Where Is Your God?

Lately I’ve seen a lot of apologists twisting and turning and pushing the discussion to fine points of argument about what is possible, what is plausible, how the refutation was not presented just so, or how angry atheists are or how atheism is a religion.

I’m tired of this game. If you have a god, bring him on down to the mall. Let’s get some handshaking, ice-breaking, photo taking, miracle making and general gateway to heaven tour pre-party going. I don’t want to hear your picky little arguments that your evidence is as good as gold, or that since nobody can prove that your god does not exist then you are right.

 

 

I’m done with credible evidence seeking. If your god is true and does exist… it has better show itself and quick. I’m done waiting and if you’re going to stand there telling me it doesn’t work like that or some such drivel, I’m going to call you a liar, plain and simple, or just plainly a simpleton.
SYGOSI – show your god or shove it

I’ve had it with your embezzling, rapist pastors, the paedophile priests, the crime boss pope, the suicide bomber nut jobs, all these murdering twits, baby stealing hospitals, the sadistic nuns, the witch burning preachers, the gay bashing faggots spouting filth from their pulpits, defying the law, condemning all who ask simply for equality or evidence. I’m done with it you snivelling crybaby pips. If you have proof get it out, show and tell time.
If  you want to live a christ-like life, off you go. Just don’t pretend your god is real nor insist it be taught in science class. Know that there is no moral lesson in your holy text that cannot be found elsewhere and without all the claptrap your dogma brings with it. You can be good without the fairy tale and command to be bigoted and hateful to others.

Lets see your god. Go on, get him on down here. He’s more than capable… so think of it as a dare. If you can’t show your god exists then your god isn’t really there.

Advertisements
  1. will air show itself if challenged? or light? i believe two matured people always accept the golden truth they both can be wrong, they both can be right or one of them can be wrong 🙂

    • The key to understanding the truth of your comment is that you said ‘two mature people’ and when theists and atheists ‘argue’ I doubt there are two mature people involved for the most part.

      That is not to say that I find all religious people to be wrong. Some agree with me as much as with their faith and they are not by nature caustic or careless with their thoughts and actions. With such people I find no discord. Several are greatly appreciated and regular readers of my blog. It is the caustic and dogmatic variety of believer that I have trouble with. Among that lot, the mature individuals are few and far between.

  2. LOVE it! I felt the rage, and it was GOOD! This seriously is a great post!

    • Thank you very much. I have to admit I was a bit pissed off when I wrote it LOL

  3. Reblogged this on No Reason For Faith and commented:
    Exactly!

  4. You wrote this in an angry state of mind, you are speaking with feelings more than you are ‘logic’ whether you realize it or not. The fact is, god is neither proven or unproven. Science simply ‘CANT’ prove whether god exists or not, why? Because we dont know what god is, and if there is a god, it is more than we are capable of comprehending. Take into account that really we know nothing in the greater scheme of things and what you come up with is this, an arrogant opinion that claims god cannot exist because …….. he doesnt show himself. Lets think about this for a second, The universe is based on rules and mathematics yes? We live, we exist, we see, we seek, we simply ‘are’. Why is that? Why is there order to this chaos? Why is there anything at all? We already know what we perceive as real is an illusion based on our flawed senses, beyond that, we dont even know what is really ‘real’, do we.

    If you, if you cant sit wherever you are in the world, write down in this blog, all the answers to everything that is, if you are not all knowing, then you are simply not well suited to answer the greatest question there is. (Is there a god?) Are you.

    If you remember me, you know that i am neither religious or anti-religious. You know i base my knowledge on scientific research, but you also know that i am seeking more than we can answer right now. But, i know i cannot place judgment on things that are beyond me. I recognize that i am human.

    I used an expression on my bog recently that goes something like this:

    (When we try to understand what god is, we place restrictions on what it can be whether we like it or not. This is because we are human, we are caged by the rules with which we live in and therefore we cant understand existence outside of them.

