God Is Dead Quotes

God Is Dead Quotes 500x293 God Is Dead Quotes Religion Quotes

AdNXS

Please like MCS on Facebook

Leave a comment ?

80 Responses to God Is Dead Quotes

  1. I’m glad some 13yo with MSPaint can not only Google qoutes, but has figured out the universe it seems.

    BTW, the “Only Stupid people believe in God” line of reasoning is always FTL. I don’t know how you Mensa founders haven’t figured that out yet.

  2. Mike Fuhrman? Is that Mark’s brother?

  3. Hey Staples, does the ad-hominem mean that you can’t find anything wrong with the actual quotes?

    No, saying that “only Stupid people believe in God” is faster-than-light is no argument. 1) It’s not one of the quotes in the wallpaper; 2) it’s a retarded non-sequitur.

  4. I especially liked the thing about prayers and work. And what that arab guy said.

  5. not only did the person who made this misinterpret the quotes but they took them out of context aswell. the epicurus quote was designed to illustrate free will not the absense of a divine presense.

  6. This should be called “Religion is Dead.” All but one of these quotes is about what people do in the name in of a god… their “God.”

    To deny any possibility of god in the universe is not only myopic, but also as asinine as most of these quotes. God belongs to no man. A man merely has his religion… his thoughts.

    To look at the organization of chaos in the universe and to honestly feel that there is no higher power, and then to accept that life on earth is a microcosm of the universe and that cognisant thought is a known fact… think of the organization of carbon molecules that had to be lined up in order for someone to make this image or someone else to read it… and you think it happened by accident?

    I do not go to church. That is religion. I also understand that there is a higher order. That is God.

    • Before you go believing in something without, as Franklin said, shutting the eyes of reason, you must first understand it. In order to understand something, you must be able to define it. So far, your definition of God is simply “a higher order”, a vague statement, but interpretable as true. In that case, yes, there is a God, according to your definition, as there is an obvious order to the universe, but the origin of said order is still very much up to debate. Most likely it is through harmonies in chaos, but I assume that your naming it God implies that you believe that this order is brought about through some higher consciousness or will. Now, if you can define that, much less make any headway toward empirically proving the point without jumping to “effect must imply cause” arguments, then you will have reason to believe in said God. Otherwise, your just as blindly faithful as other religions.

    • You use an argument from ignorance. I don’t understand how the universe came to be so something godlike must have been responsible. Go back and read the Dawkins quote again. Accident? No. Lots of accidents building upon each other and selected for by the capacity to reproduce and replicate? Yes. Reality does not need your consent.

      I don’t deny any possibility of the existence of a god, but rather find the evidence wholly lacking, especially where there should be evidence. God is such an extremely unlikely a concept in light of the evidence as to make faith a pointless excursion.

      • religious people will try to find loopholes in your statement lol. watch out, beware. because when you talk about their invisible man they go all berserk.

      • And you continue to demonstrate that you are completely devoid of autonomous thought. Again relying on the words of other humans in order to justify a conclusion that can not be scientifically nor philosophically proven.

        • I rely on the words of other humans with evidence, which happens to be how science progresses. There is no evidence of god where there should be evidence, hence, the god hypothesis has no support. Until there is evidence, I shall remain just as skeptical of god as I am of invisible unicorns.

          • What do you mean by there is no “evidence” 90% of the world believes in a god of some sort. If i recall proper science is based on consensus therefore there is scientific evidence for a god.

            Lets take a step back for a moment. I will admit that it is possible there is no evidence at all for the existence of God. The problem is, however, that this cannot be stated absolutely since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that there is evidence for the existence of God.

            Your argument makes no more sense than mine.

          • 90% of the world could believe that the moon was made of cheese. Doesn’t make it true. Lots of people believed in the greek, roman and norse pantheons, but it didn’t make them real.

            Of the available evidence, I am confident in the statement that there is no god. If someone had good evidence, we would have heard about it. So why believe in something with no evidence? If you are just agnostic, thats fine. Its a reasonable position. For me, atheism is provisional until evidence is presented.

            Science is based on consensus on the evidence. You could call evidence a god, but that goes against the definition.

          • Where do you get the 90% figure? I just returned from the Czech Republic where 59% of the country are listed as non-religious or atheist. In the US, that figure is roughly 16%. China is a much tougher one to measure since religion violates the doctrine of the state. Either way, I call bullshit on your figures.

            I’m not religious. To say I don’t believe in god(s) is the same as saying I don’t believe in unicorns or astrology. Why does the first draw a reaction but the latter two examples do not?

      • Okay, I will add a quote since you want me to read the Dawkins quote again. Are you planning to argue with Einstein, too? Probably.

        “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Albert Einstein, 1954

        I do not believe in religion, but there is a higher order. “Higher order.” “God.” Tomato; tomato.

