Can anyone Prove there is no God?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#50 Aug 20, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The fact that Dawkins can not 100% disprove the possibility of some form of deity is dishonestly taken by Lincock as conclusive proof of Lincock's personal god.
<quoted text>
I think I have seen your discussions re Dawkins and Lincock before, and I read neither of them. I have seen the vicious posts by Skeptic on topix and have no respect for him. He is obscene and claims to know and to have no burden of proof. He gives atheists a bad name. I want to make it very clear that one can be an agnostic atheist, and one can be polite to believers, and be a real atheist.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#51 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
Defensiveness seems to be the atheist Defense Mechanism?
LOL
I am not sure what you mean by that. I saw it on another thread.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#52 Aug 20, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
if this troll is an atheist can religion be wrong
LOL
yes. if a socalled troll is an atheist, religion can also be wrong. there is no necessary link. of which socalled troll do you complain? and do you think any religion is correct?
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#53 Aug 20, 2013
Decade_in_Ruin wrote:
See that is just my point. Christianity is one lump. One voice one God. Christians complain about atheist and atheist complain about Christians. Bottom line neither are any thing to count on. The history of Christianity is so bad that no matter what good it does it will never make up for the wrong it has done in the past(1). And as for my understanding of the bible. Well I find comfort that both Christians and atheist are set against me. Finally you two can agree on something. Hatred towed someone pointing out your false beliefs. Keep your beliefs to yourself and you won't have to deal with people like me. Each cult proclaims it can prove the other wrong. One by science and one by religion. I can prove both wrong on its own Christian by bible atheist by science(2). And both will continue to assert its false claims on others. Why don't you let the other alone and keep your beliefs to yourself(3). Me I have no beliefs to share with either one. Only what is,and that is proof from both teachings that they are both wrong. So long as neither side will take head to the other they are both worthless. So if I am wrong hen where are the others to set against me. Where is the proof I am wrong. Because you say so. You say much of nothing. Your own words prove you to be false. Neither of you can keep track of your own BS yet you poke one another. And now you have a common thread. Something to dislike more that one another(4). ME. My words that are set against each of yours. You don't like it. Then consider how the other feel when you do it to the other. You can't. You can't because you refuse to admit your both wrong. And that is proof that both of your so called beliefs are wrong.
One says not all self proclaimed Christians really are. And that I don't know what it means to be a Christian. Well if you are a example of love thy enemy then you are a poor example. Or you are a prime example.
(1) Please provide an example of REAL Christians doing such bad things!

(2) But you are not proving anything against Christianity by totally butchering the real meaning of your mined Bible quotes!

(3) It's called the "great commission." The Bible tells us to share the Gospel with others and spread it throughout the earth. Answer this: what is soooo bad about our trying to teach others about Christ? What harm can it do? TRUE Christianity (remember, we can't and shouldn't be held accountable for what bad, non-Christians have done in God's name!) is about following Jesus' example and being good to others and doing good for others; how is that bad? If we are right, then every soul we help to find salvation escapes hell (even if you don't believe in hell, it could be real. I could say I don't believe there is such thing as a golden goose, but no one could say I am ABSOLUTELY wrong without checking every single goose on the planet to prove me wrong!). If we are wrong, then the worst we have done is to help people to live their lives to the best of their moral abilities!

(4) What DO you believe in, then? Christians and atheists cannot both be wrong. One of us says there is a God, the other says there is no God; what could possibly be a third PLAUSIBLE alternative?
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#54 Aug 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Good.
Your ugly hate-cult is on the decline-- and that is EXCELLENT progress.
No more HATE from you bigots.
No more ABUSED KIDS from you bigots.
No more ABUSED WOMEN from you bigots.
Progress!
WOW! You really have fallen for the hype. Exactly how are we so evil? How do we hate? abuse kids? abuse women? You do realize that most of the facilities out there to HELP women and children are religious institutions, right?! Planned Parenthood may help a lot of women with things other than abortion, but considering they perform hundreds of thousands of them a years, they should really change their names to Planned Fetal Genocide!
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#55 Aug 20, 2013
Decade_in_Ruin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real. Do you even know the definition of science. If you study the bible that is a science. Science means the study of. You suck as a advocat for Christianity.
Actually, science comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning "knowledge."
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#56 Aug 20, 2013
Thinking wrote:
god sin is meaningless if your alleged god gets to make up sin rules up as it goes along.
So follower, your following needs some work.
<quoted text>
So, if I created, say, a thinking, self-willed robot, I shouldn't be allowed to dictate its behavior and actions? I shouldn't be able to provide it with rules designed to help keep it out of trouble and to get along with others of its kind? It's not quite the same, obviously, but the creator certainly has EVERY right to make up His own rules (and God set them up thousands of years ago, not "as He goes along").
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#57 Aug 20, 2013
JesusMyKing wrote:
People keep asking us to prove there is a God.
People have believed in God for centuries, then science comes along and says there is no God.
The burden of proof is on science.
Can anyone prove there is no God?
No the burden of proof is on the person who claims that he knows something and can prove it. If the religious believer says he knows there is a God, the burden of proof is on him. If a scientist says he knows there is no God, then the burden of proof is on him.