    Until we are free of these rules, until we are all knowing and all powerful attempting to comprehend god is like trying to study micro-organisms with a magnifying glass.)

    What im saying is, dont say there is no such thing as a micro-organism just because ‘you’ cant see it through your magnifying glass.

    • sjjohnson89

      Upon what do you base your idea there might be a god, be it known or unknowable? Me personally, i don’t see a reason why the universe would even require one. Curious

      • Joe ‘Blondie’ Manco
      • November 15th, 2012

      The problem lies in the definition of ‘god’ that is being questioned.

      You’ve done exactly the same thing as you criticise myatheistlife and Ricky Gervais for and assumed straight off the bat that, if ‘god’ exists, it is uknowable and/or mysterious to us. Well, it may not be mysterious – it could be that we are smart enough to know if ‘god’ (whatever that means) exists and that he simply doesn’t.

      You are also not taking into account the legions and legions and legions of people who positively assert that they know not only that ‘god’ does in fact exist, but also his nature, intentions, what makes him happy or sad and whether or not they are the ones chosen to speak for him here on Earth. I posit, with pretty near absolute certainty, that the definition of God proposed by all theistic religions does not exist. We know enough to know that this personal, intervening God does not exist. I am through with diplomacy on this matter, and so it seems, is myatheistlife. That is the definition of ‘god’ I think he is attacking, although I dare not claim to speak for him.

      Also, as you are certain that we don’t know what ‘god’ is, how are you certain that science “simply ‘CANT’ prove” whether it exists or not? Perhaps it can, once we know what ‘it’ is.

      • Well said, and you caught a couple of points I skipped over. Thanks. You are correct, I’m railing about monotheistic religions and their imaginary gods.

    • Perhaps _you_ don’t know what god is. Unfortunately all these monotheists are certain of what god is and what their god has done and what their god wants.

      Everything that does not exist does not show itself. These two go hand in hand. You seem to be asking reasonable people to consider that something, which for all intents and purposes is exactly like something that does not exist, can exist. You do so without credible reason nor evidence. When asked for such you cannot show any. Should we also consider that Russell’s teapot exists? Why not consider that every sun in every galaxy has a teapot orbiting it? It could be, you know. Don’t tell me how improbable it is, you don’t know that it isn’t true and until we know all that can be known about everything then we can’t say it isn’t true. When you try to say that teapots are human constructs you are simply placing restrictions on the universe.

      What I’m saying is that Pasteur DID say there was such a thing as a micro-organism even though he couldn’t see it with a magnifying glass. He used _SCIENCE_ to discover them. Your analogy is ridiculous and wrong. Even the thing Pasteur could not see showed credible evidence of existence but gods do not. The have the same evidence as something that does not exist, the same proof, and the same reason to believe that they might exist. Gods are NO different than imaginary friends on every scale and test ever devised. Sure, you can say that we just don’t know how to test but you have not yet explained why we should believe that the even can exist in the first place.

      That’s the problem. You’re not listening to the question.

  5. Ricky Gervais is doing exactly the same thing as those who he mocks, its kind of funny to me. He could be a genius, but saying what he said there in that quote, makes him rather ignorant and lacking in self awareness. Hes judging god, what god is based on his senses, that he calls ‘rational’. He is claiming so to speak, there is no such thing as a micro-organism because he cant see it through his magnifying glass. He thinks hes being intelligent, when actually he himself, is showing how simple we human beings really are, like an arrogant child at school who thinks he knows everything.

    • I disagree with you. Gods are imaginary. Yes, I get your point. Nobody who had not seen a micro organism ever thought there were any until Pasteur and he came upon the idea by observing the evidence, formulating a theory, then testing his theory. Gods on the other hand are said to be true without evidence and without sufficient reason to even think they could exist. The two things are NOTHING alike. Gervais’ statement is not unwarranted nor wrong.