      • You keep saying “Where there should be evidence” as if you know for sure you would actually be able to find evidence of the things you are refuting. Unlikely concepts do not imply impossibility.

        You say “in light of evidence”, but we have no actual evidence of what existed before the big bang. No one can scientifically prove or refute any of this, so making statements that imply that there should be evidence of either one or the other is also a pointless exercise.

        • That something is not impossible doesn’t imply it is equally likely either. The assumption that two things that are both “not impossible” have equal probabilities of being true is simply false. I can’t prove there are no unicorns either, but it doesn’t mean that the probability of there being unicorns is 50/50. In fact I, personally, am more confident that god doesn’t exist than that unicorns don’t exist, since an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient being seems far more unlikely, based on evidence.

  7. god plays dice its too much fun not to

  8. only sheep needs shepherds!!!

    motherfuckersss!!!

      • Dude snow, it’s hopeless. They are in such denial of their true nature that they would go to the ends of the earth and use any long winded argument to make them feel like they have one microns worth of truth in their beliefs. They are willingly blind to their own dogmaticism and if given the chance they would attempt to eradicate any idea that calls their supposed “truth” into question. They are the crusaders of the 21st century.

        • OK, what true nature do you speak of? (also, nice ad hom)

        • That atheists, agnostics and freethinkers don’t share your beliefs and enjoy poking holes in your non existent deities? That we are uppity and dare to vocally disagree? That we use reason and method to understand the world around us and don’t just say, wow, god is awesome!!!!11!one!

          I’ll admit thats my true nature if you will admit that yours is based on denial of evidence (ie faith exists in absence or in opposition to evidence by definition).

          • fuck me for fearing my own mortality right?

          • No. Fear of mortality makes perfect sense, but it isn’t a good reason to believe in god. Pascal’s wager fails when you look at the variety of religions and even opposing denominations within. Which one do you pick to base your wager on?

            I’m not looking forward to death, but I’ll enjoy this life to its fullest without any expectation of a do over or afterlife. It makes this life all the more precious.

          • that is not to say that i do not live life as fully as i can, i fucking love life. i do not follow any one organized religon because it is far too limiting. but i do not like to base my existence on coincedence because that implies that my existence means nothing.

          • Not quite. Existence is what you make of it. Even accidents can have value and significance.

          • bet you could put that in a fortune cookie.

          • What Evidence do i refute? I believe that the universe is 13 billion years old, i believe that man may have evolved from a common ancestor with apes. I even believe that god may not exist. I just don’t blindly believe that god doesn’t exist because man evolved from ape.

          • Great. We have some common ground. Now, do you agree that evolution is a functionally blind process? That it is a painful and wasteful process, full of dead ends, disease, parasitism, etc? How does a loving god fit into that?

            That common ancestry stretches back to single celled organisms? That abiogenesis before that involved processes that are by and large repeatable in the lab? God is needless based on what we know, and so, is removable from the system without any problems.

            Now, where is the evidence for god that cannot be explained just as well without god? Design? No, living organisms have too many design flaws, but live long enough to reproduce and rear young, as predicted by evolution. Order? No need for someone to set down physical laws when said laws could have arisen by chance.

            Negative evidence for gods existence must also be considered. And for this, there is plenty. Prayer doesn’t work. Miracles? All explainable by natural causes and/or by people being dishonest.

          • you are following the diagram of god laid down by religon. you have to forget religous doctrines and scriptures because they have no more idea or evidence of god than i do. miricles and prayer are something that are a product of religous mythos and have nothing to do with my perception of a god. how do you explain thought? how do you explain the mind? does it exist in any known biological way?

          • Thought and the mind are being explained by neuroanatomy, electrical and chemical processes, etc. It isn’t all explained, but science is on the way to explaining it as far better than the concept of a supernatural soul. A wholly naturalistic system is enough to explain the mind as a product of the brain, especially in light of brain imaging studies of healthy and sick individuals, effects of brain injury and chemicals on behavior, degenerative disorders and the like.

          • ok fair point but if they are still finding evidence of the mind and thought in neuroanatomy via chemical reactinos within the brain, whats to stop them finding evidence somewhere further down the track of a supernatural fingerprint? it was once widly thought that the world was flat.

            i dont want you to believe in god. i do. what the fuck is the problem?

          • Well, its possible, but very unlikely. We haven’t found a TM or (R) anywhere so far.

            Also the evidence for a round world was plain to see and well known throughout the civilized world. The don’t sail off the edge is an urban legend, as is the claim that the RC church was a huge fan of a flat earth.

            Go ahead and believe if you want. Enjoy. But expect disagreement and debate on the internets.

          • fracked i do not follow a church as i have said on multiple occasions please dont lump me in with organised religon.

