God isn't real.

[WomenWubber]

It's not possible to logically prove/disprove the existence of any God (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

That's why they're refered as beliefs/disbeliefs and not facts/falseties.

[autumnnight]

It's not possible to logically prove/disprove the existence of any God (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

That's why they're refered as beliefs/disbeliefs and not facts/falseties.

 

This is not about logic. It's. About the same old condescension.

[WomenWubber]

This is not about logic. It's. About the same old condescension.

 

It is about logic to atheists, though.

 

They think they are right and many of them look down on apologists, because they are not 'logical' on their beliefs. Funny thing is atheists themselves fail at logic in the same way by trying to disprove religions. This is what I tried to illustrate in my previous post

[TheFinalWord]

i noticed this, too.

 

it's mostly because "the believers" are comforted with the thought of afterlife & someone looking after them, makes them feel less alone. it's much harder to accept that we exist & don't have a higher purpose and that a lot of things happen without a special reason... just because.

 

those who are aware of what death really means & how unfair life is (without having a religion as a comfort) are usually unhappier than those who believe in God, yes.

 

In one sense, I know you are you trying to say. However, having been both an unbeliever at one point in time, I find the opposite of your conclusion is true. Trying to make sense of why "bad things" happen in your life when you are a believer is a lot more perplexing than if you do not believe in God at all. It can quickly lead to bitterness if we do not get it under control. We see it in this particular forum a lot. Christians that believe in God, but seem to have a hard portion in life. Since this is a dating forum, the focus tends to be on why God does not provide a SO.

 

Holding onto hope that God will one day redeem us is a choice we have to make, even when we do not "feel" comforted (I personally do not walk around in my life feeling someone is looking after me like a nanny. And like most humans, I don't think about my mortality on a regular basis. Certainly not enough that if affects my day-to-day level of happiness).

 

Faith is believing God's promises, even when we do not feel like it at all.

 

I think life would be easier if you can accept there is no divine reason for any event. Hope this makes sense. Been a long day. Thanks for your comments

[Mangina]

i noticed this, too.

 

it's mostly because "the believers" are comforted with the thought of afterlife & someone looking after them, makes them feel less alone. it's much harder to accept that we exist & don't have a higher purpose and that a lot of things happen without a special reason... just because.

 

those who are aware of what death really means & how unfair life is (without having a religion as a comfort) are usually unhappier than those who believe in God, yes.

I think bitter depressed people start looking for reasons why and when they do not find any is when they come to a conclusion that god does not exist.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Mangina

[minimariah]

I think bitter depressed people start looking for reasons why and when they do not find any is when they come to a conclusion that god does not exist.

 

well, i can only speak for ME - i stopped following my religion (coming from super religious christian family) once i started reading the Bible, documents, material, books, religious magazines... and none of it made sense to me. i found myself finding a lot of things that made me go "HUH?" & a lot of things that just weren't logical at all. i didn't stop following the religion because i was depressed so i got mad at god and decided to "leave" - i seriously tried super hard to believe but... too many stuff just never made sense to me.

 

it's not hard to NOT believe in god, if you know what i mean. take one good look at kids who died in Palestine and (for a lot of folks) that's pretty much enough to deny god's existence. for example, my aunt stopped believing when her husband & son were killed by a drunk driver. i think people with personal tragedies either totally leave god OR their faith becomes even stronger. it's those earth-shattering moments in life that put you to test, i think.

 

for me - i'm not an atheist. i believe there is something bigger than us because it's hard to believe that we (big bang) are just a product of an accident. also, there are too many things (miracles) that cannot be explained by science. we do have soul... right? so who gave us this soul? can soul be just a product of an evolution? i don't know. at the end of the day, i don't think we'll ever get that answer anyway.

 

I think life would be easier if you can accept there is no divine reason for any event. Hope this makes sense. Been a long day. Thanks for your comments

 

for me, it was different. probably because i have a super hard time dealing with my own mortality + death is something i'm confronted with every single day so it was SO much easier to believe in afterlife. it's hard thinking that there isn't anything more than this one life... there is a part of me that will ALWAYS secretly hope that god is real. i hold on to that hope, it soothes me.

[Robert Z]

Looking at it objectively why do you care what others believe? If a belief in God is not harming others then what does it matter if people believe in imaginary beings?

 

Because they tend to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Opposition to the right to die, the right of choice for women, a right to live as we each see fit, as well as denial of science, denial of personal responsibility, the desire for the earth to end, the desire for war, these are just a few of the impositions on the rest of us by those who base their arguments on nothing but faith.

