i spent a great deal of time explaining all that stuff already. he doesnt get it because he needs for it to be wrong. because in his mind, he cant fathom his god allowing people to be born atheist. you cant expect ppl with such heavy indoctrination to turn around and be intellectually honest. it's the equivalent of deciding to take a trip to hell.

no matter what you say, he's gonna disagree and commit logical fallacy in the process.

No I do not believe God is real. I don't even think god belief is real belief. I think its a philosophy of denial.

'Good and evil' are just words we use to describe varying levels of empathy and indifference.

What those words means to me is not what they mean to you.

I don't think like you. At least not when it comes to this sort of thing.

I'm not getting your point, because your point is subjectively based on what you believe,

not on an actual understanding of atheism or epistemology.

I'm not going to go through that again with you.

Either you get it or you don't, and either way is fine with me.

you must understand that anyone who believes in any religion can say some evil entity wants you not to believe in it.

that's not at all compelling . it's logically fallacious.

we don't care about the evil desires of beings we don't believe to exist.

"Sauron wants you to be a Christian". if anyone tells you that, they would lose all credibility in your eyes. Rightfully so.

"the reason why there is so many religions is to confuse everybody from going to Christianity." all kinds of fallacy there.

without flesh it is not possible to walk. sorry. maybe i should've allowed you to believe you're floating around without your feet touching the ground. you are vitriolic and extremely hateful. any religious philosophy worth holding, is completely wasted on you.

'If its genetic wise guy, then why are there twice as many gays in cities like Seattle and San Francisco then everywhere else (by proportion)? What is that just some kind of fluke?'

there are twice as many gays in seattle and san francisco because like everyone else, gays want to live amongst those who are accepting, not backwater bigots and bible thumpers who want to kill them. ppl move to communities they want to live in. that's why.

why are there so many blacks in black communities?

why are there communities called 'chinatown' and 'little armenia?'

you certainly have not given this much thought.

marriage has existed since long before anyone ever heard of christianity. so no one needs a christian preacher to perform the ceremony., and let's not forget that christian preachers are somewhat revered for their pedophilia. if i was gay, i wouldn't want my marriage tainted by a christian preacher.

It's a good thing we don't spend a lot of time and money on punishing dead ppl. because they would never know they're being punished. no awareness without a brain.

please stay in school. you seem to have trouble understanding the most basic of logical concepts.

no one claims, 'a nonexistent demon wants you to be a christian". because there is no reason to believe that a demon never proven to exist 'wants' anything.

there is nothing riding on proving satan doesnt exist. but a lot is riding on the belief that he does. billions of dollars are at stake, so is political power. there are those who benefit from your belief in satan. thats why fear is cultivated through religion. it increases tithes sevenfold.

I am not a christian and i don't have faith in the bible, but even if i did, that would not prove that the bible is true. I have no reason to hold the bible as truthful or authoritative,. its words make naked claims, just like yours. they demonstrate nothing but an old style of writing ancient parables.

I asked you to demonstrate the existence of satan, not to paste words from an old book. you don't seem to know the difference.

What you believe is obvious. But what can you demonstrate? Demonstrate the existence of Satan. Not ancient writings.

You haven't demonstrated satan to exist. start there.

otherwise, claiming that 'satan obviously wants this or that' is like me claiming that unicorns obviously want candy corn.

thats the point of the whole discussion. ppl talk about something they cannot know to exist as if its something that is clearly defined and existent. now how many answers did you give before you stated 'we don't know?'

there is clearly no reason to believe in 'the spirit'. because there is nothing empirically quantifiable known as 'the spirit'.

Logically, would satan want anything if he doesn't exist?

either heaven and hell are states of mind, or they don't exist period.

No one is asking you to come here and preach.

demonstrate the existence of the devil and his desire for you to be an atheist or admit that you cannot. all your empty claims about gods , dont demonstrate anything but your beliefs., no one here is unfamiliar with christianity or its naked and empty fallacious claims.

