So you don't believe in Deity? Does make Deity any less real to others!

[Zenos]

I have noticed that so many of my fellow teens come on here blasting religion and the concept God or Gods and Goddesses ,or deity in general.

Ok so some are polite and explain why they do not believe in any form of deity but too many get on here with their myopic pseudo-cynicism tell why they do not believe in any form of deity,then start to bash on those of us who do believe in some from of deity or deities and try every way in their world to destroy or faith and belief in what every deity or deities we believe in.

And those who want to be rude and throw their undeserved myopic pseudo-cynicism say we can't prove our chosen deity or deities exist scientifically time and time again can not prove by the scientific process that there is no form of deity or deities our there some where.


let me give you an example:

It's like if you and I are friends and I call you say at another friends house or on your cell while you are at the mall,and tell you I just poured a crap load of wet cement on your bed,and you believe I did and despite everyone else telling you there's not wet cement on your bed you rush home believeing theres wet cement on your bed,and once you enter your room you find there was no wet cement on your bed.

Now did that wet cement exist? You'll probably reply to this by saying no it didn't,but you are wrong it did exist until you opened your bed room door and found it was not really there,how did it exist..it existed in your beliefs until you found out otherwise.

same as with the idea of deity for you that claim it does not exist you have no proof,just as those who believe in diety have no proof but because they believe in deity said deity or deities exist in their belief!

Also you myopic pseudo-cynical types should study Carl Gustav Jung's works about Archetypes it might just open your eyes!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes


http://carl-jung.net/archetypes.html



What is an Archetype? ( has to do with paganism)


http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/glossary/g/What-Is-An-Archetype.htm

[Camazotz]

No, the wet cement did not exist except as a metaphysical concept in your mind. Metaphysics aren't real physics. Just because you believe something is real doesn't make it real. Millions of children believe in a Santa Claus that lives in the North Pole, watches over every little boy and girl around the world, and delivers presents to each and every one of them (that celebrates Christmas) in one day. Is Santa real? No. As a symbolic figure, sure whatever, but we're talking about an actual man that lives and breathes and does all of those things, which is nothing more than a silly fantasy.

You may not like or agree with things people are saying, but this board is about debating using logical reasoning and not circular reasoning. You'll have to get over it.

[Gigablue]

It's important to keep in mind a important fact: a deity either exists or does not exist. Differently worded, the statement 'a deity exists' is either true or false. It can't be both. It can't be in between. It can't vary for different people. It must be either true or false.

Theists are the ones claiming that the aforementioned statement is true. Atheists don't claim that it is false, merely that there is insufficient evidence to accept it as true. It may be true, but given the evidence, there is no reason to accept it. Since theists are the ones making the claim, they have the burden of proof.

Consider the following example. If I were to claim that unicorns exist, and you rejected my claim, would it be valid for me to say that you cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, therefore my claim should be respected? No. You would have every right to call my belief stupid. If I wanted to prove that I was right, I would have to provide evidence.

The default position to take when something is proposed should be skepticism. If there isn't any observed evidence for something, we should not assume it exists. This is true for everything, be it unicorns or deities.

I am familiar with the work of Carl Jung. I do not find it convincing. It is a useless, just-so, post hoc rationalization designed to attempt to explain human psychology. It has limited explanatory power, no predictive power, very low plausibility, and no evidence supporting it.

Lastly, most atheists don't want to insult religious people. There is a difference between attacking the beliefs and attacking the person. I can think that your beliefs are stupid without thinking that you are stupid for holding them. I can respect you as a person, while not respecting your beliefs.

[The Trendy Wolf]

And those who want to be rude and throw their undeserved myopic pseudo-cynicism say we can't prove our chosen deity or deities exist scientifically time and time again can not prove by the scientific process that there is no form of deity or deities our there some where.


let me give you an example:

It's like if you and I are friends and I call you say at another friends house or on your cell while you are at the mall,and tell you I just poured a crap load of wet cement on your bed,and you believe I did and despite everyone else telling you there's not wet cement on your bed you rush home believeing theres wet cement on your bed,and once you enter your room you find there was no wet cement on your bed.