If a person says he believes in a God, he has no burden to prove there is a God. But he might wish to explain why he has that belief. If a person says he does not believe in a God, he has no burden to prove there is no God. But he or she might wish to explain why he does not believe in a God.

An agnostic atheist like myself does not believe in a God, but makes no claim to know there is no God, and assumes no burden of proof.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#58 Aug 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
People who choose to lie and say god is real, don't really understand how atheists think.
A person who believes God is real is not a liar. He may be mistaken in what he believes and what he says, but he is not a liar in the sense that he deliberately tells an untruth.

Different atheists have different views, so I do not accept that you can say there is a way that is "how atheists think." You try to set yourself up as the spokesman for atheists, and you are not. You are only one person who calls himself an atheist, and you are often very nasty, obscene and insulting, and not a good example of atheists at all. You also claim to know that there is no God, and you assume no burden of proof despite your claim that you know. That is arrogant. I suspect you are the nutcase who puts up the negative judgeits because you are unable to make intelligent replies to many of the folks on here.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#59 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I created, say, a thinking, self-willed robot, I shouldn't be allowed to dictate its behavior and actions? I shouldn't be able to provide it with rules designed to help keep it out of trouble and to get along with others of its kind? It's not quite the same, obviously, but the creator certainly has EVERY right to make up His own rules (and God set them up thousands of years ago, not "as He goes along").
So, you create a thinking, self-willed robot, and make rules it, and should be able to dictate its behavior and actions? You sound about as nasty as the Biblical God. Do you want to send it to hell for not adoring you above all others?
Amused

Brookfield, MA

#60 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I created, say, a thinking, self-willed robot, I shouldn't be allowed to dictate its behavior and actions? I shouldn't be able to provide it with rules designed to help keep it out of trouble and to get along with others of its kind? It's not quite the same, obviously, but the creator certainly has EVERY right to make up His own rules (and God set them up thousands of years ago, not "as He goes along").
What would be the purpose of creating a thinking, self-willed being and then imposing limits on its will and making the assumption that it could not think for itself and discover for itself how to get along and how to avoid problems? You could just as easily have created such a robot programmed not to do the things you don't want it to do. Then you wouldn't have to worry about burning them up later on.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#61 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I created, say, a thinking, self-willed robot, I shouldn't be allowed to dictate its behavior and actions?
No more than you should be able to dictate the behavior and actions of your grown children.
I shouldn't be able to provide it with rules designed to help keep it out of trouble and to get along with others of its kind?
Again, no. The robots should be free to determine what is in their own best interests. You can *inform* them of issues you see. But you should not *dictate* their actions.
It's not quite the same, obviously, but the creator certainly has EVERY right to make up His own rules (and God set them up thousands of years ago, not "as He goes along").
I strongly disagree. If your deity made an intelligent, self-willed human, then it is reasonable for that deity to *inform* about what things can cause pain, disease, and other issues, but certainly should not dictate actions. And, more so, since your deity is supposed to have created the *whole system*, not just the intelligent beings in it, then there is also a moral responsibility for creating a system prone to pain and suffering.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#62 Aug 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than you should be able to dictate the behavior and actions of your grown children.
<quoted text>
Again, no. The robots should be free to determine what is in their own best interests. You can *inform* them of issues you see. But you should not *dictate* their actions.
<quoted text>
I strongly disagree. If your deity made an intelligent, self-willed human, then it is reasonable for that deity to *inform* about what things can cause pain, disease, and other issues, but certainly should not dictate actions. And, more so, since your deity is supposed to have created the *whole system*, not just the intelligent beings in it, then there is also a moral responsibility for creating a system prone to pain and suffering.
a very reasoned and learned way of saying that he would be as lousy a god as the one he believes in.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#63 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I created, say, a thinking, self-willed robot, I shouldn't be allowed to dictate its behavior and actions? I shouldn't be able to provide it with rules designed to help keep it out of trouble and to get along with others of its kind? It's not quite the same, obviously, but the creator certainly has EVERY right to make up His own rules (and God set them up thousands of years ago, not "as He goes along").
It would be immoral to threaten that intelligent, self-willed robot with eternal torture simply because it broke *your* rules. It would be immoral to punish that robot for thinking for itself after you gave it that very ability. It would be immoral to impose rules when negotiation and mutual self-interest would be a better technique. It would be immoral to NOT let that robot learn and feel and seek out what is best for it as oppose dto simply what you want.

In this, you show the depths of your own immorality as well as that of the deity you worship (although I believe that deity to be imaginary, it is still immoral and cruel).
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#64 Aug 20, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> So, you create a thinking, self-willed robot, and make rules it, and should be able to dictate its behavior and actions? You sound about as nasty as the Biblical God. Do you want to send it to hell for not adoring you above all others?
Funny, I read your two previous posts and was going to begin this one by saying I was impressed at your decency and observation of their poor, hate-riddled response, and then you respond to me with nearly the same attitude! Oh well.