      It seems it is you who thinks you are being intelligent when you are making category mistakes AND making claims about gods that you also say can’t be known. Do you not see the irony in that?

  6. By the way, i love some of Ricky Gervais’s stuff, can be a funny guy when he gets it right!

  7. Reblogged this on Sjjohnson89's Blog and commented:
    I suggest everyone reads this post, thinks about it for a second, then reads all the comments (including mine of course lol).

    This post by myatheistlife expresses vividly the atheist mindset, my mindset expresses the Agnostic mindset. I find it interesting and hope others also do.

  8. For the most part, I agree with you. There was something, though, that I found insulting.

    “I’ve had it with your embezzling, rapist pastors, the paedophile priests, the crime boss pope, the suicide bomber nut jobs, all these murdering twits, baby stealing hospitals, the sadistic nuns, the witch burning preachers, the gay bashing faggots spouting filth from their pulpits, defying the law, condemning all who ask simply for equality or evidence. I’m done with it you snivelling crybaby pips. If you have proof get it out, show and tell time.”

    I found this insulting for two reasons. 1.) Every type of theist in there is a hypocryte according to their own religion and 2.) you just grouped those hypocrites with every other theist. Please understand that I have had it with these hypocrites as well (they’ve been giving God and His/Her followers a bad name for far too long). I just don’t really appreciate people grouping me with them.

    You gave a little challenge that went something like “SYGOSI” and “if you have proof get it out, show and tell time”. Well, I think I might have something: http://witaba.wordpress.com/my-fifth-reason/
    I don’t know if you’ve seen it before or if it’s old, but I think it might just meet up to your challenge.

    • First; Yes I did group a lot of people together. If you are feeling insulted, that is all on you. A hypocrite is still a believer and hypocrisy does not pardon them from their claims. Bad people can be believers. We need only look at the Christian bible story of Joshua to see that bad people can not only be believers, but devout and beloved.

      As for the website you listed. That is nothing but the Kalam Cosmological Argument, made famous most recently by William Lane Craig. It is older, much older than that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

      BTW: Yes, I can imagine nothing.

      P.S. I can also imagine infinite volumes of absolute lack of anything.

      This website you linked, it does not meet the challenge, at all. WLCraig makes a farce of apologetics by regurgitating that on stage.

      Even if your discussion partner were to grant that it might possibly indicate a creator (it doesn’t) it does not show this creator to be anything like you or others would think of as god. There simply is no connection. The very idea that the KCA is evidence of a god is hubris. Google it and you’ll see the refutations.

      https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=googleabout&btnG=Search+our+site&q=why%20is%20the%20kalam%20cosmological%20argument%20wrong

      Existence does not work as evidence for any god. This very well could all be an accident or error or not even be extant at all.

      See: http://wp.me/p1JG3O-eb – God drinks Scotch
      and http://wp.me/p1JG3O-5U – Big Splash not big bang

      Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

      • What I’m talking about isn’t the Kalam cosmological argument. KCA says that the universe had to be created and there is only one thing that could have created it and that has to be God. I’m talking about existence 1, and 2.) I’m saying that existence must be static.

        I’ve already seen the video you linked to. That type of nothing exists and, therefore, existence has to exist first. What I’m asking you to do is imagine there was no existence, including existence itself.

        On the matter of hypocrisy, tell me, would like it if some Atheists who thought the universe is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 earth days were grouped with you and other Atheists. I don’t think you would.

        • You offered that film as evidence and I replied it looks like the KCA. I did say that I can imagine complete lack of existence.

          You do realize that atheism only means that you don’t believe in gods or the supernatural, right? Among atheists is a wide array of world views. There are bigoted atheists, racist atheists, church going atheists… all kinds. What you describe is simply a hypothetical group with which I have ‘one’ thing in common – atheism. It is not a world view. It does not infer that you are good or bad, happy or depressed. I’m reasonably sure there are flat Earth atheists. So what?

          If you think that lumping us together as atheist proves something, go ahead. You won’t get anything but a correction in the way of the definition of atheism.