Now did that wet cement exist? You'll probably reply to this by saying no it didn't,but you are wrong it did exist until you opened your bed room door and found it was not really there,how did it exist..it existed in your beliefs until you found out otherwise.

same as with the idea of deity for you that claim it does not exist you have no proof,just as those who believe in diety have no proof but because they believe in deity said deity or deities exist in their belief!

Also you myopic pseudo-cynical types should study Carl Gustav Jung's works about Archetypes it might just open your eyes!


The cement existed in your imagination, sure, and you believed with all your heart that it was there, but only to reveal that it wasn't really true. I could imagine something of absolutely obscure proportions, but that doesn't mean that it exists in reality. Just because you imagine something doesn't determine its existence. Believe what you please, but I think that a line must be drawn at some point between the imaginary and reality.

I had actually studied Carl Jung's theories prior to this thread, and, in my opinion, it really just seemed like an alternative reality that could be true, logic aside. I could also say that I possess the most powerful computer ever made, but, unfortunately, I dropped it in a vat of acid, and it was destroyed. You have nothing that could possibly disprove what I say, and that is because it is a viable reality that fits within a timeline of events.

[Miserabilia]

I have noticed that so many of my fellow teens come on here blasting religion and the concept God or Gods and Goddesses ,or deity in general.

Ok so some are polite and explain why they do not believe in any form of deity but too many get on here with their myopic pseudo-cynicism tell why they do not believe in any form of deity,then start to bash on those of us who do believe in some from of deity or deities and try every way in their world to destroy or faith and belief in what every deity or deities we believe in.

And those who want to be rude and throw their undeserved myopic pseudo-cynicism say we can't prove our chosen deity or deities exist scientifically time and time again can not prove by the scientific process that there is no form of deity or deities our there some where.


let me give you an example:

It's like if you and I are friends and I call you say at another friends house or on your cell while you are at the mall,and tell you I just poured a crap load of wet cement on your bed,and you believe I did and despite everyone else telling you there's not wet cement on your bed you rush home believeing theres wet cement on your bed,and once you enter your room you find there was no wet cement on your bed.

Now did that wet cement exist? You'll probably reply to this by saying no it didn't,but you are wrong it did exist until you opened your bed room door and found it was not really there,how did it exist..it existed in your beliefs until you found out otherwise.

same as with the idea of deity for you that claim it does not exist you have no proof,just as those who believe in diety have no proof but because they believe in deity said deity or deities exist in their belief!

Also you myopic pseudo-cynical types should study Carl Gustav Jung's works about Archetypes it might just open your eyes!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes


http://carl-jung.net/archetypes.html



What is an Archetype? ( has to do with paganism)


http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/glossary/g/What-Is-An-Archetype.htm

I have noticed that so many of my fellow teens come on here blasting religion and the concept God or Gods and Goddesses ,or deity in general.

Ok so some are polite and explain why they do not believe in any form of deity but too many get on here with their myopic pseudo-cynicism tell why they do not believe in any form of deity,then start to bash on those of us who do believe in some from of deity or deities and try every way in their world to destroy or faith and belief in what every deity or deities we believe in.

I'm just pointing out the flaws in the arguments they have, and they are participating in a debate so we have all the right to tell them what we think of it.

And those who want to be rude and throw their undeserved myopic pseudo-cynicism say we can't prove our chosen deity or deities exist scientifically time and time again can not prove by the scientific process that there is no form of deity or deities our there some where.

That is not how it works.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

If I say right now there is a magical universe somewhere in the universe, I am the one to proove it.
You can't say the unicorn exist, just because everyone else hasn't looked through each and every particle in the universe to conclude it doesn't exist.

I have explained this many times and so have many other critisists.


It's like if you and I are friends and I call you say at another friends house or on your cell while you are at the mall,and tell you I just poured a crap load of wet cement on your bed,and you believe I did and despite everyone else telling you there's not wet cement on your bed you rush home believeing theres wet cement on your bed,and once you enter your room you find there was no wet cement on your bed.