1. You missed the point, but nice red herring, though. The point is that the creator of a thing has the right to govern that thing. Imagine what it would have been like had God created us with our free will, but without any laws--how would that have worked? Well, we can see from ALL of history that we have been despicable even WITH the rules, so it becomes hard to imagine how much worse we would have been without them.

2. God Does not SEND anyone to hell. God loves us all so much that He provided His own Son as sacrifice for us--that seems hateful to you? Remember that God created hell for the fallen angels. people earn their own way into hell by rejecting Jesus. Had He not provided a way out, then I might have agreed with you, but He did. And consider this, God ONLY provided that escape for us; the angels had only one chance to show their love/obedience, and when they failed, they condemned themselves immediately with NO chance for parole. We, however, are given the chance over and over and over again. You still have a chance, too, friend! Praise God!
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#65 Aug 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be the purpose of creating a thinking, self-willed being and then imposing limits on its will and making the assumption that it could not think for itself and discover for itself how to get along and how to avoid problems? You could just as easily have created such a robot programmed not to do the things you don't want it to do. Then you wouldn't have to worry about burning them up later on.
that poor guy - we have attacked his dreams of robot-making with our criticism of his plans! too bad we weren't around before the Creation, huh?!(kidding, but the moral point is valid)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
(4) What DO you believe in, then? Christians and atheists cannot both be wrong. One of us says there is a God, the other says there is no God; what could possibly be a third PLAUSIBLE alternative?
Of course it is *possible* for atheists and Christians to both be wrong: if Islam is correct, for example. Also, it is possible that there is a creator that is different than a law giver, which is different than a first cause, with all of them failing to be omniscient.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
1. You missed the point, but nice red herring, though. The point is that the creator of a thing has the right to govern that thing.
I disagree when that thing is an intelligent, self-conscious thing.
Imagine what it would have been like had God created us with our free will, but without any laws--how would that have worked?
Pretty much as history did, in fact, work.
Well, we can see from ALL of history that we have been despicable even WITH the rules, so it becomes hard to imagine how much worse we would have been without them.
We are the ones that invented the rules and are gradually adjusting them as we realize just how horrific they were.
2. God Does not SEND anyone to hell. God loves us all so much that He provided His own Son as sacrifice for us--that seems hateful to you? Remember that God created hell for the fallen angels. people earn their own way into hell by rejecting Jesus.
And how, by any stretch of the imagination is that anything but cruel?
Had He not provided a way out, then I might have agreed with you, but He did.
A dictator that 'provides a way out' that consists of doing exactly what he wants is *still* a dictator.
And consider this, God ONLY provided that escape for us; the angels had only one chance to show their love/obedience, and when they failed, they condemned themselves immediately with NO chance for parole. We, however, are given the chance over and over and over again. You still have a chance, too, friend! Praise God!
What a horrific myth you have! Not only is your deity cruel to humans, but 'he' is especially cruel to the angels! No wonder they rebelled!
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#68 Aug 20, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
What would be the purpose of creating a thinking, self-willed being and then imposing limits on its will and making the assumption that it could not think for itself and discover for itself how to get along and how to avoid problems? You could just as easily have created such a robot programmed not to do the things you don't want it to do. Then you wouldn't have to worry about burning them up later on.
Like I said to the other guy, even WITH those rules we still behave incredibly poorly. Imagine what it would be like if man and his free will had no laws. And your "programmed" comment illustrates the poor reasoning so many others show when they say the same thing about God. He should have just programmed us, right? Would you not want to be able to think for yourself, act on your own, live your own life? Remember, God created us so that we could have a loving, reverent relationship with Him. If I built that robot I would want the same thing, but programming it to choose me over rebelliousness would be useless: I may as well just build a mindless automaton with NO cognitive ability!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#69 Aug 20, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said to the other guy, even WITH those rules we still behave incredibly poorly. Imagine what it would be like if man and his free will had no laws.
Exactly how it has been. people can make laws in their own self-interest that encourage moral behavior.
And your "programmed" comment illustrates the poor reasoning so many others show when they say the same thing about God. He should have just programmed us, right? Would you not want to be able to think for yourself, act on your own, live your own life? Remember, God created us so that we could have a loving, reverent relationship with Him. If I built that robot I would want the same thing, but programming it to choose me over rebelliousness would be useless: I may as well just build a mindless automaton with NO cognitive ability!
So why make a hell for those who disagree with you? Eternal torture for choosing another path is horrifically immoral. It is a symptom of the worst type of dictator. The 'alternative' is not an actual alternative: it is a threat by a tyrant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr NoahLovesU 239,254
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr NoahLovesU 7,490
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Agents of Corruption 7,432
News Number of Christians Decline 'Unaffiliated' Ris... 6 hr Thinking 6
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr thetruth 19,049
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr Thinking 2,188
News New Atheism's fatal arrogance: The glaring inte... 15 hr EdSed 5
More from around the web