          • I don’t think I said you follow a church, but organized or not, enjoy.

          • I’m going to answer the rest of this below.

          • Before we continue lets get a few things straight.

            I am not an agnostic. I am actually a judeo-christian, but before i “returned to god” (for lack of a better phrase.) I was a militant atheist. Trust me when i say there is no argument that you can pose that i have not thought over. I just do not make the error of dedicating myself to certainty. I believe that there is a rational explanation to the tipping points that led to me becoming a theist again but i also believe that it is not the only explanation. I do not belong to a church, in fact i actively speak out against churches on a frequent basis. I’m raising my kid to think whatever the hell he wants. If he wants to be an atheist,yeah i will be dissapointed but i would still love him all the same. Just like how i don’t admonish you for being an atheist. If you were laying in the middle of the road dying i would show you all the same love and care as i would any other human regardless of belief. But i would be a liar if i said i have not passed judgement on you or that i have not responded to you negatively. And don’t think that because i may not like you that i neccessarily hate you. It’s just that I react emotionally when people act emotionally, and sometimes it is hard to stay 100% emotionless in an argument. I know at the end of this argument you will still be an atheist just as i will still be a deist, but regardless of that it is my natural instinct to defend my beliefs ( just as it is yours) but it is also my instinct to re-examine them as well. My ultimate goal with this is to shatter your notions of what believing in god means. I’d be a liar if i said i don’t want you to convert (I am sure you would have no objections if all of a sudden the whole world turned atheist tomorrow) part of me does, but i would rather you do it because you found god on your own terms, not because some dick on the internet said you should.

            Science is based on consensus? So if science says it is true then it must be true? That is the entire basis of your argument? Or am i misrepresenting you here? is it because the scientific method is what give science validity? Well then by what authority does the scientific method get It would seem that you forget that at any moment science can be proven wrong. Here is a prime example So if the whole basis of your argument is that scientific truth is the only truth then that is a pretty weak argument. That is equivalent to me saying “the sun shines because god says so” If i had mary kate olsen at my house and i surveyed people and had them walk through my house and they all said that mary kate wasn’t there would that mean she isn’t there? If they dissected my house and published it and had the findings reviewed by peers and everyone agreed ” yes mary kate was not there” does that mean it was true? No, because mary kate had left my house before anyone even arrived there, or she was hidden in a spot where people did not look a place where there technologies were limited or incapable of viewing. That is the problem with science, there is no true objectivity no matter how many people say there is. I mean come on scientists can’t agree with wether or not milk makes you skinny or fat.

            What need is there for science then? If the basis of your argument is that there is no need for god then that is not a good argument.A need for a god is irrelevant and providing god exists his need would still be irrelevant. Why? Well we both agree that the universe is self driving in a sense correct? That is to say we don’t need god to say ” photons bounce off of this object so that creatures may see it” So then would it not be logical to assume that if god created the universe that he designed it so that it may function without him? The whole “god is dead” statement may be truer than you think. Perhaps god actually died and set up the universe ( or at least our planet) so that it may function without him. Why do you assume that god has a purpose or that he gave us a purpose? What if god just got bored with us got up and left? But furthermore what makes you assume that our observations are accurately interpreted?

            Negative evidence for gods existence must also be considered. And for this, there is plenty. Prayer doesn’t work. Miracles? All explainable by natural causes and/or by people being dishonest.

            I will admit that it is possible there is no evidence at all for the existence of God. The problem is, however, that this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that there is evidence for the existence of God.

            So since it is possible that evidence for the existence of God exists then what kind of evidence is acceptable? I can provide all kinds of evidence that God exists. There are many other philosophers, theologians and yes even scientists that can provide substantial evidence for the existence of God. You see, the problem really is that ultimately you don’t like the evidence that people provide for the existence of God so you simply say that the evidence provided doesn’t count. Well, you can’t just ignore the evidence being provided and then continue to claim that there is no evidence! Thats simply illogical. If you want to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God then you have to at least provide evidence to the contrary. I have yet to see a single atheist provide concrete evidence that can prove there is no god, and i have yet to see a theist prove that there is one.

            Think of it in terms of a legal trial where Theists are on trial defending their beliefs in God and the Atheists are the prosecution. The Theists are put up on the stand first to present evidence for the existance of God. The Theists present their evidence then it is then up to the prosecution – the Atheists – to provide evidence to the contrary. The prosecution in a legal trial can’t just stand up and say, “Their evidence isn’t valid therefore we don’t believe it!” and expect to win the trial! They would be the laughing stock of the legal community. The prosecution in this case has the burden of proof and must provide evidence that proves the defendant guilty. Similarly, Atheists can’t just make the claim that there is no evidence that God exists. They MUST provide evidence to the contrary, which we already established is impossible because all evidence cannot be known therefore all evidence cannot be disproved.