 

If people kept their faith personal, that would be fine, but that isn't what happens. Religion has been a scourge on freedom. And it is a scourge on world peace today, as we see every day in the ME.

Edited March 15, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Off-topic material redacted

[endlessabyss]

Man shall not live on bread alone......

[Robert Z]

Wait... We have had Fine Tuning Theory in ascendancy for 20 years. All physicists agree that the entire universe is fine tuned for life on earth and that if any one variable is changed by a hair the universe cannot even form.

 

This means technically there is more evidence for than against some kind of directing sentience. I mean the competing theory is "Multi-verse" which is basically some stupid episode of Sliders.

 

We may find more stuff later... but at the moment God seems highly probable.

 

First of all, the physical constants do not appear to "be tuned for life". At most they appear to be "critically valued" such that atoms can exist.

 

And there is no scientific position supporting that claim. We don't know why or how the physical constants have "been tuned". It may be implicit in the nature of existence or it could be driven by some other unrecognized variables. And to discount the Multiverse theory as an explanation is disingenuous. You can't use science when you like it an reject it when you don't. That is just a faith argument! But that is how religion works, isn't it. You just believe whatever you want.

 

 

BTW, we now have scientific evidence for a collision between universes. We see evidence for it in the cosmic background radiation.

[endlessabyss]

Because they tend to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Opposition to the right to die, the right of choice for women, a right to live as we each see fit, as well as denial of science, denial of personal responsibility, the desire for the earth to end, the desire for war, these are just a few of the impositions on the rest of us by those who base their arguments on nothing but faith.

 

If people kept their faith personal, that would be fine, but that isn't what happens. Religion has been a scourge on freedom. And it is a scourge on world peace today, as we see every day in the ME.

 

 

This just doesn't go for religion, this is the standard for any ideology.

 

 

If I voice opposition against liberal thought I am scorned.

 

 

It goes both ways.

Edited March 15, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Robert Z]

Man shall not live on bread alone......

 

 

What is that supposed to mean? I don't understand how that applies to the posts just made.

[endlessabyss]

First of all, the physical constants do not appear to "be tuned for life". At most they appear to be "critically valued" such that atoms can exist.

 

And there is no scientific position supporting that claim. We don't know why or how the physical constants have "been tuned". It may be implicit in the nature of existence or it could be driven by some other unrecognized variables. And to discount the Multiverse theory as an explanation is disingenuous. You can't use science when you like it an reject it when you don't. That is just a faith argument! But that is how religion works, isn't it. You just believe whatever you want.

 

 

BTW, we now have scientific evidence for a collision between universes. We see evidence for it in the cosmic background radiation.

 

 

Interesting, I read an article a few weeks back about the multiverse, as well as string theory, being dangerous ideas, scientifically speaking, because there is no hard evidence to back them up; they are both faith based.

 

 

Modern science is a cult in itself, that is why I pay very little attention to it. It has turned into a philosophical weapon for people to employ certain political agendas on the masses, mainly being atheists. secularist, iconoclasts, what have you.

 

 

All the evidence we have at our hands is the same, it is just interpreted differently from our pre-suppositions about life.

[Robert Z]

Interesting, I read an article a few weeks back about the multiverse, as well as string theory, being dangerous ideas, scientifically speaking, because there is no hard evidence to back them up; they are both faith based.

 

 

That is hogwash. There is currently no method of testing string theory because of the energies involved. But it is based on a highly complex mathematical model, not faith. The real argument is that it doesn't qualify as a theory of science and won't be until it can be tested. And evidence for the multiverse has been around since Huygens and Newton argued about wave vs particles. But the evidence for a collision between universes is the first direct evidence.

 

Modern science is a cult in itself, that is why I pay very little attention to it. It has turned into a philosophical weapon for people to employ certain political agendas on the masses, mainly being atheists. secularist, iconoclasts, what have you.

 

All the evidence we have at our hands is the same, it is just interpreted differently from our pre-suppositions about life.

Edited March 15, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Fix quotes

[endlessabyss]

That is hogwash. There is currently no method of testing string theory because of the energies involved. But it is based on a highly complex mathematical model, not faith. The real argument is that it doesn't qualify as a theory of science and won't be until it can be tested. And evidence for the multiverse has been around since Huygens and Newton argued about wave vs particles.

 

 

The Most Dangerous Ideas In Science : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

[Robert Z]

The Most Dangerous Ideas In Science : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

 

Show me a paper.

