and you'd say ''well, according to ____'s razor, it's more possible that it's aliens or hidden high-tech''. As David Wood put it, this methodology isn't scientific at all.
I'm not saying I'm right; I'm merely saying that you're not as right as you thought.
''Not yet, they are working on it though!''
So does Hawking radiation exist, yes or no?
''Except again, without any actual evidence, proof, testable reality, you are just speaking hot air about a fantasy.''
It is the case from a naturalistic viewpoint; but again, the supernatural falls outside of naturalism. You can't demand physical evidence of the supernatural.
My reason for why there's an ultimate cause is a philosophical one: any contingent thing has a cause; and that cause is less contingent than it. Which leads us to an ultimate cause that's non-contingent and uncaused; much like how a perfect sphere cannot be more spherical.
That is fine, I do believe people project on some level all the time, I do, you do, we all do to a greater or lesser extent.
Is it? I see new editions, additions and even out right replacement/removal of current even well established theory on complex naturalism concepts all the time. It seems like a theory was found falsifiable and then removed. The scientific method and study of the natural world around us is built upon mistakes and correcting them, to constantly strive to learn more, improve upon and check it self.
Take the big bang theory, it is falsifiable, find another theory, test it, and if it has better evidence, better test results and fits better into the jigsaw of what is known and unknown, then the big bang theory, that the bigbang theory is proven false. If your god idea could be proven with better evidence than evolution, the big bang or even what happens before, that would be the new defining theory, even if I would deeply dislike the idea.
I agree this is true. Naturalism is going to reject supernatural. Naturalism is the study of what is around us, what can be studied, it is not the study of stuff that cannot be studied. When you say say supernatural you say it cannot be studied. It cannot be understood, of course naturalism is going to reject that. Of course Naturalism has no methodology to study the supernatural.
Question for you though, how do you reject the other god ideas? How do you reject my rainbow pooping unicorn god? If you do not reject them from lack of evidence how do you reject any god idea no matter how crazy and insane it is? How do you reject me saying I LogicFTW am your god if I do not require evidence to prove to you I am real?
You already know the answer to this, we do not know, we do know hawking seems rather brilliant and some of his other ideas and theories started to get evidenced, we do know that the theory does help fill in some gaps in our knowledge and it is worth looking in to, and that it would be highly useful if we can begin to be proven. But they are not building any spaceships on this theory yet.
If I personally saw a bunch of people praying and saying they are praying for a miracle for god to restore the arm, and an amputee suddenly has his working arm restored to him, I would seriously consider the possibility of whatever god those people were praying to. But that has never happened. I would expect you to seriously consider I was your god if I suddenly made you grow a 3rd arm. But I would never expect you to consider me to possibly be your god because I say one day I could make you grow a 3rd arm if I felt like it.
Incidentally if I did see something occur like that in front of my eyes, I would seriously consider that I was hallucinating, drugged, or the like, as the amount evidence that there is no god, makes one of those scenarios far more likely than that there suddenly is a god and it would prove/manifest it self to me in that way.
In a sense you are right. But what happens is, you assert there is a god, and that this god affects us here in the natural world. You are bringing your, as you define: supernatural god, into the natural. Now that you brought your idea at least in part to natural, it is fair to demand proof of the natural aspects of it. If your god concept stayed strictly in the supernatural, then there would be absolutely no reason to argue it's existence, to talk about it, argue about it, it stays strictly in the realm of thought for people, and like a nearly infinite amount of thoughts it should not merit any real conversation where it affects us in the real world because it wouldn't affect us in anyway. I made up a name and story for my teddy bear when I was a child I never tried to prove my teddy bear was sentient to anyone, my thoughts of my teddy bears name and personality stayed in the supernatural. As I got older and left behind such supernatural thoughts behind as it should be.
I agree that it is philosophical. Because: "any contingent thing has a cause:" is an unproven, unevidenced assertion, it is strictly a mental exercise, a thought. It has no real world basis, nothing to test or prove that thought is real. Why cant the opposite also be true since it requires no real evidence or proof. Where: "any contingent thing has no cause."
Easy to be led to that making your first unevidenced assumption about any contingent thing has a cause.
I know I know, I get it, it is a terrifying thought for many people that everything could possibly be without cause, and just is. Nihilistic thoughts for atheist is a real thing, I struggled with it myself for quite a few years until I realized the incredible freedom "without cause" offers to a self aware being. I actually do not need to be told: "yes there is a reason for living."