            So what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? Most Atheists tell me that if God would come to them and show himself to them physically or talk to them or if they could experience God in some form that is irrefutable then they would believe. This is highly illogical and unreasonable.

            If you are looking for evidence of something you can’t just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it’s not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can’t tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my wife was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden she bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my wife is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can’t just say, “I don’t believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me.”

            Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.

            In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn’t scientific or because it isn’t what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God’s existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption.

            Science is based on consensus? So if science says it is true then it must be true? That is the entire basis of your argument? It would seem that you forget that at any moment science can be proven wrong. Here is a prime example So if the whole basis of your argument is that scientific truth is the only truth then that is a pretty weak argument. If i had mary kate olsen at my house and i surveyed people and had them walk through my house and they all said that mary kate wasn’t there would that mean she isn’t there? If they dissected my house and published it and had the findings reviewed by peers and everyone agreed ” yes mary kate was not there” does that mean it was true? No, because mary kate had left my house before anyone even arrived there, or she was hidden in a spot where people did not look a place where there technologies were limited or incapable of viewing. That is the problem with science, there is no true objectivity no matter how many people say there is. But hey maybe i am misrepresenting you here.

            How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it’s “scientific”? Because science said so? So i pose to you the question “By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion”?

            “We should use the scientific method.” Why should we? “It proves itself.” How does it prove itself? “It uses the scientific method.”
            “The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident).”

            Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.

            To not believe in the possibility of a god is just ridiculous to me. We barely comprehend how our own brains work let alone how the entire universe works and came into being. We are astonishingly primitive.

            “Not quite. Existence is what you make of it. Even accidents can have value and significance.”

            I could not agree with that statement more. Believe it or not that is a core principle behind judeo-christianity, although most christians and many angry atheists would like you to believe otherwise.

            Now look, this does not mean to say that science is a bad thing or that we should abandon it. Science has done countless wonderful things for us and brings us closer into understanding how our world and our universe carrys out it’s actions. I LOVE science. It’s just not the definitive answer to all of our questions.

          • “I will admit that it is possible there is no evidence at all for the existence of God. The problem is, however, that this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that there is evidence for the existence of God.”

            How long do you expect to wait for evidence? Since the evidence is not here right “now”, why would you use your time and life to devote to something you don’t possibly know it’s 100% there/truth. What do you think is logical? what is your rational thought?

            “So since it is possible that evidence for the existence of God exists then what kind of evidence is acceptable? I can provide all kinds of evidence that God exists. There are many other philosophers, theologians and yes even scientists that can provide substantial evidence for the existence of God. You see, the problem really is that ultimately you don’t like the evidence that people provide for the existence of God so you simply say that the evidence provided doesn’t count. Well, you can’t just ignore the evidence being provided and then continue to claim that there is no evidence! Thats simply illogical.”

            First of, people’s occupation have no right of way in who provides the truth. To where I might say you’re right that people are blindly unable to accept the “proof”. You have to be fair and add all categories to the playing board. What about the people who are mature enough to accept to be wrong. They’re going to be categorize with the unmature? because they don’t accept what has been handed to them on the table? what if let’s say your truth isn’t logic enough for them. what is one to do?

            “Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.”

            That’s a question nobody can answer. not believers or non-believers. Nobody can judge that it’s fake or not. It’s impossible.

            “Science is based on consensus? So if science says it is true then it must be true? That is the entire basis of your argument? It would seem that you forget that at any moment science can be proven wrong. Here is a prime example So if the whole basis of your argument is that scientific truth is the only truth then that is a pretty weak argument. If i had mary kate olsen at my house and i surveyed people and had them walk through my house and they all said that mary kate wasn’t there would that mean she isn’t there? If they dissected my house and published it and had the findings reviewed by peers and everyone agreed ” yes mary kate was not there” does that mean it was true? No, because mary kate had left my house before anyone even arrived there, or she was hidden in a spot where people did not look a place where there technologies were limited or incapable of viewing. That is the problem with science, there is no true objectivity no matter how many people say there is. But hey maybe i am misrepresenting you here.”

            Science can always be proven wrong. But science is taking a step forward to find out what is true or not. IMO people work with the system that when something has been logically proven true not by coincidence but based on scientific advancements on other stuff that has been proven true. Each fact that they find out is a foundation for a theory that has the possibility to be a fact. If there is proof to be likewise then it will remain a theory until more proof can be found.

            ““We should use the scientific method.” Why should we? “It proves itself.” How does it prove itself? “It uses the scientific method.”
            “The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident).”

            Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.”

            I’m sure you’re aware of modus ponens.
            If People have no oxygen, They die.
            They have no oxygen,
            therefore they die.