[endlessabyss]

Show me a paper.

 

That is what I thought.

[Robert Z]

That is what I thought.

 

It isn't a proper theory. That is the only argument being made. Don't argue out of ignorance.

 

It is also no secret. Everyone knows it. In fact, this only speaks to the high standard for evidence required by science for something to be elevated to the status of a theory. But the model fits so well that many are remiss to deny the power of the hypothesis. It appears that it MUST be correct but we just can't test it yet. And there are still competing models, like Loop Quantum Gravity.

 

 

I would add that the minimum requirement for a scientific argument is a published paper. That you would dismiss this requirement only shows that you don't know how to source your information.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Robert Z

[endlessabyss]

It isn't a proper theory. That is the only argument being made. Don't argue out of ignorance.

 

It is also no secret. Everyone knows it. In fact, this only speaks to the high standard for evidence required by science for something to be elevated to the status of a theory. But the model fits so well that many are remiss to deny the power of the hypothesis. It appears that it MUST be correct but we just can't test it yet. And there are still competing models, like Loop Quantum Gravity.

 

 

I would add that the minimum requirement for a scientific argument is a published paper. That you would dismiss this requirement only shows that you don't know how to source your information.

 

 

 

You're right, I'm such an idiot. How can I begin discussions like this when I don't even know how to source?

 

 

Damn it!

[minimariah]

You're right, I'm such an idiot. How can I begin discussions like this when I don't even know how to source?

 

 

Damn it!

 

no offense, but you do need to know how to source your thesis and arguments in order to have a proper discussion. it's all about evidence, proof. without that, there is no discussion.

[endlessabyss]

no offense, but you do need to know how to source your thesis and arguments in order to have a proper discussion. it's all about evidence, proof. without that, there is no discussion.

 

Spare me, please.

[umirano]

i noticed this, too.

 

it's mostly because "the believers" are comforted with the thought of afterlife & someone looking after them, makes them feel less alone. it's much harder to accept that we exist & don't have a higher purpose and that a lot of things happen without a special reason... just because.

 

those who are aware of what death really means & how unfair life is (without having a religion as a comfort) are usually unhappier than those who believe in God, yes.

 

So you're saying religion is useful, as opposed to truthful? It's possible. Like a pain killer is useful, when you're in pain. But painkillers rightfully aren't used when physicists think about their findings and measurements and try to make sense of them, or when they write down their lecture notes. Pain killers, and similarly religion should be used in one's own house when a specific need arises. Being constantly high can't possibly have a positive outcome.

 

 

I find it ironic that I sense such judgment, self-righteousness, and condescension coming from those who do not believe, when apparently I am supposed to be the one who is intolerable.

 

Speaking for myself I don't find you intolerable at all. I think you're genuine but ill informed and you conveniently ignore information that conflicts with your current world view: That sometimes causes me to reply in a more polemic way. I just can't follow your line of argument and I take issue with the broad brushes that some believers paint the putative positive aspects of their own religion.

 

Also the broad and inaccurate generalizations about atheists are concerning. I'm neither bitter nor depressed or hopeless. I've always had difficulties believing, but I remember praying in my early twenties on a couple of occasions. I don't know why I thought that'd help. I think it was for comfort, not out of a conscious thought process that led me to actually believe in the effect of prayer.

 

i wouldn't call it escaping... you can't escape death.

but it makes it easier to cope and to accept our own mortality - in my humble opinion, that's the reason why religion was "created" in the 1st place. because we can't cope with our own mortality.

Well actually a lot of religions have "escaping death" as their chief merchandise on offer. Salvation, eternity in paradise with loved ones. To anyone who finds the idea of an afterlife rather unrealistic this is a perfect example for escapism. I agree that religion offers plenty of comfort. But isn't it a rather superficial type of comfort? I mean we basically lie, or at least make unfounded claims, to our children and ourselves to gain some comfort.

 

I've found that I can be comfortable with unpleasant things that happen to and around me, even if I don't know that I'll be "saved" or sit with walkyries at odin's table.

 

It's not possible to logically prove/disprove the existence of any God (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

That's why they're refered as beliefs/disbeliefs and not facts/falseties.

 

Yes, god cannot be disproved. So? Can Gandalf be disproved? Is the claim "Gandalf exists!" any less of a falsehood because we can't universally establish his non-existence? Are you agnostic to the question whether Gandalf exists? Do you think he might have existed at one point in time?

 

This is not about logic. It's. About the same old condescension.

