Your thoughts?

Belief in God is characterised by this thing called "faith". Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and in consequence stands one hundred per cent opposed to critical thinking and Scepticism. Because God serves as an explanation when men are confronted with something to them unexplainable, God disappears and will continue to disappear in proportion as man's ignorance disappears. For example, earthquakes used to be explained as the work of God; we now know that they are the result of tectonic plate movements. People say that they experienced God in near-death experiences; we now know from scientific studies that the sensations are the result of oxygen deprivation to the brain. And so on. The 'God' idea moreover has never measured up to the application of 2 criteria, namely: impossibility of a scientific explanation, consistency, and an independent account from others. In a pitiful attempt to defend his belief in God which he knows but will not admit is wholly baseless, the theist employs pseudo-scientific methodology as he denies all contrary evidence, turns a blind eye to everything which does not confirm his breed of theism; if this fails, he will then rationalise that his beleifs are based on 'faith', and not reason, and therefore do not require evidence or argumentation. He will reject the discipline of science, and finally, realising that every philosophical argument - ontological, cosmological, anthropological, to name a few - has been debunked, he will reject philosophy as well.

There is no reason to believe that God exists, and the burden of proof is on the theists for affirming his existence.

I don't believe in a God. Where's the proof?

I follow science? Where's the proof? Everywhere.


Any God who tells a few people to tell everyone else to believe in him or they'll go to hell and burn for all eternity but he wont show himself to them is kinda mean :D as an example.

Religion just seems to change its story when ever something they believe is proven wrong. And then they like to either believe that it was either a test of faith or they always believed it.

Just look at them burning people at the stake for believing the world was a sphere and revolved around the sun. Surely a god wouldn't make that kind of mistake.


I see religion as an early form of science to explain how the universe works. Over time though better answers were found but the religion forgot to vanish.

Science cannot explain where the Universe came from, much less the metaphysical. I cannot prove that God exists, but neither can His existence be disproven.

Incidentally, for most of the population, belief in such things as the distances between galaxies is as much an exercise in faith as belief in God. I am also struck by some people's belief, approaching the fanatical, in extraterrestrial life in the absence of any proof.

I don't know but it's nice to think so.

It depends how you define God. If one is talking about forces of nature or the psyche as in "the gods" then I believe. I would even go so far as to admit 'believing makes it so' if there are enough people believing. I have no doubt, for example, that Rama exists -- if in no other place than the minds of millions of Hindus.

Science cannot explain where the Universe came from, much less the metaphysical. I cannot prove that God exists, but neither can His existence be disproven.

Incidentally, for most of the population, belief in such things as the distances between galaxies is as much an exercise in faith as belief in God. I am also struck by some people's belief, approaching the fanatical, in extraterrestrial life in the absence of any proof.

There are theories as to how the universe came into being but unlike religion you aren't told to believe it or else and no scientist will actually tell you that that IS how it happened, just that that's how it MAY have happened.

There are theories as to how the universe came into being but unlike religion you aren't told to believe it or else and no scientist will actually tell you that that IS how it happened, just that that's how it MAY have happened.

How men act as a result of their particular belief in God has nothing to do with the issue of whether God exists or the limits of science. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

Yes God does exist.

"A little philosophy inclienth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
--Francis Bacon "Of Atheism" 1625

"An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can’t see....."
--O.A. Battista : Power to Influence People c.1959

"Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power....."
--Plato

Something is self-existent, but there's zero evidence that that "something" is a God. It might just be the universe itself.

The God of the Bible has as much probability of existing as Zeus or Apollo. There is every reason to view the Bible as a work of mythology, just like all other religious writings from hieroglyphs to the Koran to whatever those people in the Heaven's Gate cult wrote in their personal journals.

A God of some other sort might exist, but if so, He's evidently not concerned with human beings. If He were, then obviously He'd show everyone that He exists. He has never done so.

If the God of the Bible existed and wanted people to do His will, He'd simply stand there in the sky, in full view of everyone, and issue commands to every individual. Otherwise, how the hell are we supposed to know His will? From a book?! LOL! Anyone can write a book, and God ought to know that. You'd think that God would understand that people don't want to follow some command just because someone attributed it to God.