"I have friends that are Christians that didn't grow-up in any kind of church at all but follow God when they felt God pulling at their heart."

I hope you realize that this entire phrase is completely meaningless. youre not talking to a 6 year old.

and you have not demonstrated the existence of the devil or shown that this devil desires anything. which is what this debate is actually about.

none of that has anything to do with the question i am asking here. maybe you have nothing else to add to the topic at hand.

human intent is not just one thing. human beings have all kinds of intentions. their intentions depend on their goals. stop making appeals to ignorance. all you're doing is trying to get me to say 'i don't know', so you can act like a lack of knowledge makes it likely that a god did it. but it doesn't. you need to actually demonstrate that a god did it if you choose to posit this. appeals to ignorance are pure fallacy. if you don't know, just say you don't know, don't try shape the unknown into something personal with intent.

that is intellectually dishonest, it is primitive and superstitious and man has progressed so far beyond that.

not to mention that it is totally beside the point. I asked, what is the spirit? either you know, you have some idea, or you don't.

srom seems to have some trouble grasping that fact. but that doesn't matter. as he's so far failed to demonstrate that which the devil desires or that he exists to desire anything.

now. to say that the devil wants you to be an atheist, you must have some way of determining that the devil actually exists, and of determining his desires.

you have no way of determining or demonstrating the existence of the devil, satan or lucifer, and you have ignored that fact and gone on to state what the devil desires and your statement is based on a book of old writings indistinguishable from folklore and mythology.. hence there is no reason to take you seriously. because you haven't given any reason why anyone should hold this book or your naked claims, as truthful or authoritative? until you do, your arguments qualify only as special pleas and appeals to belief. both logically fallacious.

everyone is born atheist. the religion of his family members is completely irrelevant. in order for a person to believe in a god, he must be taught to believe in a god. before he is taught this, he lacks belief in a god. he is therefore an atheist. there is no denying this. you simply do not understand this but it is an established fact.

the universe didn't 'decide to make life'. you're applying human properties to the universe. no different than the Norse personifying thunder as an act of Thor. you don't have to place human intent behind everything you don't understand. its 2012 not 1200 b.c.

everyone is born an atheist. an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, everyone is born lacking belief in a god. god belief is the product of indoctrination. lack of belief does not require you to be taught anything.

you act as if we are born believing in everything and someone has to convince us not to. that is not the case. we are born lacking believe in ghosts gods and other superstitious notions. these are culturally propagated. atheism is simply a lack of belief. you are born lacking belief in a god. lacking belief is not rejecting a belief that you have never been introduced to. you dont understand epistemology.

so thats why everyone is born an atheist? then the devil must be more powerful than all powerful god, because atheism is the null hypothesis. the default position.

awaiting your reply, but think it through this time.

life is just biological processes, consciousness is awareness and is emergent from the brain. they could be named hebrew national beef franks but they already have names: namely consciousness/awareness and life.

so you'd rather use a word like 'spirit' because it sounds metaphysical or something?

there would be a lot less ppl making themselves look delusional if they stop trying to mystify ordinary , everyday shit.

not saying thats what youre doing, but there are ppl who do this on purpose.

damn....no spoiler alert or anything...................................................

self awareness emerges from the brain. nothing else is necessary. as you say, our awareness stops when the brain stops.

but what is the spirit?

every time i ask this question, no one can define the spirit as anything they know, or can show to actually exist, and most of the time it is simply defined via equivocation as things known to emerge from the brain.

yet ppl are always talking about spirits.

if it aint just a feel good buzzword, what the hell is it?

how do you know its there if you don't even know what IT is?

you would obviously be able to define it, it's function, and parameters,

it if you knew what it was, yet you contend 'it's there, without being able to define what it is?

arguments like this are what prompted this question in the first place.

but we are no closer to a definitive answer than we were before asking the question.