Now did that wet cement exist? You'll probably reply to this by saying no it didn't,but you are wrong it did exist until you opened your bed room door and found it was not really there,how did it exist..it existed in your beliefs until you found out otherwise.

So what?
People can imagine s**t, big news.


same as with the idea of deity for you that claim it does not exist you have no proof,just as those who believe in diety have no proof but because they believe in deity said deity or deities exist in their belief!

yea big news, I also beleive in unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, now what?
This isn't even debate material.
We debate real things with real evidence, or debate whether or not there is evidence;
all you are concluding now is that what people imagine is in a way real.

Which I don't deny, but what does it matter?
It only puts more emphasis on that god does not exist.

Also, I dont see the connection between this and archetypes??

Archeytypes just seem like another "ancient knowledge" spiritual BS kind of thing, with no real value to any knowledge.

[LunaLiuna]

So your doing the same to this thread as you did to mine, simply because you apparently have some higher understanding.

It's amazing what I've witnessed after being on this forum in a couple of days, The inflated ego's of some people.Gigablue at least replies in a more understanding manner which gives him a higher standpoint than you cheese, as you rigourously attack from every angle. This is not a scientific study as I said in my thread. It's a DISCUSSION.

You only cement my view of becoming inspired by scientific system breeds a type of vicious cognitive dissonance, the likes of which a religious fanatic holds. To always come at an argument attacking is detrimental to all things positive. Not only that but it shows a lack of morality that taking part in a spiritual practice can provide. How will you understand things if your always blinded by past judgements? you won't.

Spirituality isn't about knowledge, it's about crafting yourself to be a better person in ALL aspects.

Have a great day, and practice being the person you are, not the ego you've become.

[Miserabilia]

So your doing the same to this thread as you did to mine, simply because you apparently have some higher understanding.

It's amazing what I've witnessed after being on this forum in a couple of days, The inflated ego's of some people.Gigablue at least replies in a more understanding manner which gives him a higher standpoint than you cheese, as you rigourously attack from every angle. This is not a scientific study as I said in my thread. It's a DISCUSSION.

You only cement my view of becoming inspired by scientific system breeds a type of vicious cognitive dissonance, the likes of which a religious fanatic holds. To always come at an argument attacking is detrimental to all things positive. Not only that but it shows a lack of morality that taking part in a spiritual practice can provide. How will you understand things if your always blinded by past judgements? you won't.

Spirituality isn't about knowledge, it's about crafting yourself to be a better person in ALL aspects.

Have a great day, and practice being the person you are, not the ego you've become.

It's amazing what I've witnessed after being on this forum in a couple of days, The inflated ego's of some people.Gigablue at least replies in a more understanding manner which gives him a higher standpoint than you cheese, as you rigourously attack from every angle. This is not a scientific study as I said in my thread. It's a DISCUSSION.

It's a discussion I'm participating in.
I'm just replying to the statements people are making,
a scientific study wouldn't contain any debate or discussion,
so I'm just doing what the forum is intended for.
People say something, I respond.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with my "reigourous attacks".

You only cement my view of becoming inspired by scientific system breeds a type of vicious cognitive dissonance, the likes of which a religious fanatic holds. To always come at an argument attacking is detrimental to all things positive. Not only that but it shows a lack of morality that taking part in a spiritual practice can provide. How will you understand things if your always blinded by past judgements? you won't.

You only cement my view of becoming inspired by scientific system
:confused: cement?

breeds a type of vicious cognitive dissonance, the likes of which a religious fanatic holds.
:what: okay? Like I said, I'm just reponding to the subject of the thread, please stay relevant instead of going of abou my "cognitive dissonance".
To always come at an argument attacking is detrimental to all things positive.

No, someone comes with an argument and I try to come with a counter argument.
It's called "debate".
Not only that but it shows a lack of morality that taking part in a spiritual practice can provide.
Are you taking part in the debate or are you trying to convert me? xD

How will you understand things if your always blinded by past judgements?