            What if this known fact can be proven wrong.
            Someone has brought proof that shows likewise?
            Then this will become a theory, simple.
            It’s not about if i like your proof or not. It’s just if it’s logical enough. If you bring me proof that god do exist.
            Show me this proof and work with me through it.
            I will challenge you with questions. Once your proof can pass all the obstacles of different arguments of why this and that. Then your proof is logical. You cannot just say:”why isn’t this NOT true?” because you are the person who is presenting proof that my statement is not true. It’s illogical to say show me proof that god “doesn’t” exist. We are asking the questions.

            (Some) Non-believers are out there to find the truth not to hate you believers but because we doubt what has been showed to us. If we can have logical proof, I’m sure we would become believers then.

          • OK, so you are a deist. I used to be one, but had to admit that it no longer made sense in the light of the evidence. In fact, by Occam’s razor, a deistic god is completely unnecessary.

            In science, consensus is important, and as data and evidence are improved, the consensus will change. Saying that science has been wrong in the past is not proof that it is currently wrong. The supernova example is interesting, but it only means that there is more work to be done, not that the scientific method is inherently faulty. Saying that scientists disagree on some point is similarly useless. Thats how science works! Competing ideas are examined and the one with the best evidence is favored.

            Is your Mary Kate Olson story meant to be proof that god existed at one time, but doesn’t now? That Jesus has left the building? That such evidence may be ephemeral? Thats just special pleading and post hoc reasoning. Mary Kate Olson exists and that can be proved. Your house exists and that can be proved. God’s existence cannot be proved, so the parable doesn’t apply.

            I wouldn’t say that scientific truth is the only truth (as science points to likely truth, not absolute truth) but rather that information reached by experimentation and observation tends to the most useful information as it is verifiable. Philosophy is all well and good, and science cannot answer (many) moral questions, so I’m not saying that moral guidelines aren’t useful, but rather that adding superstition is useless.

            “But furthermore what makes you assume that our observations are accurately interpreted?”

            Because observations can be verified and experiments can be repeated. You admit that there may be no evidence for a god. Great. Is it possible that we haven’t found it yet? It is possible, but incredibly unlikely. Thats an argument from ignorance anyway.

            Your legal case is similarly useless. The existence of a supernatural entity is a claim that lacks evidence, it is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Any evidence provided by the theists would be challenged and thrown out by the court as inadmissible and hearsay. Any evidence that did make it past a basic hearing would be debunked, not just doubted.

            “In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn’t scientific or because it isn’t what YOU want?”

            In science, we look at the evidence, spin multiple hypotheses and then try to prove those hypotheses wrong. We show our evidence to each other and our colleagues try to prove us wrong. We check each other’s data and conclusions. If something that is incorrect makes it past these first and second examinations, it can still be disproved by somebody in the future, based on evidence. Your argument is similar to the ontological argument, and very similar to Alvin Plantigina, in that if human observation is fallible, God cannot be disproved. Bollocks to that, too. If god’s existence is found at a p value of .051 but not < .05 then god statistical value is nil compared to such things as the half life of radioactive isotopes or the speed of light in a vacuum. We get damn close to objective with this and a well designed experiment removes bias and prejudice. And apparently, god.

            "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion”?"

            Evidence and repetition. Observation and experimentation. Induction and deduction. Put simply, science works, bitches. Perhaps we need to visit the use of the word "proves." By proves, we mean test, similar to a mathematic proof. When something fails a test, we either adapt or improve our hypothesis or completely reject it.

            Religion is stagnant. It is locked into bronze age superstition at best or post modern silliness at worst. Post modern silliness like the thought that there is no objective truth.

            "We barely comprehend how our own brains work let alone how the entire universe works and came into being. We are astonishingly primitive."

            Argument from ignorance. We know a fair bit about how the brain works, and there is no ghost in the machine, so to speak. Not knowing is no reason to assume supernatural activity. No electrical activity in the brain? Thats it. Curtains.

            "Believe it or not that is a core principle behind judeo-christianity, although most christians and many angry atheists would like you to believe otherwise."

            Depends on if you are part of a deterministic tradition, but that's neither here nor there. That specificly was in response to snow's statement that he was unhappy with an accidental and un-caused existence. I have yet to come across a theistic religion that did not claim a supernatural creation, which is plainly non evidence based.

            You love science? Think scientifically. I don't claim it can answer all questions and never did make that claim, but religion doesn't offer any answers that you couldn't come up with on your own. Don't kill people. Don't steal. Don't lie. Etc. Spirituality is nice, but less productive than knitting. We don't want to take away your knitting needles, but rather ask that religion and spirituality be considered no higher than knitting when making decisions.