@ Facadeon:

What essence? havent you simply traded one ambiguity for another?

anything that exists, exists not because of our beliefs but in spite of them.

would you mind providing examples? otherwise you're commiting a logical fallacy: the bald assertion

right chuck. scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena. it is not a hypothesis which is an educated guess.

theory is the most important thing in science. theory never, ever becomes law. theory explains law.

Can you give an example of an atheist misuse of the word 'fact?'

Make it plain.

'If God cannot do so then he is not omnipotent, something which conflicts with the notion of a deism.'

So jehovah is a deistic god? i was under the impression that he is a personal theistic god of the anthropomorphic variety.

I am not a theist, or a deist. I have no belief in a god, mainly due to lack of evidence but all the logical inconsistencies born out of the things attributed to the abrahamic god, only make god look even less likely to actually exist. It is the contention of christians that god cannot violate free will. any and all other logical inconsistencies only add to the problem.

if you dont understand why omnibenevolence and indifference are incompatible, youre short because i wont waste any time explaining something so blatantly obvious.

'This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.'

so it never occurred to you that i don't believe in any god?

'free will' in the theological sense is an excuse. that's not to say that ppl cant do whatever the hell they want to do. but our ability to make decisions doesn't have anything to do with a 'god allowing us' to do so, or 'not wanting us to be robots.'

'Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?'

because that is logically inconsistent with the assertion that god cannot (or does not) violate free will.

if god could violate Pharaoh's free will to give himself an excuse to kill all Egypt's first born, he could violate the 'free will' of all child molesters to make sure no child was ever again molested. and in doing so, he would be beginning to solve 'the problem of evil'.

'the problem of evil' is only a problem because theists contended that god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. these qualities are directly contradicted by the persistence of 'evil'. one cannot be all loving, all powerful and indifferent to the suffering of untold millions of children.

the fact that i need to explain all this, puts a particularly humorous spin on your totally unnecessary snipe, citing 'uneducated corruptors'. but thanks for asking.

no. of course not. free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, moral god would choose to do so.

ppl claim that god refuses to intervene, because that would violate free will.

but if no god exists, no god would intervene anyway, which completely solves the problem.

the same ppl who claim that 'divine intervention would violate free will', also claim that 'God answers prayers'. This directly contradicts the claim that god must preserve free will.

If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.

the fallacy of free will and the problem of evil, both demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the Christian god.

the entire bible was written by man. yet you seeks to arbitrarily define some laws as that of man and others of a god. don't you have any intellectual honesty? or does that result in hellfire?

ask a theist for evidence of god and you'll get fallacy or philosophy, but one thing you certainly will not get is logical justification for god belief. i guarantee it.

'The reason why there was those laws is because those are for the Jews to follow.'

So because they were Jews, God required them not to wear poly/cotton blends?

You didn't even attempt to reason out a logical answer to the question. your answer gives no reason for god wanting them not to wear poly/cotton blends. the fact that they were jewish is not a reason, its an excuse. one that doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.

Don't you think you should at least clarify the question?

'Can you have a scientific purpose for believing in God?'

I don't even know what you're asking.

But God does appear to be 100% made up.

'If I acknowledge that the god I worship is malevolent, I must acknowledge my own iniquity."

If a person feels he gets his sense of morality from his religion, he cannot acknowledge the malevolence of his own god without shooting himself in the foot.

I don't even think most satanists believe in a malevolent god. they just believe in liberation from the hypocrisy of the aforementioned paradigm.

'You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that?'

Actually lots of theists believe in a malevolent god. God is one great big appeal to emotion. He loves you, he will guide, and protect you, if you bend to his will. If you don't he'll torture you repeatedly forever. If you follow his rules and someone tries to impede or oppose you, they will see his malevolence.

In other words, gimme your milk money or my God will beat you up at recess.

You are free to choose, but if you don't choose the choice God has chosen for you, your store will be destroyed by arson. This is what I like to call 'Divine Extortion'.