I don't know where you see condescension. We have a natural block against things that require us to change our ways, our lives. Inconvenient facts bother me greatly as well and usually only after some time I can concede that a teacher or parent or friend wasn't actually trying to put me down, but trying to show me something new.

 

It is about logic to atheists, though.

 

They think they are right and many of them look down on apologists, because they are not 'logical' on their beliefs.

How do you reply and talk to someone who you think makes a fatal mistake while arguing about core properties of the world we live in? Would you not challenge his beliefs at all, to not offend him? Or would you address your differences of perception, and if so, how would you do it to not offend him?

 

Funny thing is atheists themselves fail at logic in the same way by trying to disprove religions. This is what I tried to illustrate in my previous post

Show me one atheist that is trying to disprove god.

 

for me - i'm not an atheist. i believe there is something bigger than us because it's hard to believe that we (big bang) are just a product of an accident. also, there are too many things (miracles) that cannot be explained by science. we do have soul... right? so who gave us this soul? can soul be just a product of an evolution? i don't know. at the end of the day, i don't think we'll ever get that answer anyway.

I don't understand why one would believe anything else than what we can observe and deduct from observations. We have tangible evidence for the big bang. We have a bunch of potentially comforting anecdotes, and a lot of plain backwardness in countless old religious texts. I don't find it hard at all to discard those in favor of reproducible and somewhat objective observation.

 

for me, it was different. probably because i have a super hard time dealing with my own mortality + death is something i'm confronted with every single day so it was SO much easier to believe in afterlife. it's hard thinking that there isn't anything more than this one life... there is a part of me that will ALWAYS secretly hope that god is real. i hold on to that hope, it soothes me.

An eternity in paradise is not a comforting thought to me. An eternity in anything will become torture rather quickly, I believe. I will have a good time while here, and when it's time, I will go (and stay gone) and make room for someone new. If I do a good job, I'll leave some traces that others can improve on.

[autumnnight]

I do not and will not force my beliefs on anyone. Neither will I hide in the closet to pray as if it is some deep, dark, shameful secret.

[minimariah]

So you're saying religion is useful, as opposed to truthful? It's possible. Like a pain killer is useful, when you're in pain. But painkillers rightfully aren't used when physicists think about their findings and measurements and try to make sense of them, or when they write down their lecture notes. Pain killers, and similarly religion should be used in one's own house when a specific need arises. Being constantly high can't possibly have a positive outcome.

 

it's useful, absolutely.

 

i truly believe it came from people not being able to deal with their own mortality. to accept that death doesn't mean just losing your body... but your mind, thoughts, everything. if you look at it, almost every religion has an idea of afterlife - an idea that says your body is dead BUT your mind is untouched. i think this provides a great comfort to people and it's a distraction from thinking about death, about what death REALLY means.

 

& i wouldn't compare it to a drug. sure, marx said a religion is the opium for the people and he was right because there isn't a thing folks won't do in the name of their god - but as long as you don't force anyone to have and share your beliefs & religion, as long as you're not an extremist - i don't see any possible negative outcome.

 

you know, if someone wants to believe in god or... i don't know, box of rocks - let them! it doesn't matter at the end of the day, does it? you got one life and if you want to make it easier & happier by believing in whatever - i don't see a thing wrong with it. not everyone has to or wants to "live" the truth. as long as you respect others, i'm good.

 

I agree that religion offers plenty of comfort. But isn't it a rather superficial type of comfort? I mean we basically lie, or at least make unfounded claims, to our children and ourselves to gain some comfort.

 

it is... but you know - it's still a comfort.

is it superficial? sure. but like i said... it's still a comfort. it truly makes some people happier, people just need to believe in SOMETHING... you know?

 

i don't think religion is a bad thing (minus the extremists + forcing it on others) - every religion basically sends the same message of love, hope, kindness. i think it's useless trying to find out the truth about it. what's the point? we won't care when we're dead. i personally enjoy both science and evolution theories as well as religious books. it's something WE humans created, it's interesting to see how religions developed... what people did in the name of their religion, what they learn from it... i mean, religion can and does have some positive effects on people, very positive. so it can be a VERY good thing, lies or not.

 

I've found that I can be comfortable with unpleasant things that happen to and around me, even if I don't know that I'll be "saved" or sit with walkyries at odin's table.

 

i personally don't even want to be saved. i just want to exist (my mind & thoughts, awareness) forever. i guess it's my ego talking.