          Christians of all stripes claim to adhere to a similar or identical set of dogma and doctrine, and that is what lumping them together is about. The all believe in something. Atheists need not have even one single common belief.

          • It may look like the KCA but I assure you that it’s not. Evidently, you won’t see what I was saying in my post.

            The Atheist thing was just an example. It looks like you don’t care much for political correctness and I respect that.

            • Political correctness is what you do when it would be called bigotry if you were honest.

              I’ve tried twice to tell you that I can imagine what it is like for there to be nothingness. I fail to see what you are trying to say? I’ll say that the fact there is existence is no evidence of a god. It is only evidence that existence seems to be real.

              • But even nothingness is something, as shown in that video with Lawrence Krauss. Even if you aren’t imagining the nothing Krauss is talking about, you’re probably imagining space, a dark void that is something. Those exist and there has to be existence first. Existence didn’t have a beginning. The universe has had a beginning, over and over again. It has also had an end, over and over again. Now imagine no existence, which means no nothingness or voids.

                • There you go, arguing what you cannot know is truth and then telling everyone else that their idea of the same thing is wrong because, well, because only you know what is truth. That’s a vacuous argument. I told you I can imagine it. You keep telling me I can’t. Can you hurry up and get to the point already?

                  • Ok, I can see how I might come off that way. What I’ve been trying to say is that existence could not have had a beginning, it must be static. And, if existence can be static, then a Creator(s) can be static too.

                    • Unfortunately for your argument, there is no reason to think the creator(s) you are thinking of did not have a creator and into infinite regression. Additionally, existence, as in any kind of existence and it’s beginning cannot be known… yet. You simply posit that it is static in order to claim that a creator must or can be static also. It does not follow that either of them are true. There is only one link between existence and a creator and that is the link that people try to assert that there is in fact a creator. The qualia of existence do not indicate a creator, of any kind, so it does not matter if existence always was or if it had a beginning because the two are not known and cannot be shown to have a causal link of any kind.

                      Infinity is an interesting gambit. If existence always was, then there is no need of a creator, static or not. Since we cannot know what is outside of this universe as yet, there is no method to determine if existence existed before the big bang.

                      That is a problem for theologians. Science doesn’t have a problem with not knowing or not yet being able to know, nor do I. Just because there is a question does not mean that you must know the answer. Asking the question does not produce an answer in and of itself. There is no logic that I’ve learned of that allows for positing a creator god which is not flawed. Existence is, to posit that it has not always been is a guess just as positing that it started with the big band we all know and love. All that can be said with certainty is that the universe we know seems to have started with a singularity about 14.5 billion years ago. That’s it. Without further evidence and study we’ll not learn more.

                    • It appears that you still do not understand my thinking. The reason I say that existence must be static is through thinking. Let’s say that you go back before the Big Bang, back to singularity. What was before that? Another universe in which was compressed by gravity being greater than the force causing expansion, according to the Big Crunch theory. If keep going back in time (at an immense amount of speed) and watch, we would see the universe expanding and contracting over and over again. This would suggest not a static universe, but a static existence.

                      Granted, there are those who say the theory has no proof and will never happen. So, let’s say that the Big Crunch theory is wrong and the universe expands forever. Their still had to be something before singularity, something that caused it. No matter what you find that happened before it, you can still ask yourself what happened before that which you found.

                      You say that you believe the Big Bang was the start of existence and the universe. (This actually suggests a Creator, but the question would then arise, “where did this alleged Creator come from?” There could be no logical answer because everything began with the Big Bang and thus, nothing could be static.) This can’t be so because of the 1st law of Physics, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form”. This can be so, though, if you believed a creator did it. It appears that you don’t believe in a Creator, so, the belief that the Big Bang is the start of existence cannot be true.

