About religion

[QuestioningMind]

I have seen many who ask, is God real? Does God exist? Religion right or wrong?

And those who do believe in a God or a Buddha does their best to explain. And those who do not belive try to find a way to disprove God ( and that is ofcourse fine )

But just for the sake of a discussion.

If those who are believers must give a Proof about God or the religion to be true.
Can we ask those who does not believe about roof that God does not exist?

Ofcourse i respect those who not believe but sometimes i do get curious to their Proof of non existance.

As an atheist I am not stating that I believe that god(s) absolutely do not exist. I am simply stating that I have been given no reason to believe that god(s) absolutely do exist. Theist who state that god(s) absolutely do exist have the burden of providing evidence to support their claim. If they fail to provide such evidence I am free to reject belief in their claim without having any obligation to prove the claim to be wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i do not accept blindly all i hear or read no

And that's all the atheists you describe in your OP are doing: not accepting that God exists until they have reason to do so.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why? a Beleif on something spiritual as God is a personal belief and why is it needed to prove that God exist to those who do not believe? I tried 20 years to explain my buddhist view, but when talking to non believers what happens is a million questions that is impossible to answer since there is no physical eveidence i can give, only a wisdom to the answer

No one says that you need to prove that God exists. However, there are plenty of theists who do feel compelled to get others to also believe that their God exists and its only natural for people to ask questions and request evidence before accepting a belief in something as fantastical as a God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I hear this argument all too often about leprechauns, santa claus, easter bunny, unicorns, but its a strawman argument because those things act in motion within time. The God hypotheses is a information wave. Conciousness, infinite, eternal, intelligence, static energy.

The evidence is design and order and laws.

You clearly do not understand the argument that you've heard. The idea behind mentioning leprechauns, santa claus, easter bunny, unicorns, etc. is to come up with something that hopefully everyone agrees is NOT real. That is, things that do NOT act in motion within time. The idea is that asking someone to prove that God does NOT exist is akin to asking someone to prove that 'magical faeries' do NOT exist. One cannot PROVE that magical faeries do NOT exist, one can only offer evidence to suggest that magical faeries DO exist.

 

[Salvador]

I'm not sure I worded things properly. What I was trying to get at was whether your default approach is to accept a claim when you hear it or to reserve judgement.

Why would anybody in his/her right mind accept any claim to be factual, unless there's some evidence in support of the claim?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would anybody in his/her right mind accept any claim to be factual, unless there's some evidence in support of the claim?

Indeed... hence all the atheists.

 

[Jollybear]

You clearly do not understand the argument that you've heard. The idea behind mentioning leprechauns, santa claus, easter bunny, unicorns, etc. is to come up with something that hopefully everyone agrees is NOT real. That is, things that do NOT act in motion within time. The idea is that asking someone to prove that God does NOT exist is akin to asking someone to prove that 'magical faeries' do NOT exist. One cannot PROVE that magical faeries do NOT exist, one can only offer evidence to suggest that magical faeries DO exist.

Ok, i see.

I guess these atheists just dont understand there is evidence for a God. It dont seam they understand what evidence is.

 

[Salvador]

And everybody who firmly believes in God is equally free to reject your closed minded bigoted attitude with no obligation to even consider your lack of evidence that no God exists.

If somebody isn't claiming to have any knowledge about God's existence or lack thereof, and somebody else claims to know God does exist, then the burden of proof in this case is upon the person who is making the claim. Right?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If somebody isn't claiming to have any knowledge about God's existence or lack thereof, and somebody else claims to know God does exist, then the burden of proof in this case is upon the person who is making the claim. Right?

99% of those who believe in a God is saying that they Believe there is a god, very few say they know there is a god.

 

[Ancient Soul]

If somebody isn't claiming to have any knowledge about God's existence or lack thereof, and somebody else claims to know God does exist, then the burden of proof in this case is upon the person who is making the claim. Right?

Go back and read the persons post I replied to, it will make more sense then. And if you still don't get it, oh well.

 

[LuisDantas]

But still many try to disprove it. Rigth?