I don't believe In Kali or Jesus because they're equally ridiculous. There is neither objective evidence, nor logic to support their existence.

If theists cant get a warm fuzzy from their faith, they'd see no point in constantly lying to themselves.

Logic takes those lies and exposes em. Thats why theists hate it, and why they compartmentalize so much.

If an atheist asks a theist for evidence of a God, he gets no evidence. What he generally gets is philosophy. Where the problem lies is that theists are unwilling to admit their philosophy is just philosophy. They insert it where it does not belong, where it has no validity, and this is why they're looked upon as being intellectually dishonest adults, with childlike minds, who simply refuse to accept the reality of human mortality..

they never even use the word philosophy when they're asked for evidence, they simply spew it out as if saying 'the evidence is all around you' actually proves what they posit. "i know in my heart there is a god' proves absolutely nothing because no one knows anything in his heart (which is simply a pump to circulate blood throughout one's body.) what they're really saying is that they find the idea of a personal god, emotionally appealing. well we as atheists already know that. but we have long since accepted that reality wont kneel before us to placate us in our self-centered fantasies. it doesn't care about our opinions or our feelings.

Yes, to hell with separation of church and state. We need one nation under desert goat herders, cause Da Big Bad God comin' to get us. We have the minds of small children, so we actually believe such utter nonsense.

Why shouldn't we have a president who believes he can become a god? Superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense. You can call it Mormonism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. It's still fairytale bull crap.

all ppl of a particular church do not have the same idea of god. all ppl of a denomination dont have the same idea of god. nor do all ppl of a city or culture or era. what a dictionary describes as 'god in a monotheistic sense' is perfectly irrelevant. Obviously I am referring to opinions, not standardized definitions. you shouldve gotten that from "ask 20 different ppl and you get twenty different answers'. we are not machines, we are human beings, with different views , different philosophies and different concepts of our personal gods. why do i even have to say this? God as the hero of western revenge fantasy is just one of god's many guises. you shouldnt get the idea that god is one thing specifically defined because ancient and contemporary world culture, myth and superstition shows that god/ gods are not, and all of this goes without saying. yea it does get lonely around here.

What is God? A super-thingie of nebulous ambiguity? A one size fits all security blanket for the ignorant and superstitious? Ask 20 ppl what God is and you get twenty different answers. Ask where god is and you get the same. God is and does whatever anyone says, whatever anyone chooses to believe. God is the hero of western revenge fantasy. An elaborate contradiction guilded in emotional appeals. God's truth is not to be found beyond death. That would require a functioning brain. God is just a sugarcube.

Some ppl get their sense of morality from a faith to which they subscribe.

Ultimately society, culture and necessity dictates morality.

no argument here. i guess youre comparing theistic worship to blind trust in ultimate authoritarians, who you acknowledge as simply ppl that theists dishonestly refer to and defer to as 'god?'

i also assume that youre saying atheist hold scientists and certain philosophers in such high esteem that they simply accept any claim they make, as 'fact'? making scientists and certain philosophers the same kind of ultimate authoritarians?

the problem there is that theists encourage blind acceptance and denounce critical analysis. whereas atheists discourage blind acceptance, and encourage critical analysis, scrutiny,peer review, scientific enquiry, etc,.

anyone who holds faith as a pathway to ultimate understanding, has no grounds to question any 'ultimate understanding' gained through the faith of another. even if its contradictory to his own ultimate understanding found through faith. because doing so invalidates his own conclusions and the methodology used to reach them.

no atheist would ever have this problem if he remembers that anything can and should be scrutinized.

well thats just it. i don't think you're being dishonest, i simply have no idea what point you're attempting to make or what model you're attempting to use to do so. i have no idea what argument you're making, what proof you're offering or whether or not i should even take this seriously. i have no idea what you're saying. thats where i started and I'm still there. in fact after reading the replies of others, i still have no idea what's actually being discussed, here.

nope. ontological arguments fail for jesus and jehovah. at this point i guess that goes without saying.

when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept? if not , i have no idea what you mean. but if you do, are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'? because this type of argument has already been defeated. concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.

lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god. 'god', generally denotes a supernatural being. so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist. metaphors exist. you have to do all kinds of calisthenics to transform a being that is known for hurling lightning bolts and parting seas into "a group of beings worthy of trust'. there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities. so no. we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.

you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.

thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.

