CreateDebate


Nahga's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Nahga's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

@ "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.

1 point

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

1 point

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.

2 points

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

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

4 points

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.

nahga(81) Clarified
1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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'.

2 points

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.

2 points

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?

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

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

1 point

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


2 of 2 Pages: << Prev

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]