Let's say that rather than receiving a message from God to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham is given the message in a less direct way. Some strange guy walks up to Abraham and says, "Psst! God told me to tell you to sacrifice your son. If you don't do it, then you'll go to hell." (Never mind that the concept of hell hadn't been invented back then -- at least it was unknown to the Hebrews.) How could Abraham be expected to heed that message? How does he know it's really from God? That's the situation in which we find ourselves with all organized religion. To trust in religion in to trust in other people, not in God. It's pure gullibility. Unfortunately, people aren't just losing money over it -- they're losing their lives, in a sense.

"Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power....."
--Plato
This quote simply underscores one of the main reason why people cling to religion: because they fear death and want to live forever. No one wants to enter oblivion -- oblivion is a frightening concept. But that's almost certainly what awaits us all.

A God of some other sort might exist, but if so, He's evidently not concerned with human beings. If He were, then obviously He'd show everyone that He exists. He has never done so.

If the God of the Bible existed and wanted people to do His will, He'd simply stand there in the sky, in full view of everyone, and issue commands to every individual.

No He wouldn't, because He has said that Man is made in the image of God (i.e., endowed with free will), and that salvation is through faith. If God were to reveal himself completely, then it would destroy free will since Man would no longer be presented with a choice to believe in God or not.

No He wouldn't, because He has said that Man is made in the image of God (i.e., endowed with free will), and that salvation is through faith. If God were to reveal himself completely, then it would destroy free will since Man would no longer be presented with a choice to believe in God or not.

If Satan revealed himself, alongside God, choice would be reestablished.

Science cannot explain where the Universe came from,
Replace 'cannot' with 'has not' and you would be right.
I cannot prove that God exists, but neither can His existence be disproven.
No one can prove that pink dragons don't exist. Do not try to shift the burden of proof.

Replace 'has not' with 'cannot' and you would be right.

No one can prove that pink dragons don't exist. Do not try to shift the burden of proof.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof. I've already told you I cannot prove that God exists.

I don't think Man will be able to discern the origin of the Universe because Man, as a physical creature of the Universe, does not have access to the metaphysical plane.

I'm not shifting the burden of proof. I've already told you I cannot prove that God exists.
Then what reason is there to suppose his existence? our ignorance of the origins of the universe? How is that any different, logically, from using a mythical figure such as Zeis to explain earthquakes when we were ignorant of the causes of earthquakes?
I don't think Man will be able to discern the origin of the Universe because Man, as a physical creature of the Universe, does not have access to the metaphysical plane.
To say that man does not have access to the metaphysical plane is to say that the metaphysical plane is unknowable. Anything unknowable is meaningless and there is no reason to suppose it existent. For to be unknowable is to be absolutely unknowable. To even know that a so-called unknowable thing exists is to have knowledge of it. The concept of existence cannot even be applied to something unknowable because that would be knowledge of it. Anything outside of the sphere which is man's comprehension must be non-existent, because existence is a category of the mind, and therefore cannot be applied to anything to which the constitution of man's mind is such that he cannot have access, such as what you call the metaphysical plane.

The origins of the universe, the metaphysical plane, are both meaningless if they be defined as unknowable, something to which man has not access.

Berkeley, Kant and Hegel completely refuted the idea of unknowables.

Then what reason is there to suppose his existence? our ignorance of the origins of the universe? How is that any different, logically, from using a mythical figure such as Zeis to explain earthquakes when we were ignorant of the causes of earthquakes?

I suppose it really isn't. If I had to give some logical reasons, I would say the complexity of the world and the extreme rarity of rational species implies a non-random design, and the eyewitness accounts of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

To say that man does not have access to the metaphysical plane is to say that the metaphysical plane is unknowable. Anything unknowable is meaningless and there is no reason to suppose it existent. For to be unknowable is to be absolutely unknowable. To even know that a so-called unknowable thing exists is to have knowledge of it. The concept of existence cannot even be applied to something unknowable because that would be knowledge of it. Anything outside of the sphere which is man's comprehension must be non-existent, because existence is a category of the mind, and therefore cannot be applied to anything to which man's comprehension does not have access.

The origins of the universe, the metaphysical plane, are both meaningless if they be defined as unknowable.

I agree with the foregoing. What I meant was that as creatures, captives if you will, of this universe, there is no way for us to go back, either physically or in terms of a scientific model, to the point prior to the beginning of the physical universe to determine the fundamental cause.

A colleague of mine was discussing the same thing ( in passing) a few days ago.
"You can pray all you like , but in the end when we die there is nothing".
I must say, I agree.

I do believe in a God and on the whole, my beliefs in God are fairly traditional.