          • Fuck, I had a reply and it got lost. Oh well. I’ll make it short(er), but with added snark. You rely on way too many logical fallacies for me to find your response very challenging, and your complete lack of knowledge on such things as the Big Bang makes me think you haven’t thought about science very deeply. I don’t dislike you personally, and internetally, you merit a meh. Arguments from ignorance are not useful. If you don’t know, that doesn’t mean the default explanation is supernatural.

            Not understanding exactly how the brain works is not evidence of the supernatural. How incredibly intellectually lazy to rely on such a construct! We know enough to say that there is no ghost in the shell. When electrical activity ceases, thats it. Curtains. Dead parrot and all.

            M.K.Olson exists. Your house exists. Snakes exist and your yard exists. All of these can be proved. No evidence for god except for the possible evidence that we don’t have? Bollocks. That isn’t objective enough? Bollocks, again.

            Objectivity is reached by examining the evidence, spinning multiple hypotheses, then trying to prove those hypotheses wrong. Next step, others examine our conclusions and try to prove us wrong before we publish. After we publish, people still try to prove us wrong! And thats good! With a well designed experiment, removing bias and prejudice, with repeated review, you get damn close to objectivity. That isn’t faith in a method, but understanding that the method is fallible but self correcting. Can we interview M.K.Olson? Can we check to see if she had a phone there, and it shows on location tracking? Any hairs to test for DNA? Not being there does not prevent us from examining the hypothesis that she was there, but what you don’t seem to get is that the real hypothesis we are testing is the null hypothesis, that says she was not there. That is what we are looking to disprove.

            Also, proving something scientifically means testing it. Thats how we know the scientific method works. It is all about “proving” things. Thats why the scientific method is better than faith or religion. Testing those gets you stoned, which is a bad thing unless you are a Rastafarian.

            Science has been wrong before (milk and supernovas!). But you know who points out where it was wrong? Scientists, not the pope or a snake handling preacher man or any other religious leader, but a fellow scientist using the scientific method!

            I reject the evidence presented because it is either flawed or fraud, and I’m not the only one to say that. But hey, if you can prove anything supernatural, get it in the paper and try for the James Randi million dollar challenge. I also reject the ontological and cosmological arguments you seem to be referencing as inherently useless. “I think therefore God is,” and “God has to exist,” is a pile of crap. And if you believe in a non interceding deistic god, as you say, what use is your god, and how could it even begin to be found? A deistic god is the least parsimonious (unnecessary complication) of all possible gods!

            Your court trial would fail as well, as the theistic evidence would never be ruled admissible, and even if it was, it would be destroyed in cross examination, not by simple doubt, but by investigation and demonstration that the evidence is no more than hearsay or blatant fraud.

            If you love science, think scientifically. It doesn’t answer all questions, but when combined with common sense it answers more than any religion does. Don’t kill, steal, lie? Nobody needs a god to figure those out. Don’t eat pork? Only a god buggerer would come up with something that stupid, but experimentation would show that pork is good if cooked properly.

            The rest of it, ColumbianMonkey says just fine.

          • Shit, that was directed at ColombianMonkey.

          • You are avoiding the question. Where is the evidence that says otherwise? There is no scientifically verifiable evidence on either side of the equation. Don’t chalk up science like it is this big infallible machine that can unlock all of the answers of our existence. I can’t prove to you that there is a god no more than i can prove that mary kate olsen is giving me a blow job right now. The fact is that atheism is no more supported by science than christianity.

          • Well just as i expected you again marginalized me as some science hating uneducated buffoon. You have completely mis represented and largely ignored my arguments.

            “Not understanding exactly how the brain works is not evidence of the supernatural. How incredibly intellectually lazy to rely on such a construct! We know enough to say that there is no ghost in the shell. When electrical activity ceases, thats it. Curtains. Dead parrot and all.”

            No we do not. All we know is that the body stops functioning. That is it,that is all you know. That does not prove there is no such thing as a spirit. Understanding the brain does not mean the supernatural does not exist. Again where are you getting this notion that the scientific answer is the only answer? At the end of the day your argument relies on the whole ” i’ve never seen it so it must not be true defense”

            You are grossly misrepresenting my argument. Again you are relying on the data being fed to you has not been tampered with by the people reporting it. I can do double blind studies and get close to true objectivity but the very fact that a scientist has to interpret/report the data removes the objectivity. This doesn’t mean that humans don’t need oxygen now does it

            “and your complete lack of knowledge on such things as the Big Bang makes me think you haven’t thought about science very deeply. I don’t dislike you personally, and internetally, you merit a meh. Arguments from ignorance are not useful. If you don’t know, that doesn’t mean the default explanation is supernatural.”