"Because God wanted some glory." Thats one of the arguments I've heard. Yea...it makes no sense, but if you put it on a pile of a thousand nonsensical claims, no one will notice.

Amen.

1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that. its not up to others to disprove it. you have provided no 'proof of god'. you havent even provided evidence of a god. you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god. you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'. taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe) and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents, then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison. now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being. if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?' this really makes no sense. why call 'respected beings' god? is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true? "parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such? you know what? nevermind.

this isnt proof for a god. it's just equivocation. why not start with evidence for a god? either way, your argument defeats itself. most of the most trusted beings we know are just ppl. not gods.

do you see where it says,

'You should define what you term "God", then illustrate it's existence and or influence?'

well do you? before there were any replies to this debate, i made this clear.

like i said, it's useless hot air. someone really enjoys the sound of his own keystrokes..

hopefully after all this back and forth , you finally see your initial comment was moot. you havent challenged me to do anything, because i am not trying to prove there is a god. i have no belief in gods. once again, thank you for this pointless exchange.

its useless hot air is what it is. it is not a logical argument for any god, of any kind. the naked claims positing the 'existence' of supernatural gods are obviously what drives my question. i doubt your'e unclear on that since this is the only kind of god whose existence is widely and constantly contested. but I left it up to respondents to define the gods for which they posit logical arguments. either way it's for naught. theists know that. that's why they have avoided the question.

If i wanted to make this about points there would be none for posts lacking logical arguments. I want to discourage the posting of useless banter but that seems to define the bulk of the arguments from the 'yes' side.

the aforementioned goes without saying. i think we're done here.

so umm... you actually consider that a logical argument for a god? you think that's what I was asking for? It could be no clearer.

....................................................................................

religious faith is belief without objective evidence or logical justification, and often held despite evidence to the contrary. often it is belief held for the sake of diminishing personal insecurity.

a proposition is held as logical if it's reasoning is in accordance with the principles of logic. superstition is not logical and religious faith is indistinguishable from superstition, which is defined as:

a.

irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.

b.

any blindly accepted belief or notion.

c.

a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or a false conception of causation.

Faith is inherently illogical. But this debate is not about faith, it's about 'logical arguments for a God'

Christian children starve to death by the thousands daily and not just in third world countries.

Likely rebuttal: 'God allows them to starve because he wants us to feed them,'.

Does he want us to cure cancer, birth defects, aids, and every genetic anomaly and deficiency known to man?

'God' doesn't 'bring anyone through' progeria. You're born with it, you age at a high rate of speed and you die of old age in your teens. You can make all the excuses you want, they just don't hold water.

I know you'd rather exist in an eclectic fantasy of a reality, but we just don't. God or no God.

This truth cannot be smeared away with allegorical mythology.

This truth is the reality of human existence.

you must know that any believer in Jehovah already knows that he kills innocents by the millions. they accept that he drowns planets laden with millions upon millions of infants. they must accept that he will burn 99% of the ppl ever to walk the earth no matter what their faith or lack thereof. they know their god is evil and they have wholeheartedly accepted clergy and doctrine's ridiculous excuses for divine extortion and divine genocide.

to expect them to stand up for humanity and stand for what's right at the imaginary risk of losing their nonexistent souls is to expect a leopard to change his stripes. they will down-vote ppl all day without ever providing a challenging or compelling argument. because they have convinced themselves that the lack of blind belief in a person is the work and will of Satan. they take the reality of the world, morality, and human existence, and reshape it into an eclectic fantasy where they are the centers of the universe. a universe that is eternally concerned with them.