                      I don’t have a problem with not knowing something. Not knowing something causes me to seek for the answer. I will keep seeking the answer until I find it. Any “theologian” who thinks they know the answer to every question or lives in ignorance is also a hypocrite. “Ask, and you shall receive; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you; for he who asketh receiveth, and he who seeketh findeth, and he who knocketh, it shall be opened to him.” -Jesus

                      (sorry about the length. I didn’t expect to so long)

                    • Existence does not have to be static, nor anything that you might consider existence. the may be only one small crease in w a much larger existence or it may be all that there is. What we do is that we do not know. The increasingly rapid expansion thought to be due to dark energy/matter seems to have put paid to the rebounding universe.

                      There is nothing about the universe that suggests a creator. There are millions of things which begin to exist and are not created.

                      Imagine that non-existence you were thinking of. If, for no reason at all discernible, a universe exploded into existence why would this infer a creator? We don’t know why the universe exists and there is no reason to blame it on a creator that has no evidence for existing. That’s bad reasoning. For all we know, perhaps it is the nature of nothingness to create something-ness every so often. It might be that there is not complete nothing-ness and never has been, but this does not infer anything about the nothing that is not really nothing. Perhaps this universe popped out of a crack in another dimension other than the four we are familiar with and is the only place in which time is a dimension. Perhaps outside this universe everything is concentrated in a one dimension existence. That is to say that all existence is contained within one dimension an that dimension cracked or wrinkled and this universe popped into existence? A static existence as you talk of it may not be anything like you imagine. There are many guesses as to what might be outside this universe or may have existed before this universe. We cannot infer a god or creator or creator god based on what we know of this universe.

                      The laws of thermodynamics apply within this physical universe. We do not know what is outside of this physical universe. All that we know, have been, are and will be is inside this physical universe… at least for now. All the evidence produced so far tells us that there is no reason to think there are gods or creators. There simply is existence. Further, any thoughts of gods or creators are just that – thoughts, nothing more. Science may eventually show us what else there is to know, but for now there is no reason to think there are gods or creators.

                      Can you imagine an infinity of one dimension existence? Is it nothing? Is it something? Does it require a creator? As long as there are possible ideas to consider and no evidence to support the god theory, there is no reason to believe it is more than an idea, a dangerous idea.

                    • You talked about other dimensions and how the universe could have come from something or nothing and how the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to this physical universe. You’re sounding like a theologian! I honestly didn’t expect that from you.
                      ALL of what you said is the stuff that only a Supreme Creator could do. They’re also all unfalsifiable hypotheses, just like the only thing that can make those things happen.

                      I have three questions for you:
                      1.) Why are you an Atheist?
                      2.) What is your scientific proof against a Creator?
                      3.) When you say “There are millions of things which begin to exist and are not created”, what are those things?

  9. @lukethewolf3654
    There is no evidence for the existence of a creator and every reason to think it a made up story. See, this Jesus thing, it’s not the first time that story has been told by men and there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus as a man… none. I am an atheist because I see all the similar stories that came before Jesus and we all think those were just stories and myth. I’m not fooled, this one is too.

    There are millions of as yet unfalsifiable ideas as to how the universe came to be. I did not say any of them are true, hence why I mentioned many. You will readily believe that a creator exists, but will not event pause for thought on other possibilities. You seem to be certain that you are right and you know not one thing more than me. You asked me to imagine infinite nothingness and I went you one better, yet you still think there is a creator without any evidence at all.

    I’m not preaching, I’m trying to demonstrate that there are many possible answers that even I can think of. The creator did it is just lazy and lame as an explanation because it explains nothing at all. If I said I think that existence is an infinite amount of one dimensional matter that when bent pops out a universe with a bang, you would say your creator made that stuff and you still have not explained a thing… doing nothing but putting your creator god in the gaps of what science cannot yet explain. That’s just lazy.