            The big bang theory is not that complex of a theory to understand. The universe started off in an extremely dense and due to the wonders of thermodynamics the universe started spontaneously expanding
            Who says that the default explanation is supernatural? Why can’t the two coexist? Because science says so? It is not the role of science to prove or disprove god. The roll of science is not to Does this mean science is wrong? No, all it does is demonstrate that once you change the number of protons in an atom it changes into a different element. That is hardly proof of a god not existing. I am not saying that the big bang never happened. The big gaping hole in the atheist argument is that this mass of extrememly dense and hot matter just happened to have existed for no reason whatsoever, it just IS. Well is that not as absurd as saying perhaps god has always existed? What do you have to disprove this? It doesn’t matter which side of the argument you are on you hit a brick wall. Why can’t you say “i do not know if a god does or does not exist?” I am a christian and i am completely comfortable saying “god may not exist”

            As far as the big bang theory goes i have “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question?” on order.

            Either way i think ultimately we will not see eye to eye on this issue. We both agree that science has its’ merit so maybe we should let that unite us, yes? So perhaps we should agree to disagree. After all we are both humans are we not ?

          • One difference though, locust. Science doesn’t say whether or not god exists and doesn’t try to. That is not in the purview of scientific method. Religion (religion =! god, I know), those that believe in god do intrude themselves in science. For the most part, atheists didn’t say much publicly (in America) and just went about their scientific business. Most of this started because believers-in-god tried to tell scientists what science is. I know that they are not you, but it does raise my hackles every time this argument comes up.

          • Hells bells, lotus, if you had something worth responding to, I would have!

            Yes, a scientist can lie about evidence, but they get found out by another scientist eventually. Every time. Science is self correcting. Religion and the supernatural never self correct. They only form new splinter groups.

            You ask for the evidence that we have that god isn’t there? I already gave a few examples. You want a supernatural world, but don’t want the responsibility to show that there is even an ounce of evidence it exists. Wanting isn’t enough.

            Before, you commented, “You already believe that the universe just magically appeared out of nowhere.” Sorry, but that sounds pretty buffoonish to me.

            The scientific answer is the only one reached by careful observation and is the only answer that is verifiable. Philosophy and wanting there to be a soul is all well and good, but without evidence, it is just mental masturbation, like your M.K.Olson obsession.

            “Who says that the default explanation is supernatural?”

            You do. All of your arguments from ignorance are based around science doesn’t know everything about x, so therefore y.”

            Why can’t the supernatural coexist with the natural? Because every time the supernatural has been examined, every claim that it exists, every earnest proponent, it has failed to show any existence. It isn’t there. Quit taking Ghost Hunters as science! (thats a joke, nobody thinks Ghost Hunters is real)

            Add The God Delusion to your reading list next time.

          • For example: Lets say that my wife was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden she bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my wife is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can’t just say, “I don’t believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me.”

            I would if she said it was a dragon-unicorn.

            Think of it in terms of a legal trial where Theists are on trial defending their beliefs in God and the Atheists are the prosecution. The Theists are put up on the stand first to present evidence for the existance of God. The Theists present their evidence then it is then up to the prosecution – the Atheists – to provide evidence to the contrary. The prosecution in a legal trial can’t just stand up and say, “Their evidence isn’t valid therefore we don’t believe it!” and expect to win the trial! They would be the laughing stock of the legal community. The prosecution in this case has the burden of proof and must provide evidence that proves the defendant guilty. Similarly, Atheists can’t just make the claim that there is no evidence that God exists. They MUST provide evidence to the contrary, which we already established is impossible because all evidence cannot be known therefore all evidence cannot be disproved.

            If this (Glenn Beck OLIGARHY) is the the ‘proof’ given; then yes, the prosecution can say to the judge, “Their evidence isn’t valid therefore we don’t believe it!”

            Ok, all that garbage said; locust is good people and I would never make fun of him (unless he were in on the joke ;)) because of his beliefs. I respect anyone that has put the time and thought into their belief system and not end up insane. My problem is not w/ religious people; it’s w/ people that have given no thought to what and why they believe. He’s clearly chosen his belief system. How many of you can say the same?

          • Oh, and neither he nor I need absolute certainty. I’m ok w/ not knowing the absolute Truth about absolutely Everything.

          • I would contribute to this discussion but I am busy praying to our lord jesus christ while simultaneously giving him/her/it the finger hoping Odin would come and beat the shit out of Jesus so we wouldn’t have to hear about him and his pussy ass homies anymore. If Odin couldn’t do the job(not that I doubt him) I’d give Pele offerings so she could come and kick Jesus’s pussy ass for all the womenz that his religion has made life hard for.

            Atheists can say whatever the fuck they want. There is no solid proof that a douche single deity exists. Which is why I personally believe there are more than one douche god or none.

            The world has bigger problems than everyone arguing if there is a douche god or not or using a douche god as an excuse to do horrible things in this world.