Human thought construct (perfect) on a human labeled name of something (sphere) cannot be more human thought construct of (perfect.) It is a word definitions of human thought concepts, a "thought puzzle" you created there. Just like the: can god create an object heavier than he can lift?" Perfect does not exist, except as a concept in our own minds since it is not evidenced of course all sorts of weird anomalies conundrums and paradoxes. Similar to how the human thought concept and definition of time leads to all sorts of paradoxes in the thought process, (like the grandfather paradox.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@JazzTheist: How the heck is that supposed to be a logical question?
In your attempt to explain existence, you have invented something you call a "prime mover". And now you've defined it into existence by saying it's not part of the natural world. I'm seeing a lot of wild assumptions and logical gaps here.
We aren't witnesses to existence. We're part of it. But your "prime mover" argument is about creation, not existence, isn't it?
We can't witness anything that we're part of? That's a wild assertion. You can witness your family, right?
@JazzTheist: You can witness your family, right?
I think the entire realm of existence is a little more all-encompassing than a family. Don't you? I'm part of my family, but I'm also aware that I exist outside of it. I can witness older family dying and new members being born. Can you step outside of the universe and witness it evolving?
Again, your analogy doesn't work.
@jazzthiest
You can't logic god into existence.
What objective evidence do you have that a god exist?
@JazzTheist
"Let's say we investigate a crime and witnesses testify the criminal to be a fat teenager wearing a green top hat; but you dismiss that because you've never seen a fat teenager wearing a green top hat before. How is that a good methodology?"
"rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno"
You are attempting to use the black swan argument.
"So do I. But what if I say that existence itself (which presumably began 13 billions years ago) can be counted as an observable effect that a necessary prime mover had on our reality?"
I would not believe you unless you could demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to validate the claim.
"I know you'd reject this claim because it invokes the supernatural."
No. I would reject it because it invokes an unevidenced deity and cites unevidenced supernatural causation which demonstrates no explanatory powers.
" if things can be inferred through observable effects, but any answer that lies outside of known stuff is rejected by default, then how is it getting you anywhere?"
Well obviously he doesn't have your end goal of wanting validated a priori religious beliefs. If all he concerns himself with is objective evidence and believing as many true things as possible, the his method has an impressive record demonstrable successes through the scientific method. So I disagree it is "getting him nowhere".
"Let's say we investigate a crime and witnesses testify the criminal to be a fat teenager wearing a green top hat; but you dismiss that because you've never seen a fat teenager wearing a green top hat before. How is that a good methodology?"
Now that is a straw man argument, and very poor analogy. A more comparable analogous comparison would be if someone claimed an invisible supernatural teenager, that they could not demonstrate any objective evidence for, had committed a crime, and yes I'd reject such a claim.
Your worldview confuses how questions with why questions. I'm gonna insist the validity of philosophical inference and you're gonna insist physical evidence. Let's agree to disagree.
Of course the scientific method gets you everywhere within the scientific realm, but not when it comes to non-scientific realms.
And no, your analogy is the one that's poor and straw-manning. You are treating the supernatural like it's part of the natural. The fact that everything exists imply a first cause greater than everything that dwells outside of existence. On the other hand, when a crime takes place in the natural world, the last thing to do is to suspect that an invisible supernatural teenager did it; because there are no causal relations!
How has your religion/god idea ever helped you right now in your current life. Beyond warm touchy feeling as the god drug courses over your brain?
Have you ever won the powerball jackpot? Have you had an impairment like a missing limb, or even fading eyesight or hearing ever suddenly miraculously get cured all on its own? How about for any of your friends and family you care about? No? Now how much time have you wasted praying, going to church, following weird arcane rules, and hoping you will make it into some sort of ideal afterlife? Ever given any money or support to your particular religion? How about your friends that believe as you do?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I'm gonna answer this for fun.
''How has your religion/god idea ever helped you right now in your current life.''
It has re-defined my notion of the meaning of life.
''Have you ever won the powerball jackpot....your friends and family you care about? No?''
Nope.
''Now how much time have you wasted praying, going to church''
Not much, and they're definitely not wasted.
''Hoping you will make it into some sort of ideal afterlife?''
Frankly I have no idea what happens after we die, and nobody does.
''Ever given any money or support to your particular religion?''
Nope.
''How about your friends that believe as you do?''
Don't know.
But I digress. How is this going to prove any point since it's all about personal preferences and life choices. Not to mention that you've just made an awful lot of assertions that easily don't apply to me. I enjoy my lifestyle and you enjoy yours, so...? You don't seem like someone who likes a good debate.
@JazzTheist
I suppose re-defining my notion of the meaning of life can be useful, especially if the last one you had did not work for you.
How is your time in church/prayer not wasted? What did you gain from it? Reaffirmation in your new meaning of life? Is your new meaning of life so precarious you need to spend a fairly signficant portion of your free time re-affirming it?