Most of the great failures man has presided over in the 20th century are based upon the belief that man can create his own utopia on earth without God and that a God himself is an enemy to this creation.

Secondly, to the rest of this argument, I would remind all that God and science are not mutually exclusive and never have been. Both clearly depend on each other.

So why would a God make all the people on the planet and then only say tell those in the Middle East who he was?

No He wouldn't, because He has said that Man is made in the image of God (i.e., endowed with free will), and that salvation is through faith.We don't know that God said anything like that. All we know is that certain ancient people claimed that God said as much. Furthermore, the idea of salvation through faith makes no sense at all, so there's every reason to think that certain human beings cynically came up with the notion of "salvation through faith" in order to intimidate people into following Christianity.


If God were to reveal himself completely, then it would destroy free will since Man would no longer be presented with a choice to believe in God or not.That's inconsistent with the Christian teaching about Satan, which claims that Lucifer fell from grace through his own free will in spite of being face-to-face with God on a constant basis in heaven. Also, Jesus threatens people with the cruelest punishments imaginable for lacking belief in his divinity. Even assuming that belief is a free choice -- and for the most part, it's not -- how do threats to "believe in me and do as I say, or else" preserve free will? Moreover, how is it consistent with the great love and goodness attributed to God? Love cannot be commanded -- ever. If "love" is the result of coercion, then it's not really love. True love and threats of torture are mutually exclusive.

This quote simply underscores one of the main reason why people cling to religion: because they fear death and want to live forever. No one wants to enter oblivion -- oblivion is a frightening concept. But that's almost certainly what awaits us all.

Even if it is the case that a person's religious beliefs serve as a psychological crutch, that does not falsify the claims of their religion. I hope this is not what you're suggesting.

The question of whether there is a God is given an exaggerated amount of importance, IMO. Why not 57 789 Gods? I suppose it would have been too much for people to write down and explain.

Also, I haven't heard people debate the existence of Vishnu extensively. Some Gods get all the attention.

Also, I haven't heard people debate the existence of Vishnu extensively. Some Gods get all the attention.

Sorry. Doesn't exist either.

Happy? :D

Hey Ixabert, have you read The twilight of atheism : the rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world by Alister McGrath?

I havent read it all, but it's an interesting read if you ask me.

Hey Ixabert, have you read The twilight of atheism : the rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world by Alister McGrath?

I havent read it all, but it's an interesting read if you ask me.
No, I have not read that book. You should read The Gospel of Christian Atheism.

Science cannot explain where the Universe came from, much less the metaphysical. I cannot prove that God exists, but neither can His existence be disproven.

Incidentally, for most of the population, belief in such things as the distances between galaxies is as much an exercise in faith as belief in God. I am also struck by some people's belief, approaching the fanatical, in extraterrestrial life in the absence of any proof.

no, science has yet to explain where the universe came from.... just like in 1000ad science had yet to prove where lightning came from.

I don't know where the universe came from, but i'm not going to pussy out and pretend i know that god made it and thats that.

But, most people are weak and cannot accept the power of human thought and action; they will always crave to give trust and power to someone else. Thus worldwide atheism is somewhat unlikely, at least for the next 1000 years or so....

no, science has yet to explain where the universe came from.... just like in 1000ad science had yet to prove where lightning came from.

I don't know where the universe came from, but i'm not going to pussy out and pretend i know that god made it and thats that.

But, most people are weak and cannot accept the power of human thought and action; they will always crave to give trust and power to someone else. Thus worldwide atheism is somewhat unlikely, at least for the next 1000 years or so....


Well the current theory is that the universe was created when a singularity exploded.

Even if it is the case that a person's religious beliefs serve as a psychological crutch, that does not falsify the claims of their religion. I hope this is not what you're suggesting.It doesn't falsify the claims of their religion -- complete falsification is essentially impossible, anyway -- but it does explain why they hold fast to those beliefs even when there's no evidence for them and oodles of evidence against them.