I don't think so.

Frankly, there is always a madman for any crazy idea. But speaking as a militant atheist and antitheist, I do not think that it is at all frequent that we even consider "disproving God".

Certain conceptions of God are certainly demonstrably false, most of them being of an Abrahamic persuasion of some form. And it is not altogether rare that we see the need to challenge those directly.

But it is really a bit bizarre that we even have such a need with any frequency.

In saner climates we just mention Russell's Teapot, if the need even arises.

Or, personally, I like to point out that people haven't disproven my lycantropic nature, my origin from Alpha Centauri, nor my genuine right to a Throne in Europe, either.

There is value in pointing out the level of seriousness and depth offered by one's interlocutor and returning in kind.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ok, i see.

I guess these atheists just dont understand there is evidence for a God. It dont seam they understand what evidence is.

As an atheist I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god or gods exist. Any 'evidence' that any theist has ever presented to me for a gods existence has not been verifiable and if it can't be reasonably verified then it doesn't constitute legitimate evidence in my mind.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And everybody who firmly believes in God is equally free to reject your closed minded bigoted attitude with no obligation to even consider your lack of evidence that no God exists.

You are absolutely correct that anyone is welcome to reject my lack of belief.

Why you feel compelled to describe my lack of belief in any god to be in some way 'closed minded and bigoted' is quite beyond me. If I claim to have a talking dog that can predict the future and then fail to provide you with what you consider to be sufficient evidence to back up my claim, are you adopting a 'closed minded bigoted attitude' just because you don't believe in my talking future predicting dog?

 

[Salvador]

As an atheist I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god or gods exist. Any 'evidence' that any theist has ever presented to me for a gods existence has not been verifiable and if it can't be reasonably verified then it doesn't constitute legitimate evidence in my mind.

You've evidently missed post #38 where weak and inconclusive evidence for Salvador's God is well-presented. Salvador's God presently is neither verifiable nor falsifiable to anybody now presently bound to Earth, but Salvador's God is soon to be verifiable or falsifiable with advanced space exploration technology.

 

[Riders]

I have seen many who ask, is God real? Does God exist? Religion right or wrong?

And those who do believe in a God or a Buddha does their best to explain. And those who do not belive try to find a way to disprove God ( and that is ofcourse fine )

But just for the sake of a discussion.

If those who are believers must give a Proof about God or the religion to be true.
Can we ask those who does not believe about roof that God does not exist?

Ofcourse i respect those who not believe but sometimes i do get curious to their Proof of non existance.

There are a lot of Buddhist Atheists and religious Atheists out there.

 

[Jollybear]

As an atheist I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god or gods exist. Any 'evidence' that any theist has ever presented to me for a gods existence has not been verifiable and if it can't be reasonably verified then it doesn't constitute legitimate evidence in my mind.

Design and order is verifiable.

 

[Jollybear]

You've evidently missed post #38 where weak and inconclusive evidence for Salvador's God is well-presented. Salvador's God presently is neither verifiable nor falsifiable to anybody now presently bound to Earth, but Salvador's God is soon to be verifiable or falsifiable with advanced space exploration technology.

My mom has seen a UFO, close up. The triangle saucer. I believe the aliens already have bases here on earth. Theres been lots of witnesses at multiple times.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There are a lot of Buddhist Atheists and religious Atheists out there.

that view comes from that buddhists do not believe in a creator God. but wedo not reject the thoughts of God, buddhas, daos. just tat we do not see a superiour creator god

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why did you ask me for clearification if you already think i dont understand what i believe?

My asking you what your statement was supposed to mean was a rhetorical question to get you to think about what you had stated and how, and hopefully make you realize that you had simply jumbled some specious words together and hoped for the best. I still asert that you originally said absolutely nothing. And I will allude to this in my comment following the next part of your quote...

Ok, if you say so. Ill stick to how i wrote it though, since its coming from me, not you.

But, all that said, let me tell you what i MEAN now.

Theres three hypotheses of the universe

1: God created the universe
2: the universe was always here
3: universe came from nothing, chance and time.