How will you understand the truth if you won't even participate but take personal offence instead of providing a counter argument?
See, we can go at it like this all day,
but it's not even relevant to the thread anymore.

If you wish to discuss my behaviour with me personaly, do so in a PM

[sqishy]

I am not getting into this, but I will say that most of you up there ^^^^^ have rock-solid, unadaptable ideas that reject a lot.
I am not getting into this, though I would be another army in this idea war.

[Miserabilia]

I am not getting into this, but I will say that most of you up there ^^^^^ have rock-solid, unadaptable ideas that reject a lot.
I am not getting into this, though I would be another army in this idea war.

You are not getting into this, but you just dragged yourself into this with violent force, lol
:yeah: :yes:

[sqishy]

You are not getting into this, but you just dragged yourself into this with violent force, lol
:yeah: :yes:

I'll drag myself out with force then.

[Gigablue]

I am not getting into this, but I will say that most of you up there ^^^^^ have rock-solid, unadaptable ideas that reject a lot.
I am not getting into this, though I would be another army in this idea war.

I disagree that my opinions are solidified or unchanging. I can tell you exactly what it would take for me to change my mind. It would simply require the same level of evidence that it does to convince me of any new phenomenon. I don't treat claims about deities any differently.

If someone wanted to give evidence for a deity, they would first need to make a hypothesis. This is as simple as answering the question: in what observable way would a world with a deity be different from a world without. They would then have to make a specific prediction, then collect data showing that the prediction was correct.

There are many different things that they could do. They could provide some sort of divine revelation, offering previously unknown and accurate insight, they could repeatedly and reliably cure an incurable disease with the power of their deity, they could show a clear and unambiguous violation of the laws of physics, etc. while none of these would, on their own, prove a deity, if there were multiple convergent lines of evidence, they would lend strong support to the idea.

Instead, believers reply not with evidence, but with dogma. They assert that their position is true, offering no proof and hiding behind 'faith' as an excuse. Until someone can show me some good evidence for a deity, I will remain an atheist. However, that does not make me closed minded. If someone has the evidence, I will change my mind. Very few people taking the opposite position are willing to do the same.

[Plasma]

I have noticed that so many of my fellow teens come on here blasting religion and the concept God or Gods and Goddesses ,or deity in general.

Ok so some are polite and explain why they do not believe in any form of deity but too many get on here with their myopic pseudo-cynicism tell why they do not believe in any form of deity,then start to bash on those of us who do believe in some from of deity or deities and try every way in their world to destroy or faith and belief in what every deity or deities we believe in.

And those who want to be rude and throw their undeserved myopic pseudo-cynicism say we can't prove our chosen deity or deities exist scientifically time and time again can not prove by the scientific process that there is no form of deity or deities our there some where.


let me give you an example:

It's like if you and I are friends and I call you say at another friends house or on your cell while you are at the mall,and tell you I just poured a crap load of wet cement on your bed,and you believe I did and despite everyone else telling you there's not wet cement on your bed you rush home believeing theres wet cement on your bed,and once you enter your room you find there was no wet cement on your bed.

Now did that wet cement exist? You'll probably reply to this by saying no it didn't,but you are wrong it did exist until you opened your bed room door and found it was not really there,how did it exist..it existed in your beliefs until you found out otherwise.

same as with the idea of deity for you that claim it does not exist you have no proof,just as those who believe in diety have no proof but because they believe in deity said deity or deities exist in their belief!

Also you myopic pseudo-cynical types should study Carl Gustav Jung's works about Archetypes it might just open your eyes!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes


http://carl-jung.net/archetypes.html



What is an Archetype? ( has to do with paganism)


http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/glossary/g/What-Is-An-Archetype.htm

Everyone has their own opinion. You shouldn't let things that people say bother you. You'll have a shit life if you do. On the other hand, youre blasting people for saying that whatever you believe in doesn't exist, yet you sit here trying to prove that it does. It sounds awfully hypocritical to me

[JacobIN]

No, the wet cement did not exist except as a metaphysical concept in your mind. Metaphysics aren't real physics. Just because you believe something is real doesn't make it real. Millions of children believe in a Santa Claus that lives in the North Pole, watches over every little boy and girl around the world, and delivers presents to each and every one of them (that celebrates Christmas) in one day. Is Santa real? No. As a symbolic figure, sure whatever, but we're talking about an actual man that lives and breathes and does all of those things, which is nothing more than a silly fantasy.