Belief in God is characterised by this thing called "faith". Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and in consequence stands one hundred per cent opposed to critical thinking and Scepticism. Because God serves as an explanation when men are confronted with something to them unexplainable, God disappears and will continue to disappear in proportion as man's ignorance disappears. For example, earthquakes used to be explained as the work of God; we now know that they are the result of tectonic plate movements. People say that they experienced God in near-death experiences; we now know from scientific studies that the sensations are the result of oxygen deprivation to the brain. And so on. The 'God' idea moreover has never measured up to the application of 2 criteria, namely: impossibility of a scientific explanation, consistency, and an independent account from others. In a pitiful attempt to defend his belief in God which he knows but will not admit is wholly baseless, the theist employs pseudo-scientific methodology as he denies all contrary evidence, turns a blind eye to everything which does not confirm his breed of theism; if this fails, he will then rationalise that his beleifs are based on 'faith', and not reason, and therefore do not require evidence or argumentation. He will reject the discipline of science, and finally, realising that every philosophical argument - ontological, cosmological, anthropological, to name a few - has been debunked, he will reject philosophy as well.

There is no reason to believe that God exists, and the burden of proof is on the theists for affirming his existence.

Faith is a nessesity for human existance, without it, one will eventually come to the conclusion that Life has no meaning and nothing associated with it has any weight. Life has pain and no consequence; it is bad and terminating it has no reprecussions. I explained this concept of the connection between the need for faith and suicide, but it was lost in the last phora, I will post the topic again soon.

But, most people are weak and cannot accept the power of human thought and action; they will always crave to give trust and power to someone else. Thus worldwide atheism is somewhat unlikely, at least for the next 1000 years or so....

To "accept the power of human thought and action", whatever that is, would be giving trust and power to someone else as well. It is quite impossible to avoid. Do you trust the kinetic molecular theory?

It doesn't falsify the claims of their religion -- complete falsification is essentially impossible, anyway -- but it does explain why they hold fast to those beliefs even when there's no evidence for them and oodles of evidence against them.

Why do you assume they reached the same conclusion as you about the existence of God (probably doesn't exist) and where we're headed after death ("almost certainly" oblivion)? Why isn't it reasonable to assume they interpreted the evidence differently than you and inferred from it the likelihood of their religion's veracity?

Why do you assume they reached the same conclusion as you about the existence of God (probably doesn't exist) and where we're headed after death ("almost certainly" oblivion)? Why isn't it reasonable to assume they interpreted the evidence differently than you and inferred from it the likelihood of their religion's veracity?Well, obviously they did come to a conclusion different from mine -- otherwise they wouldn't be believers. ;) That's true not only of Christians but also of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Odinists, Voodoo witchdoctors, etc. But I think many or most religious folks allow their judgment to be tainted by fear as well as wishful thinking. Religion packs a tasty carrot and a big, painful stick. Only nonbelievers and skeptics, it can be argued, have sufficient emotional detachment from the issue to weigh the evidence objectively. As it turns out, there really isn't any solid evidence for any religion at all -- or if there is, I have yet to hear about it.

In fact, of the religions I'm familiar with, the one with the most objective evidence in its favor is probably Voodoo! For example, I once read a long story in National Geographic about how Voodoo practitioners are able to concoct a powder that can bring a person so close to death that even his pulse is undetectable. The person is buried in a grave, then dug up later that night and "resurrected" in a zombie-like state. What are we to make of the remarkable ability of these extremely primitive people to come up with a potion like that? It's a much more remarkable feat than what Emperor Constantine did when he had his charges collect a bunch of Jewish writings, throw out the majority, and compile the rest into a semi-coherent work that was then declared "inspired."

Well, obviously they did come to a conclusion different from mine -- otherwise they wouldn't be believers. ;)

I'm sorry, I thought you said many religious people secretly believe as you do - that there is no life after death, only oblivion. They only cling to their religion as a way consoling themselves. Is this not what you said?


For example, I once read a long story in National Geographic about how Voodoo practitioners are able to concoct a powder that can bring a person so close to death that even his pulse is undetectable. The person is buried in a grave, then dug up later that night and "resurrected" in a zombie-like state. What are we to make of the remarkable ability of these extremely primitive people to come up with a potion like that?

It's a nerve poison derived from pufferfish. It has been used in Haiti to turn people into mindless slaves. I don't think the negroes invented it; they merely extracted it from the fish.

Impossible to know for sure, but I think the question should be: "Do gods exist?"

Personally, I think "No" because "God" in Christianity is supposed to save you from all "evils" in which it does not. Many of my thoughts are of Nietzsche influnce like this quote right here:

"Everything is the same, nothing is worthwhile, the world is senseless, knowledge strangles." or "A little health now and again is the ailing person’s best remedy.", but I base my thoughts or more than just these particular quotes.