    I’m an atheist because that is where the evidence has lead me. Your infinite god is second best on this planet, and there are more than 32000 cults who claim belief in the same god, but also think you are wrong about it. Basically, if we add up those that believe like you and those that do not your tiny group is far outnumbered. While the same is true for me, my point is that you don’t have evidence, numbers, or logic on your side. You have faith, I have facts and reasonable hypotheses which we can endeavor to test. You have a book that’s dubious at best, a work of fiction most likely with some history thrown in. Not unlike a Dan Brown novel. Your book has been fact checked over and over… the important parts do not have evidence. Biologically speaking you and I are both hairless apes with big brains and a penchant for making tools and thinking about things. We’ve lost our penile bones and prehensile tails but the apes and us, we’re cousins. Our DNA is marked by viral traces and other tell tale signs that we came from a long line of evolutionary changes going all the way back to single cell life on this planet.

    Your book gets that part all wrong. So some will cherry pick and call that allegory. But they only say that when science has shown the book to be wrong and your god gets shoved further into the ever shrinking gaps in the knowledge of science.

    I’m an atheist because the facts lead me there.

    As a species we humans are quite young yet we’ve pieced together how it all began for us. We’ve split the atom, visited other planets, augmented our bodies, increased our knowledge, terraformed this planet, harvest energy from every known place, improved on nature’s bounty, and done so many wonderful things that it won’t all fit in even an online encyclopedia. All that and your book stands still, static, a relic from our past. Not one good lesson in it cannot be sourced from other places and without all the dogma that yours has it wrapped up in. Many who believe in creators deny the facts of science that in fact keep them alive each day. They too have faith in that book. Then there are deists who know the book to be false but still think a creator is out there… blind faith is their crutch. They can’t explain why but they feel that it’s necessary.

    We humans, one day we’ll grow up and look back at this time and the thousands of years before us and laugh a nervous laugh. Our future descendants will curiously ask their parents if humans really thought those things way back then and wonder how. I hope by then they will be travelling space and vacationing on the beaches of planets on the other side of the galaxy. Whatever happens between now and then, time will march on inexorably and humans are very unlikely to find evidence for what is now still fantasy. Creation science has failed at every turn. It denies the facts in favor of faith that out there somewhere is a god of some sort who created this place just for us humans who loves us and needs our money and wants us to be happy and live with him in the clouds… despite the fact that 99% of every person ever born has failed that one test: believe in that god. So the benevolence of the creator, some think, is to drown or burn everything that doesn’t turn out the way it’s ego needs it to be.

    You can then argue that the idea can’t be fully discounted and I’ll push right back and ask for evidence for the very first claim that a god exists. No, that a god _can_ exist. Without that evidence it’s just an unfalsifiable claim and shall remain so. It’s not worth one sheet of all the paper the holy books have been printed on. The creator god hypothesis will not change with the facts, nor conform to known truth. It will always be blind faith unless and until that god shows up and is everything people have thought it to be. It could turn out that the only god like being ever to visit our planet is the one that is called Satan but it seems he’s got a way with words and wanted his very own book. The real problem for those that believe in a creator is that they ‘hope’ such a being is like a Jesus character seen through rose colored glasses yet they cannot prove their imagined creator exists nor whether that being would be worthy of worship. Wishful thinking and delusion is all that blind faith is. It can never be more. If you or someone found evidence it would no longer be faith, it would be fact. Do you ever wonder why your creator left it to you to figure this all out when his omnipotence would make it easy to show himself and make it all fact. The only plausible answer is that this creator god does not exist or if one does it doesn’t give two hoots about life on this planet.

    I’m an atheist because that is where the facts lead me. I’m an anti-theist because the dogma of human religions is delusional thinking and controlling hateful bigotry. I know this, I used to believe. When I began searching in earnest for fact and reason, the knowledge of science and philosophy took me down this path. I’m a nihilist because that’s how I see it, there’s no evidence in _this_ existence for any purpose or reasons. Until evidence for something outside our understanding is found, that’s how will be, above or below ground.