Yay!!! an answer I agree with. If your religion does not answer what happens after you die, it does seem the "value" of religion goes down significantly, but seemingly it seems you are fine with that. All you need is to believe that there is a "god" and a reason for living? Hey if that works for you, I got no problem with that. So long as you are careful to not directly or indirectly push your opinion on that and related opinions on others. For instance: making sure your opinion on what is "human" based on your religion does not turn into laws and actions that makes the woman's right to choose an abortion increasingly difficult and a matter of economic status instead of a universal right.
You actually do support the religion if you go to church, and you support your religion by arguing about it here. You and I are not the only people that read these post. Ever volunteered for your church? Ever go to an event that was church organized, an event to do something about something that everyone in the church mostly agrees should be done? Ever donate food/clothes to your church? Does the church have a shot at being mentioned in your will as what frequently occurs from folks that participate in churches?
I like good debates. I am even enjoying this one or I would not be writing out responses. Am I a good debater? No idea, that is mostly subjective.
I am just fine with personal preference and life choices. I am not fine with people enforcing one way or another their opinion on others. (and the abortion example is just the tip of the iceberg.) I am NOT fine with parents pushing their unsupported opinions on their children before they can learn to critically think for themselves. I am NOT fine with the frequent cases of bigotry, racism, that can pop up from various religions. I am not fine with the widespread sexual abuse of children from "religious leaders" that think they are above the common law all people should be a part of regardless of their religion/opinions.
I am glad at least some of my assertions do not apply to you. I am glad you enjoy your life style, just as I enjoy mine. However you are on a debate board, you came here with your opinion which is mostly different from mine, I am going to debate you on that.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@JazzTheist
"But what if I say that existence itself (which presumably began 13 billions years ago) can be counted as an observable effect that a necessary prime mover had on our reality?"
Then I say you must define and prove a "prime mover".
The only prime mover I know of is Ex-lax.
'Nuff said...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I apply xenoview's razor to the claims of any god.
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence
servantofAllah, if you state that your god is eternal, then why not other things? If not, your god existed for a very long time in a complete absence of anything (which does not make sense). And I hope you do not use the special pleading argument.
We often like to use the phrase "space-time" because the best current explanation for this universe is that both space and time are intertwined. If you have time, then you must have space, and vice-versa. So this god could not have floated around for a long time in a complete absence of space, and thus time.
How can you float around for along time if time was not present or acting on this god?
The net sum of all energy in this universe is zero. One way of examining this is that physicists postulate that at the time of the rapid expansion (stating the "big bang" leads to the assumption that there was "nothing" before that) both matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts. Most of that annihilated each other, but for some reason the process was not 100% complete, and what we observe as our universe is just a small fraction that was left over. This question is a puzzle for physicists, one being investigated.
To state "I know this to be true" reeks of arrogance and a lack of humility. It is more sane and reasonable to state "we do not know yet .. but were are investigating". It is even more arrogant to make such claims without any evidence of proof.
The current scientific explanation is more logical and makes a lot more sense than the biblical stories. In science, each conclusion is arrived by logical thought and evidence. Religion does not rely on that, just assertions that fail when under the harsh light of scrutiny.
Getting back to the original question, I see zero proof that such a being exists. And to take this even further, this universe could have been created without any god being involved.
Why don't I believe in any deity?
Not only am I an Atheist.
I am also an Anti-Theist.
And an Anti-Religionist.
And I am a Soul Haunter.
I publicly argue passionately against any religion.
I publicly question any religion.
I publicly laugh at any religion.
I publicly shame any religion.
I publicly resist any religion.
I publicly defile any religion.
Why? Because I believe in something too.
There is no philosophical ideology more divisive than religion. Religion does nothing but pervert, demoralize, subvert, and bribe all persons with the belief that it possesses the one and only truth. And, the worst part of ANY religion is that it is an ideology that is implicitly and explicitly protected from any and all criticism from both within and without. Why should any ideology, especially religion, be so privileged? Can you not see how disastrous this way of thinking can be, and is?
I believe religion is, and has always been, tremendously harmful to Humanity. I believe that religions, and their way of thinking, and their theological disagreements, have created the greatest violence, destruction, injury, death, bigotry, harm, immorality, intolerance, wickedness, and abuse to the human species than any other cause. The main problem is not religious fundamentalism, but the fundamentals of religion. Religion’s loose version of “morality,” has NO place in a civilized society.
Sure. You can argue that it is the extremists, not the doctrine. All this says to me is that you have never truly read the various doctrines. It is both. Extremists might be using it as an excuse, but it is an excuse that the religious texts readily provide. I firmly believe, and shall take this belief to my grave, that the human species would have been much better off had there NEVER been ANY form of religion.