Ok then. I'm really not here to make enemies or anything like that

You know, if i offended you earlier, i really didn't mean to. i don't expect to be taken seriously by ppl online. if you're gonna have debates and discussions online, you will probably need thicker skin. But i apologize if I offended or upset you. It truly is nothing personal.

yea, look at my 'big words' :) . mississippi is a big word, and it's no more challenging than any word i've used here.

doesnt that depend on which god you refer to? Kali or Visnu or Thor or which?

judging from the number of logical rebuttals i have to say that theists agree. or at least they certainly appear to be silenced. only one theist has even attempted a logical argument, and he obviously has no grasp of logic whatsoever. oh well.

i don't mind being called arrogant. if you have an actual rebuttal, bring it.

unless you still don't see why your argument is silly and fallacious. i guess you have the attitude that you can never be wrong, so you wont even begin to consider the possibility that you are.

you argument is ridiculously fallacious in that your reasoning is circular and you commit the fallacy of equivocation. existence and creation are two different things. thunder is no more proof of thor, than the universe is proof of vishnu or jehovah. at this point you obviously fail to understand why the existence of the universe is not proof that it was created with teleologic intent, but your intellectual shortcomings provide no shelter. youre just plain wrong.

Your argument could only be described as laughable. its a perfect circle. i asked is anyone could make a logically consistent argument for a god and not one theist has managed to do so. only one out of 200 million american theists even bothered to try and he submitted a fallacious and logically laughable argument appealing to 'feelings'. and you, you appeal to 'esoteric knowledge of an unknown origin'. theistic arguments like this make atheists look like geniuses.

neither 'feelings' nor anecdotes are evidence or proof of the supernatural, or a god. to assert the opposite is to commit the fallacy of reification. better known as 'misuse of anecdotal evidence'.

1. For thousands of years theists have contended there are gods and thousands of them have been named, but there has yet to be an iota of objective physical evidence for any god. would you say that all gods spend all of their time hiding? each theistic religion has a cleverly concocted excuse as to why it's god is empirically unavailable. yet so many of these unavailable, apparently absent gods are said to be 'everywhere'.

2. Physical evidence is a residual indicator of a physical interaction. Things that are claimed to be 'spiritual' are normally defined as immaterial. things that are immaterial do not interact with the physical world, so there could be no indication of such an interaction. hence there could be no evidence of a god's existence or nonexistence. religion, in attempting to make god logically unassailable, has 'defined god into nonexistence' by calling him 'a spirit'. Things that do not exist, do not leave evidence of their nonexistence because they don't interact with anything. interaction would require them to actually exist physically. so there could be no 'evidence of their nonexistence', and unless you place them 'in a box' there could be no proof of their nonexistence.

3. this is all basic stuff. it isn't hard to grasp, which is why atheists truly pity those who fallaciously ask for 'negative proof' in a world where there is not an iota of objective evidence , for the existence a god. let alone 'proof'.

4. we exist in a world where no god is detectable , so the logical assumption is, there is no god. yet theists claim there is. thats why they have the burden of proof. their claim goes against everything that we have the ability to ascertain.

Unless you're being disingenuous, i hope you now see the pointlessness of asking for negative proof.

Do you know what heat intolerance is? look it up. feelings do not prove the existence of Gods, and arguments stating the opposite, clearly illustrate insufficient reason for belief in the supernatural, or anything 'god-like'.

No one disputes whether or not we as human beings 'feel', but ppl dont worship feelings.

The issue is 'Do Gods Exist'. Not 'Do human beings 'feel'. Silly emotion based arguments are little more than equivocation.

@ "I'm sorry guys, but how does a drug that induces feelings prove Gods don't exist?"

No one has made such a claim. They have only demonstrated that feelings are not evidence nor proof of the existence of any gods.

