I disagree, that is not a direct assertion. It’s just a more convoluted way of saying that the evidence in favour of the existence of a god/gods presented to me is so abysmally small that I haven’t yet seen any that can convince me. And I should also perhaps add that a god should know what evidence would convince me, but haven’t done so (yet).
Well it cannot be claimed to be both omniscient, and claimed to not know, just as it cannot be claimed to be omnipotent, and yet be unable to demonstrate it’s existence beyond doubt.
As an aside, please not how many aspects of @nessahanalita’s claims directly contradict the arguments of our other theist currently espousing heuristic claims for his deity’s existence, @peace.
They both fail for precisely the same reason. They can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence for their belief.
Both Circular Arguments and fallacious to the core.
BULLSHIT! Feelings aren’t the same as actual proof.I’ve been an atheist my entire life despite being raised in a Catholic family and enduring 9 years of their schooling, being baptized and confirmed. I’ve never believed ANY of your Christian bullshit and I sure as hell don’t believe in “miracles”.
I’m 62 years old now, and I’ve come to the conclusion that my life’s philosophy can be boiled down to 2 words, NON SERVIAM. You and every other “theist” or “believer” out there can go “intercourse thy self”
I disagree. When mankind becomes extinct, and we will, there will no trace of us ever existing.
According to the current reigning physics regime: information is conserved (it can’t be lost). The fact that you wore a blue shirt today and I wore a red one; that information will exist forever. What does happen though; it typically it gets harder and harder to extract that information from the environment. When the Earth has been turned to a cinder, what colors our shirts were today will still be present; but it will be very difficult to make that measurement.
It blew my mind when I learned it; enjoy!
Cool, where did you learn about this?
Ne neither, but that does not demonstrate the non existence of god(s), although it suggests that might be the case.
Yeah, me too. I will challenge hard atheists, even though I think doing so may be a bit pedantic.
I don’t believe, and think it’s unlikely any god(s) exist. I live my life as if there ae no gods ,nor any non material beings or realms.
The way I look at it; If there is a god, and he’s the monster of the Torah I
I’m fucked. If he’s my mother’s gentle Jesus , meek and mild, I’ll be fine. That’s because his infinite attributes include mercy.
university 
1 Like
I’ve never said it disproves gods. Hence a sort of probabilistic approach – the odds are not in favor of a god or gods, they’re just highly unlikely. So I will live just like there is no god or gods. As an analogy, there is no credible evidence presented that homeopathy is more efficient than placebo (and not due to lack of trying). And it lacks a credible way of actually working as a medicine (it goes against known pharmacology, chemistry, and physics). So, one can quite confidently say that the odds of homeopathy working are abysmally small and that it’s woo-woo. However, if there suddenly comes groundbreaking studies that actually shows some effect (however unlikely that would be), then great!
Not a good analogy. There is plenty of evidence to show that homeopathy is pure woo. James Randi has a pretty good lecture on the topic.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That’s where you lose me. I don’t understand your basis for working out the probability/odds of no god or any god. IE what is the base figure and on what is it based?
Apologies for expressing myself so poorly, I’m hoping someone more au fait with stats will jump in.
I have some questions for you. And lets quit with the game where I ask you something or make a remark and you evade me. You’re not a child right? So lets not act like one okay.
I do want the other members to quote this back at you every time you evade it. I want you to answer it. Fair and square. You’re on an Atheist forum.
- Are you fucking dumb?
- Why do you come on an ATHEIST forum and try to preach your views?
- Not one of these members agrees with you. So why keep trying?
- Do you get a laugh when these people tell you to come up with evidence?
- Why are you wasting your time?
- Are you just trying to troll or irritate these people?
You know they don’t like it. Why keep doing it?
2 Likes
On behalf of @nessahanalita who is in a time out for impersonation and copy/paste AND based upon this I am judging him subjectively … I will an attempt to answer your questions, imaginatively, on his behalf.
- yes
- because I am insecure with my own
- because I am insecure with my own
- no…it scares the shit out of me
- I need validation from someone outside of my religious beliefs to prove it’s not “just us”
- yes, after I was told to write my own thoughts. This was so difficult I got caught… old patterns die hard…
3 Likes
Then you’re definitely smarter than me.
Thank you for stating what needed to be said. For some reason I couldn’t put the words together the way you did. Must be because this person is mentally deficient.
1 Like
There are several good reasons for homeopathy not to work or the explanations to hold: 1. it breaks pharmacological and chemical principles by having, on average, no molecules of the active chemical or compound left in the finished “medicine”; 2. proposed explanations invoke speculative and non-existent physics; 3. it advances the ad hoc idea that “likes cures like”; 4. the whole field involves a certain amount of magical or fallacious thinking, like for example the idea that the more the concoction is diluted, the more potent it becomes. If we remove the magical thinking and the plain physically impossible stuff, what are we left with? Not much.
Now, for religion, claims made by religious proponents and holy books break with what we know and consider possible. Like the (ill- or undefined) concept of a soul, which certainly breaks with a lot of physics and physical principles. Like a non-physical being that can interact with the physical world (how does that happen?) Like all the logical contradictions and impossibilities in both the claims and in the holy books. Etc. The deeper you dig, the more the odds are stacked up against religious claims. If we take away all the claims that are plain ridiculous (like the heavenly bodies stopping in their tracks), the contradictions, and the parts which really have more in common with philosophy than a belief system, etc., what are we really left with? Not much.
Which brings us to the next part…
OK, “probabilistic approach” might have been a misleading term. But: once you remove the shit that is plainly impossible, given what we know as facts, remove contradictions etc., what is left of the claims? Not much, and with what would be left, that’s bloody unlikely to be worthwile considering worshipping 
OK, I’m getting silly here, but it’s late, I’m tired, and I have to go to work tomorrow.
1 Like
Shortly after Stephen Hawking’s death, a radio message by Hawking was sent by the European Space Agency’s 35-metre radio antenna in Cebreros, Spain to our nearest known black hole, 1A 0620-00. According to Hawking’s own work on black holes, the theory is that all messages will be held by the black hole, the information is never lost.
In theory, his message will be around billions of years after this planet is a burnt cinder.
That is very cool, Stephen Hawking’s knowledge about the cosmos being trapped in that fucked up body he was forced to exist in truly wasn’t fair to him or to humanity. I remember hearing that he received criticism from religious leaders because none of his theories made any references to the existence of god.
“Life” is not fair. He had a brilliant mind. And recognition for his work. Some are born with a “fucked up body” and brain. A short existence. Perhaps not much awareness or comprehension of it.
I’m not arguing, just adding that existence in this world was never fair to begin with. The value/moral judgement of fairness is actually something that we are observing in other species (within the species). Has some form of advantage…this idea of fair.