You may not like or agree with things people are saying, but this board is about debating using logical reasoning and not circular reasoning. You'll have to get over it.

OK. Use some solid evidence and reasoning to prove to me the big bang happened. And I mean prove, not just give me theories.

[Plasma]

OK. Use some solid evidence and reasoning to prove to me the big bang happened. And I mean prove, not just give me theories.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/23/when-the-universe-was-twice-as-hot/
That's a good one. It's a lot to make sense of though.
Now, give some solid evidence that a deity exists.

[Karkat]

I think the real issue at hand shouldn't be whether or not a deity exists, it should be how you treat others beliefs to begin with.

You're a theist? Fine, stop trying to force atheists to believe in god, and respect their beliefs and way of thinking.

You're an atheist? Fine, stop trying to crush the faith of theists. Let them believe in god, it does not hurt you.

And I really think those who argue that "religion/atheism is toxic to mankind and needs to be stopped" are full of a lot of narrowminded bullshit. This makes you radical. This puts you on the offensive team. This puts you on LITERALLY the same level as The Westboro Baptist Church. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THEY DO.

Religion itself may not be the greatest, but not every follower of a religion is radical or bad. There are radicals and morons of literally every flavour. Your favourite thing? There's a dickhead out there who's obsessed with it. Chew on that for a bit.

You have full right to judge a person for being an asshole. However, judging someone before you actually know what they're like, on the merits of something as varying and complex as what one believes before you even know the reason behind it or the details involved makes you completely irrational. Think about it. Would a sincerely rational person judge someone for something they know nothing about? No. So if you hold yourself to be a rational person, please stop, if nothing else but for your own dignity.

Hate is actually irrational anyways, as negative emotions and situations are literally geared towards violence. Violence causes injury or death. Hate is not rational from a logical standpoint. Neurotic feelings are irrational. They're human, but feeling them in excess means that you are impulsive, more likely to provoke others, more likely to be provoked, and more susceptible to malaise and self-injury (be it accidental or not.).

They're literally come from the primitive part of your brain, that should tell you how utterly advanced they are.

So when you bash someone for believing something, you are literally succumbing to primitive behaviour. Unless you don't believe in psychology, in which case I really don't know what to tell you.

Sure, OP's argument made absolutely no valid points, (I'm sorry, but as someone who is on your side, it just doesn't.) however the title of this thread was a good one. You have no right to deny someone else's faith, because their faith does not belong to you, and neither do they. You literally hold yourself superior to that person when you deny them their faith. When you deny someone for what they believe in, you're saying that you're better than they are, that you know more, and that they are wrong. You make their decisions for them.

That's like if they were about to eat breakfast, and they wanted a bowl of oatmeal, and you went and told the server they actually have no idea what they're talking about, they want a banana instead, because you want them to have a banana.

And sure, maybe using breakfast as a metaphor for belief is sort of inane, but it's a simple way of describing the same mentality you have when you deny someone their belief or disbelief. Why do you do it? It's not your place. If you have parents who don't agree with your beliefs, and you believe that they have no right to speak for you, what gives you the right to speak for a total stranger? It doesn't make sense.

It's a power and ego vs reality and logic issue. Ego tells you that you have the power to make this decision. Reality and logic tell you that you're full of it. In short.

Hating an individual for something their religion does that has nothing to do with anything they've ever done or believed is really just self-defeating and ignorant. The same goes for hating someone who is an atheist just because there are moronic atheists out there.

It's called prejudice, and it's a human weakness, sure. But not one that's impossible to overcome.