Feelings attributed to Jehovah are no more compelling as evidence than feelings attributed to Kali. Feelings are products of chemical changes in the brain. Dopamine is not a god.

Yes, human beings conceived gods. that makes said gods no more likely to exist than if they were never conceived at all.

so you wont even bother with consideration for the existence of a god, outside of that which is written in the bible? no other article of faith or religious claim could possibly hold any validity? why not subject all religious claims to the same rigors of scrutiny? that would at least be a step towards intellectual honesty.

so your proof for a deity is your very own 'feelings?' well that's convenient . my feelings are proof of my feelings.

you claim that those who believe in a god see the future of the world in peace. havent you ever heard of the rapture or revelation? an apocalypse is not any rational or peace loving man's idea of peace. it is the utter destruction of the world and all we know. this is what abrahamic faith instills in its subscribers. this is belief in a god. so is the belief that 99% of the ppl who have lived or will ever live, will burn in a lake of fire for eternity. this does not instill anyone with peace. only fear.

claiming that something exists, doesnt bring that thing into existence. it's existence must be demonstrated with evidence or the default is to assume it is nonexistent. ontological arguments for existence fail. ppl once said the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by demons. these claims are obviously false. if we imagine something, it does not mean the thing exists. concepts exist, but no concept is said to have talked the universe into existence. you should really think over your arguments before you make them and try to be objective.

Assuming Hell exists, 99% of ppl ever to have lived, will go there. Even christians.

There is no evidence of hell. How would anyone know they have reached hell without a functioning brain? How would an immaterial spirit burn? How would fire burn in an immaterial dimension? If hell is separation from god then earth is hell, because there is no god here.

yea. i use to think that. then i looked up 'truth' in the dictionary. you should as well. I'm not saying that in a sardonic or assoholic way. seriously. look it up in more than one dictionary you'll find multiple definitions. some that clearly do not denote fact. then tell me what you think.

so then. god exists in a room where there is a believer. if a nonbeliever walks into that room, does god cease to exist? our beliefs dont cause gods to materialize. youve obviously never heard of mental illness or delusion. your argument is atrocious. i mean that in the kindest way.

your questions dont prove the existence of a god. they are simply appeals to ignorance. more logical fallacy. only objective evidence could demonstrate the existence of a god. your questions only lead to more questions. you cant see that because you possess not the objectivity to examine them.

if you talk to a group of ppl of different faiths, you soon find that 'truth' is relative. they all hold their fully unsubstantiated beliefs as the ultimate truth. fact is absolute. truth is whatever anyone says truth is.

there are lots of things that exist though we cannot see them. so we should refrain from suggesting that 'seeing is believing'. though there is no good reason to believe in things that do not manifest in physical reality, because we cannot observe anything that indicates their existence, effects, or influence. air is indeed invisible.

The problem of evil is not 'a valid argument against the existence of a god' ,but i don't think it was ever intended to be. the problem of evil shows the logical inconsistency of god as he is described doctrinally within Christianity. it demonstrates this beyond question, and theists only response is to tap-dance, back pedal, and make excuses.

if you approach it objectively, and logically, you have to admit the logical inconsistency of an all-loving,omnipotent, god, who does nothing as children starve, and suffer disease, genocide, and child molestation.

Christians will often cite 'god's need to preserve free will' as a response, but if one analyzes the argument from free will, he will soon see that free will is Christianity's excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, and moral god would. a god who refuses to intervene to protect children from genocide, is a god who refuses to answer prayers of children about to become victims of genocide.

yet christians claim that 'god answers prayers' (Mark 11:24 'Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.') and that 'god does not violate free will.' this is demonstrated false by Exodus 10:20 20 'But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go. '

Christians will often use 'the fall of man' as an excuse but it should be clear to anyone who has progressed intellectually beyond grade school, that the fall of man is just an allegorical myth, meant to show 'the peril's of the quest for knowledge and understanding'. IE how this quest can be 'emotionally detrimental'. its Christianity's take on 'Pandora's Box'. the ultimate message of the fall of man is 'ignorance is bliss'. this is demonstrated by the fact that eve's quest for knowledge 'unleashed evil upon the world.' i fail to see how there are ppl who are middle aged who still take this allegorical myth as if it is a literal anecdote from the factual history of man.