Many rehashes of these three, but, only 3.

The problems with the 2nd and third are this: if the universe was always here, then all events would have infinite regression. This means that all events would take forever to happen. If all events took forever, then nothing would happen because it take forever. Thats logic.

If the universe came from nothing and chance and time, then the universe would not come at all. Why? Because from nothing, nothing comes. Also, chance dont create order and design, it creates chaos.

The God hypotheses works because in this you have conciousness, intelligence, infinite, eternal energy.

If theres no God, how would time get created? In other words, without God, WHEN would the universe get made? God is outside time as you see.

Also, God is outside space, hes infinite. Without space, WHERE would you make the universe? You see?

Also, God is outside matter. This means God is not the universe itself.

With God you dont have the problem of infinite regression because God is static energy. And since God has conscious intelligence or information, then he creates time. Time has to get created to buffer the infinite regression problem.

Also, God is SOMETHING, verses the other scenario of "nothing" creating something.

Also since God is intelligence, this accounts for the obvious order and design we see in the universe. Chance does not do that. So, a God easily takes care of the chaos problem from chance.

There, THATS what i meant.

So you expect me to just take your word for it that you meant ALL of the above when you said "God is a information wave?" That's what that statement means? It means all of the stuff you posted above? Just think about this, please... I am sincerely asking you. Think about what you said, and think about whether or not it conveys anything close to the other stuff you just pulled out of your butt for the above. Seriously? Statements like yours are exactly why so many people who actually stop and think about things long enough to comprehend them end up not taking theists seriously.

Also, a few choice pieces of your "logic" that I feel should be attended to:

if the universe was always here, then all events would have infinite regression. This means that all events would take forever to happen.

That is NOT AT ALL what "infinite regression" means. Not even close. You want an infinite regression problem? Ask yourself that if "something cannot come from nothing" then that means your god had to have come from something, right? And then what did that something come from? And what did that something's something come from? And what did that something's, something's something come from? Etc... and there you go... THAT is an infinite regression. Not "all events would take forever to happen." This is another prime example of how you are not helping your fellow theists on the road to being taken seriously. As far as I can tell, you are wrecking the theist reputation with every word you type.

If the universe came from nothing and chance and time, then the universe would not come at all. Why? Because from nothing, nothing comes. Also, chance dont create order and design, it creates chaos.

This is also unsupportable for various reasons. For one, you can't posit that there was ever "nothing." You can't know that a state that could be considered "nothing" ever existed. Do you know why? Because you have only ever existed in a realm in which "something" has always existed as far back as your knowledge goes. You have never experienced a universe, or a dimension or ANYTHING that could be construed as "nothing." Therefore, as far as you can be aware, there was ALWAYS something. Same with me. Same with everyone who has ever lived - BY DEFINITION. Also - what about your God? Isn't He "something?" And with your (unsupportable) assertion that God is "eternal" - that would necessarily mean that there was never "nothing." So why are you even talking about "nothing" in the first place? Personally, I don't believe there was ever "nothing." There is no such thing as "nothing." There can't be if you are a sentient/aware being experiencing ANYTHING.

Also, "chance" may not even exist. Every single event in the universe happens under a specific set of rules that govern how things progress through time. A drop of water falling through the sky encounters millions of air molecules on it's descent - and every single one of those collisions affects its trajectory. All in ways that are predictable according to the laws of the universe. granted - not even our greatest super-computer could keep track of all of those interactions, and all the variables in play - even with only a single drop of rain - but nonetheless, the variables in play are anything but "variable." They are all forces following specific patterns of actions and reaction. Where is the "chance" in it? There is none. From the very moment that water drop began to form - before it was even part of a cloud - back to when it may have been ice floating through space - ALL of its history is accountable to the powers that govern the universe. The rules by which we all must play.

 

[Salvador]

My mom has seen a UFO, close up. The triangle saucer. I believe the aliens already have bases here on earth. Theres been lots of witnesses at multiple times.

I've read, heard and seen reports from pilots who've closely witnessed spacecraft with other worldly attributes.