I mean, if you're so selfish and childish that you could literally care less about respecting another human being even though they did nothing to you, I really don't know what to say to you. (Other than the fact that it's considered a mental defecit, but ok)

You can argue about if something exists or not all day long, but if your views are biased and relatively unchangeable in the first place, you're literally just facing your boat up a stream and rowing. It's a lot of work to get nowhere. If you're open to having a fact-based, civil conversation, and all sides are open to actual debate, THAT'S when arguments get somewhere.

[Miserabilia]

OK. Use some solid evidence and reasoning to prove to me the big bang happened. And I mean prove, not just give me theories.

The universe didn't always exist.
The universe had a start.
That start is called the big bang.
How do we know the universe had a start?

Hubble's law and the expansion of space

Cosmic microwave background radiation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png/220px-Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png

Abundance of primordial elements

Galactic evolution and distribution

Primordial gas clouds

That enough for you?
Because that is only the start.
Not only is there abbundence of proof, there is extraordinairy amounts of proof.

Not only that, it's also a theory that works; it works with what we know of the universe, you can apply it without having to attribute something with some new law or magic powers.

So why do we beleive in a big bang?
Because there is an extraordinairy amount of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The existence of a great being that can start life, create universes, and for some reason foceses on talking to humans and sending angels down to our planet, is EXTRAORDINAIRY. But there is no extraordinary evidence!

The only "evidence" there is for the existence of a god;
-Testimonial evidence
-Describing a god to anything unknown (Filling the gaps)

Those two are far from extraordinairy evidence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

An event or being that is so extraordinary is bound to leave evidence, if not there is no logical reason for beleiving it.

[sqishy]

I disagree that my opinions are solidified or unchanging. I can tell you exactly what it would take for me to change my mind. It would simply require the same level of evidence that it does to convince me of any new phenomenon. I don't treat claims about deities any differently.

If someone wanted to give evidence for a deity, they would first need to make a hypothesis. This is as simple as answering the question: in what observable way would a world with a deity be different from a world without. They would then have to make a specific prediction, then collect data showing that the prediction was correct.

There are many different things that they could do. They could provide some sort of divine revelation, offering previously unknown and accurate insight, they could repeatedly and reliably cure an incurable disease with the power of their deity, they could show a clear and unambiguous violation of the laws of physics, etc. while none of these would, on their own, prove a deity, if there were multiple convergent lines of evidence, they would lend strong support to the idea.

Instead, believers reply not with evidence, but with dogma. They assert that their position is true, offering no proof and hiding behind 'faith' as an excuse. Until someone can show me some good evidence for a deity, I will remain an atheist. However, that does not make me closed minded. If someone has the evidence, I will change my mind. Very few people taking the opposite position are willing to do the same.

Sorry, but I'm not reading this simply because I am not getting into this!
Nope!

Other people can read it and enter the word war.

[Gamma Male]

Debating something you disagree with is fine. And, no, the cement doesn't exist. It never did..Your thoughts existed. But thoughts of cement and cement are not the same. If YOU want to believe the cement existed, that's just fine. Beliefs are neat. A lot of people believe they're Napoleon. But until they prove they're Napoleon, they're wrong. And so are you. Until you prove otherwise.

And please, respond with counter-arguments, not personal insults.

[Camazotz]

OK. Use some solid evidence and reasoning to prove to me the big bang happened. And I mean prove, not just give me theories.

Read Cheese's response... Plus, I don't understand what you mean by "theories." A scientific theory is much different than what you may think it is. Gravity is "only a theory." Evolution is "only a theory." That doesn't mean they're invalid; they have plenty of testable, repeatable evidence to support it.

The universe didn't always exist.
The universe had a start.
That start is called the big bang.
How do we know the universe had a start?

Hubble's law and the expansion of space

Cosmic microwave background radiation

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png/220px-Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png)

Abundance of primordial elements

Galactic evolution and distribution

Primordial gas clouds

That enough for you?
Because that is only the start.
Not only is there abundance of proof, there is extraordinary amounts of proof.

Not only that, it's also a theory that works; it works with what we know of the universe, you can apply it without having to attribute something with some new law or magic powers.