            Locus needs a fucking tissue. Religious beliefs are only good for fucking up other peoples lives with their selfish beliefs.

            Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Has incest with his children monthly. Works for Skull and Bones. Regularly fucks Jesus in the ass whilst giving BJ’s to Republican Congressmen.

            Furthermore blame casemods.

          • tiki:
            Blockquoting isn’t really showing up well. It needs contrast or something.

          • Oh you know i love your heathen ass Nyokkles. also, fuck glenn beck.

          • Goodness me… Objective logic? ON THE INTERNET? IMPOSSIBLE!!! :D

          • First you use consensus as evidence of god.

            What do you mean by there is no “evidence” 90% of the world believes in a god of some sort. If i recall proper science is based on consensus therefore there is scientific evidence for a god

            Then you say:

            Science is based on consensus? So if science says it is true then it must be true? That is the entire basis of your argument? It would seem that you forget that at any moment science can be proven wrong.

          • Faith is indeed based on belief without proof, that is a point no one should be able to reasonably argue.

            However by the same token, we lack the ability to either prove or disprove the existence of “deities” (for lack of a better word), so you cannot claim reason or method as support for your contention that they are “non-existent”.

            You should at least be true to your own claimed method.

        • Whoa whoa whoa… lol your words are very nice but I think they would be better fitted for your persona.
          look it can be very simple.
          Maybe 4chan language? I suppose?
          “Pic’s or it didn’t happen!!”
          How hard is that to understand???
          How about “guilty until proven innocent?” just be smart.
          The knowledge that has gotten you to reach this far in life.

          You actually want to blindly believe that there is some guy or girl
          with super power who control everything and anything is up in the sky
          watching everyone and checking off people who will go hell or heaven etc…

          Don’t you for one moment logically, all the things you saw and heard in your life for the past 20 years let us say.
          “Doubt” that for one tiny second that it “can” be bullshit?
          Tell me what if in the end.
          There was no such god and you’ve been trolled on the highest authority,
          going down on your knees for words and stories? Wouldn’t you feel like a dumbass?
          I know I would.
          If there is a god please let him come and prove us wrong.
          Let us be the one that are wrong if you 100% believe we really are.
          Why cannot religious people accept that question?
          Don’t blame me for the past couple centuries that there wasn’t no (real) proof god is there.
          Don’t blame me for thinking and asking questions.
          Don’t curse me for not believing in a fictional person. if he is really there.
          Then yea we are wrong, so simple to understand.
          But complaining on what I “think” is just proving you (general speaking) don’t follow
          your own religious rules to successful happiness.
          Which more doubt proves me that my opinion is more realistic.
          It’s very funny how people who claim to be genius who are in fact very smart in certain area’s but when it comes to religion they faithfully limit their complete mind to a book that was written by a human.
          How can you not grasp how extremely dangerous that is.

          Well to understand you would need to have intelligence in the first place ;)
          I don’t hate god, I don’t murder those who don’t believe what I believe.
          I’m just smart “enough” to ask questions before I believe in religion.
          Oh oh and just for the record…things that happen in coincidence doesn’t mean its truth or even proof.
          There is a difference!

  9. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruQy-X32O0

    she talks some words i dunno but she has nice pretty face. (relevent to this topic???)

  10. Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad on a trampoline! What ever happened to “live and let live”? I’m religious, but I don’t hate on Atheists. The most we can hope for is to prove it to ourselves the existence of God or not. And because I’m not in the preachin’ business, that’s good enough for me.

  11. -6? Nice! Now if only ratings meant something important, i’d be boned. This thread is textbook TL:DR so I only have two quick replies:

    “No, saying that “only Stupid people believe in God” is faster-than-light is no argument. 1) It’s not one of the quotes in the wallpaper; 2) it’s a retarded non-sequitur.”
    Re-Read the quote by Ali-Alu-Nahasapeemapetilon. Your smugness is apparently blinding you.

    “Lots of accidents building upon each other and selected for by the capacity to reproduce and replicate?”
    Selected? By who? I hope you aren’t implying that “chance” was trying to solve the jigsaw puzzle of universal life by placing each piece next to each other before it found one to fit.
    I say “hope” because 1) that’s not a chance occurance 2) You take away the very real “Scientific” trial-and-error consequences of dicking your puzzle by placing the wrong peices side-by-side.

  12. Whatever, I don’t care…Ooooh Cheeseburger!




Tags!

Advertisements Alcohol Animated Image Art awesome Awesome Things Cars Comic Books Computers cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Fantasy - Science Fiction fashion Food forum fodder Forum Fodder funny Gaming GIFS Humor interesting lolcats Military Movies Music Nature not exactly safe for work Politics Religion rss post Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports star wars Technology Television Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons women wtf