I see NO evidence of ANY gods, but plenty of evidence of religion’s harm.
And I am a lot more concerned with the welfare of my fellow human beings than I am about “offending” or “hurting the feelings” of a bunch of barbarians who choose to believe in the faerie tales of an obsolete, irrelevant, savage, offensive, and unsubstantiated, immoral Bronze Age religious text about an imaginative Sky Faerie and Magic Lich Virgin.
Offended? So the fuck what!
Ultimately, it is Religion that is Humankind’s worst enemy.
And here is my logic for converting over from calling that Hey-soos guy a Magic Zombie Virgin to a Magic Lich Virgin from a graphic I saw on the WWW.
Jesus was not a Zombie. He was not mindless, nor did he try to consume anyone. Nor was he a Ghoul, or a Wight. Although his soul and intellect were intact, he was not a rotting corpse. He was not a Vampire. While he transubstantiated wine into blood, he never drank it from a person. He was not a Ghost or a Wraith. He was corporeal and still had his wounds. It is clear. Hey-soos was a Lich. A Lich is created when a powerful magician or king striving for eternal life uses spells or rituals to bind his soul to his animated corpse and thereby achieves immortality. Liches are depicted as being clearly cadaverous, their bodies still bearing the wounds they received before their death. Liches often have the power of necromancy, allowing them to raise and animate the dead.
rmfr
*******"Why don't I believe in any deity?
Not only am I an Atheist.
I am also an Anti-Theist.
And an Anti-Religionist.
And I am a Soul Haunter.
I publicly argue passionately against any religion.
I publicly question any religion.
I publicly laugh at any religion.
I publicly shame any religion.
I publicly resist any religion.
I publicly defile any religion."*********
WOAH WOAH slow down, we get it you're hard(tough).
If you're trying to convince people, then I doubt this is the best method, it just makes people know you're an absolute dick
I genuinely think you had a bad upbringing or a bad experience that just fuelled your hate for religion. If you wanna convince people, you ought to calm the fuck down dude.
You're on this website to convince people I assume. By acting like a schizophrenic psychopath, you're not convincing anyone, and you're just gonna end up having a stroke or heart attack, dying alone behind your little computer screen.
C'mon man grow the fuck up.
@servantofAllah: C'mon man grow the fuck up.
This from an adult (presumably) who's still dependent on the support and reassurance provided by an imaginary friend.
No- why do you not believe in the Christian God, Yahweh, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Ra, The Force (God in Jediism), Eru Iluvatar (God in the LOTR literary universe), Brahma, the Wiccan God and Goddess, Zeus, or OverLord (God in Ratspitism)?
And to answer your question...
1. Burden on proof- which always and will always lie on the person who makes a preposterous claim instead of the one who denies said claim, whether you like it or not.
2. Problem of Apostasy (Problem of Evil but for Islam): Is Allah willing to prevent people from leaving Islam, but not able? Then he does not govern everything in the universe. Is he able, but not willing? Then why does he still want humans to eliminate apostates for him, and why does he still punish them after they’re dead? Is he both willing and able? Then why do people leave Islam in the first place? Is he neither willing nor able? Then why worship him?
3. If your Allah has complete control over the universe (as stated in the Quran), then what’s with all the rules and dogmas? Why does he want us to be the ones to follow his “pillars”, rather than just use his omnipotence to make us all live the way he wants us to?
4. As a modified version of the saying goes, one head thinking about how to make the world a better place makes a bigger impact than 4000 heads bowed towards Mecca; prayer is just doing nothing but still wanting to feel like you’ve helped.
5. If Allah is eternal, then before he suddenly decided to invent the universe, what did he do for a living? How did he exist if there was nothing for him to exist in? How long did he live in nothingness? Was he created by someone/thing? And finally- how did he suddenly get the idea to “intelligently design” (never mind black holes, time dilation, the impending Big Freeze in about 20 trillion years from now, and countless other flaws) our universe?
Re: OP - "why do you not believe in God?"
Pretty simple, really. For the same reasons you do not believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Odin, Thor, Aphrodite, the Tooth Fairy, invisible flying pink unicorns that poop rainbows, Poseidon, Medusa, and countless other gods and fairy tale creatures.
(Now, time to go read what everybody else is saying...)
servantofAllah,
"just wondering what your reasons are for not believing God exists."
Not one God of any kind has ever done anything godly since the first con man created him. There is no God of any kind in this solar system.
Does God Exist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9GXI_9DXF0
If there does have to be a 'prime mover of some kind to create the universe (which I dont think there does), then the prime mover is going to be somwthing extremely simple, not a highly complicated being such as a god
And might require a prime prime mover.
Pages