So why do we believe in a big bang?
Because there is an extraordinary amount of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The existence of a great being that can start life, create universes, and for some reason foceses on talking to humans and sending angels down to our planet, is EXTRAORDINARY. But there is no extraordinary evidence!

The only "evidence" there is for the existence of a god;
-Testimonial evidence
-Describing a god to anything unknown (Filling the gaps)

Those two are far from extraordinary evidence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

An event or being that is so extraordinary is bound to leave evidence, if not there is no logical reason for believing it.

Sorry, but I'm not reading this simply because I am not getting into this!
Nope!

Other people can read it and enter the word war.

What's wrong with what he said? I don't understand. If you want people to believe in God, you need empirical evidence using the scientific method.

[JacobIN]

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/23/when-the-universe-was-twice-as-hot/
That's a good one. It's a lot to make sense of though.
Now, give some solid evidence that a deity exists.

The universe didn't always exist.
The universe had a start.
That start is called the big bang.
How do we know the universe had a start?

Hubble's law and the expansion of space

Cosmic microwave background radiation

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png/220px-Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png)

Abundance of primordial elements

Galactic evolution and distribution

Primordial gas clouds

That enough for you?
Because that is only the start.
Not only is there abbundence of proof, there is extraordinairy amounts of proof.

Not only that, it's also a theory that works; it works with what we know of the universe, you can apply it without having to attribute something with some new law or magic powers.

So why do we beleive in a big bang?
Because there is an extraordinairy amount of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The existence of a great being that can start life, create universes, and for some reason foceses on talking to humans and sending angels down to our planet, is EXTRAORDINAIRY. But there is no extraordinary evidence!

The only "evidence" there is for the existence of a god;
-Testimonial evidence
-Describing a god to anything unknown (Filling the gaps)

Those two are far from extraordinairy evidence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

An event or being that is so extraordinary is bound to leave evidence, if not there is no logical reason for beleiving it.

Read Cheese's response... Plus, I don't understand what you mean by "theories." A scientific theory is much different than what you may think it is. Gravity is "only a theory." Evolution is "only a theory." That doesn't mean they're invalid; they have plenty of testable, repeatable evidence to support it.





What's wrong with what he said? I don't understand. If you want people to believe in God, you need empirical evidence using the scientific method.



Everything you guys have is circumstantial. Now I'm not saying it didn't happen, what I'm am saying is there is no way possible to prove that it happened, short of being able to time travel back to than and watch it. Same thing with a deity.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just provoking thought.

[AlexOnToast]

What gets me about the argument for deity belief (and I'm not trying to personally diss anyone, you can have your own beliefs) is that the only "real" argument for it is always pretty much "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore that proves he exists"
I mean, thats HARDLY an argument, now is it...

[sqishy]

What's wrong with what he said? I don't understand. If you want people to believe in God, you need empirical evidence using the scientific method.

There is nothing wrong with what he's saying, I just am not getting into one of these debates again for a while. And I do not believe in a personal god, I am not giving my opinion or would-be side on this debate. Line drawn. __________________________________

[phuckphace]

if someone says "There is a God," the burden of proof is on them to prove that there is in fact a God. likewise if someone says "there is no God" the burden of proof is on them. at the end of the day, nobody can prove conclusively that there is or isn't a God out there. if God is real then he transcends our understanding, and any attempt by us humans to understand his divine nature would be futile.

personally I accept the theory that the universe came into existence about 13 billion years ago, and that life arose from natural processes and diversified via evolution. the evidence for this is very compelling. but I don't think that proves or disproves anything about the existence of God or a deity or whatever.

[Miserabilia]

Everything you guys have is circumstantial. Now I'm not saying it didn't happen, what I'm am saying is there is no way possible to prove that it happened, short of being able to time travel back to than and watch it. Same thing with a deity.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just provoking thought.

If you think this is circumstantial, then everything can't be proven, conclusion the universe doesn't exist and i can beleive anything I want because you can't proove anything.

NO. It does not work that way.
There are things called logic and science, and it's what we use to gather knowledge. You can't just say all of science is flawed (because that's what you're doing when you are saying that's not proove because you weren't there to watch it) and walk off.