The problem of evil is not 'a valid argument against the existence of a god' ,but i don't think it was ever intended to be. the problem of evil shows the logical inconsistency of god as he is described doctrinally within Christianity. it demonstrates this beyond question, and theists only response is to tap-dance, back pedal, and make excuses.

if you approach it objectively, and logically, you have to admit the logical inconsistency of an all-loving,omnipotent, god, who does nothing as children starve, and suffer disease, genocide, and child molestation.

Christians will often cite 'god's need to preserve free will' as a response, but if one analyzes the argument from free will, he will soon see that free will is Christianity's excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, and moral god would.

a god who refuses to intervene to protect children from genocide, is a god who refuses to answer prayers of children about to become victims of genocide.

yet christians claim that god answers prayers and he does not violate free will. this is patently contradictory.

Christians will often use the fall of man as an excuse but it should be clear to anyone who has progressed intellectually beyond grade school, that the fall of man is just an allegorical myth, meant to show 'the peril's of the quest for knowledge and understanding'. IE how this quest can be 'emotionally detrimental'. its Christianity's take on 'Pandora's Box'.

I was born an atheist and raised christian. after 22 years i finally got tired of making excuses for doctrinal inconsistency and accepted that many questions only answer themselves satisfactorily when you admit there is no reason to believe in a god. a perfect example: 'the problem of evil.'

what blocked me from accepting reality all those years was my own emotional needs. the need for consolation, a need to place order behind worldly and universal chaos. something to help with the realization of man's nakedness in a barren wilderness of astonishing beauty and intolerable cruelties. no. the universe does not exist for my pleasure. I'm am not at it's epicenter, and my feelings are not a consideration with regard to its truth and the facts of human existence.

The ten commandments are in the old testament. I guess they no longer apply as well then? No? Let me guess..... you have a cleverly concocted excuse, right?

Agnostic Atheist because thus far there hasn't been presented any objective evidence for any 'God', though i fail to see how something 'immaterial' could be the source of physical evidence or any physical interaction of any kind.

this to you is a valid argument for the existence & influence of a god? a bunch of naked claims and a suggestion to 'find god' via confirmation bias?

Its easy to imagine there is no god in a world where there is not an iota of objective evidence for a god's existence or influence. it takes no imagination at all.

When a Christian is asked why Their all loving God allows children to be molested and to be victims of cancers and genocide, they cite 'free will' and how god must preserve 'free will' as 'he didn't want us to be a race of robots.' the bible says that if you want something and you ask for it in prayer, it shall be granted. yet every Christian child who is a victim of cancer , molestation or genocide, would pray , asking his god to intervene. we know that there is no intervention and that free will is just an excuse for a likely nonexistent god's inability to intervene. yet Christians still pray that they will 'get that job' and other petty things while children of the world suffer the cruelest of fates without an iota of help from a god. 'free will' cannot exist with 'omniscience', and no prayers are answered if children who pray for an end to their molestation, die at the hands of their tormentors. 'god' is one contradiction after another, and every argument for god is logically fallacious. mostly but not limited to appeals to emotion, and consequence.

god endorses your decision to go to a place that you never wanted to go? how do you burn a spirit? that is the mot ridiculous notion ever. or is it the chicken-snake, or the talking donkey? these stories are for childlike minds, and fearful coward, escapist who hate the fact that, like everyone else, they'll someday die

A benevolent god wouldnt send ppl to hell, because he'd know that spirits cannot be burned, stupid. nothing more benevolent than burning millions of ppl because theyd never heard of you. I'm sold, sign me up