 

i'm sure if i live to be 98 years old i'll be like "shot me already" - but until then... i want to live. one of the reasons i would like to live forever is because i want to witness the science developing, new discoveries... i'm curious and i just REALLY want to know what will happen to us and how will Earth look 200 years from today.

 

I don't understand why one would believe anything else than what we can observe and deduct from observations. We have tangible evidence for the big bang. We have a bunch of potentially comforting anecdotes, and a lot of plain backwardness in countless old religious texts. I don't find it hard at all to discard those in favor of reproducible and somewhat objective observation.

 

i was talking more about some medical "miracles" that are hard to explain. that's my field, so i'm coming from that. a lot of things and cases science cannot explain which leads us to this - you can either believe in some higher force OR in pure luck & coincidence. i think people are "easier" to believe in the 1st option because the 2nd one is too "unsure".

 

An eternity in paradise is not a comforting thought to me. An eternity in anything will become torture rather quickly, I believe. I will have a good time while here, and when it's time, I will go (and stay gone) and make room for someone new. If I do a good job, I'll leave some traces that others can improve on.

 

i think people just want to live... at least for 80 good years. of course, no one can guarantee you that. it's not a desire for eternity as it is for a long, full life. no one wants to die when they're 18 from cancer or in an accident... you know? you get tired of living when you're 80+, i'm sure.

 

but when you're 20? you just want to live forever and ever and ever. it's natural.

[William]

Folks, this is an interpersonal relationship discussion forum, not an academic debating team competition.

 

Feel free to discuss your opinions on why or why not you believe God is real. Proof is not the focus of this forum and arguments thereof shall be considered resolved. Thanks!

[TaxAHCruel]

can you explain to me why you think god isnt real ? adn why you feel others should also follow the concept of spirituality and not god........thanks....deb

 

I can not speak for the OP but I would modify his words somewhat if I were to make them my own. But I could certainly answer some of your questions here.

 

I am currently unaware of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning of any type to suggest that there is a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. I have simply been shown nothing that lends such a claim even a modicum of an iota of credence. There simply is no apparent basis for the claim, and all we appear to have been offered on this thread for example is wanton misrepresentations of atheists and their emotional conditions, coupled by the old canard of "Same evidence - different conclusions".

 

But all this in no way for me encroaches on my understanding of "Spirituality" which, despite its unfortunate connotations, is a word that says little more to me than the exploration of the human condition and its relevance and meaning to us.

 

And there is no useful or informative aspect of this endeavour that has ever required me to subscribe to any notion on insufficient or lacking evidence, least of all to make any assumptions related to deities or after lives. As the likely apocryphal quote of LaPlace says Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.").

 

Wait... We have had Fine Tuning Theory in ascendancy for 20 years. All physicists agree that the entire universe is fine tuned for life on earth and that if any one variable is changed by a hair the universe cannot even form.

 

Except very little of what you just said is true actually. There is no such "agreement" in the scientific community at all, and those few that are making such declarations are making some rather basic but fundamental errors in reasoning which I am happy to explain to you if required.

 

The two are not even comparable.

 

But the user in question did not compare the two. The user compared the size of the evidence set for the two. And that IS very comparable. They are both Zero.

 

Do not make the error again of conflating a comparison of data sets, with a comparison of the two things those data sets relate to.

 

It's just rather sad that atheists are attempting to take action to take down these already pre-existing monuments dedicated to God? The fact that they even want to take away "under God" in "One nation, under God?" I find that rather telling.

 

That would be something of a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of agendas I am afraid. What is actually happening is that atheists, or more specifically secularists (as there are theists too who would do the same), are simply attempting to separate the state from religion.

 

It is not that monuments to a god or religion per se are an issue. What is an issue, either currently or as you have observed retrospectively, is when the state endorses a single religion, finances it, facilitates it or so forth. There is no issue per se with monuments to faith or religion or gods, they just have a time and a place and a proper context. Especially in an increasingly pluralistic society.

 

People who believe in a God (or whatever higher power) are much happier than those who don't

 

I am seeing no support or basis for this outright assertion by fiat though. Perhaps it is forthcoming? However even if it were true, and you have given literally nothing to suggest it even might be, so what? Even if your claim were 100% on the money true, it would still say diddly squat about the actual existence of that god, which is what this thread appears to be related to.

 

Funny thing is atheists themselves fail at logic in the same way by trying to disprove religions.

 

Although I do not personally identify with the term atheist and never use it to describe myself, many other people are happy to call me one. So perhaps you can show me any logical fails I may have made in the post above. I would be over joyed to check them and even correct them where required.