    Other ideas have plausible tests, and as we learn more will find the possibilities that explain our existence the best, then we’ll test them and test them until we are sure, then test them some more. Faith in creators will still be just faith. There are no tests for it, no evidence, not one credible trace.

    That is the nutshell version of why I am an atheist.

  10. Spot on. And naturally it brings out the night crawlers. All the dickheads who will do exactly as you described in the post . Twist everything and try to find the merest detail to declare, “Ah!”

    If religion was open to reason, there would be no religion. It is as simple as that.

    Good read.

  11. Thanks. I just reread it and thought “yep, that sounds like something I would write” LOL

  12. Hey, just wanted to stop by and check out your blog, also to thank you for checking out mine. I’ll admit I don’t have the sort of evidence your looking for so I’m not even going to try right now. I do like the insight that this post gives and I have one question which might be a little personal so if you don’t want to answer it that’s fine with me.

    You mentioned in one of the comments that you used to believe but your pursuit of science and philosophy brought you to where you are today, and my question is this: Was it just those sciences or was there something else that helped change your mind?

    I ask because there’s a lot of fire in this post. A lot of very real passion, and I almost wonder if all the evidence in the world would be enough to change your mind or if there’s something more personal fueling your conviction.

    Regardless, I enjoyed the post and thank you again for your comments.

    • When I was young, I was certain there is a god. So certain that the first time I thought I didn’t believe I was afraid to say it out loud. I was physiologically afraid to say the words out loud.

      It was the believers themselves who convinced me that there is no god. None of them got special favor, none of them behaved extra morally, none of them avoided disease or sickness, not many of them behaved well at all. If god is not working for them, is he real? The more I searched for that the more dismayed I became. I was able to visit many churches in many countries and everywhere it is the same. There is no real evidence of god, just a lot of people afraid to say that there is no god.

      It was science and philosophy that allowed me to understand how I thought and felt. The four horsemen were already famous before I heard of them. I had long ago settled into thinking that I’m alone, that I am different some how … I never imagined that I would find others to talk to about what I now felt certain of.

      Science and philosophy validated what I had learned the hard way and so I say it brought me to this point. The ONLY evidence to be found does not point to the existence of a god.

      That’s the problem. There is no evidence for the existence of gods that stands up to scrutiny. Many, it seems, are willing to accept any shred of evidence if it confirms what they ‘want’ to believe. I don’t ‘want’ to believe either way, I just want to know the truth… that will do just fine for me. The only way to get that is evidence. Like you say, you don’t have what I’m looking for.

      Thanks for commenting

      • Is that why you asked me about Job? The Bible doesn’t say that believers are immune to sickness or destitution, and you can’t validate your faith in God by looking at the actions of men. No matter where science goes in the future, skepticism will always provide excuses about why you shouldn’t believe in God. It’s safe, because if God exists, suddenly we’re accountable to a being who isn’t required to “work for us”. Suddenly we’re accountable to a being who created us for His purpose.

        I understand more or less why you chose what you did; I’ve doubted too and I’ve turned from God as well. He was making calls I didn’t like so I walked away and tried my best to keep my head down and just live. Now I’ve come to the understanding that it isn’t about me and I’ve been able to see God do some very clear work in my life.

        • I’d love to hear the evidence of this ‘very clear work’ in your life.

          That is the part I never saw. I saw no evidence of any god doing anything. Your god screwed with Job on a bet. No matter how you spin it, that is what happened. He let people die horrible deaths on a bet. Tortured them on a bet. Sure, the satan did it but your god gave him permission… he sanctioned it… for a bet.

          I could never hear god making any calls, it was always humans telling me what it meant to love god… never god telling me. I seem to understand you saying that god talked to you and you didn’t like it so walked away… is that right?

          I never heard god. What does he sound like? How did you know it was god talking to you?

          • http://solomonbound.wordpress.com/does-god-exist-my-testimony/

            I wrote that post a while ago, so feel free to check it out. That covers a portion of what God has done for me in the last few years and since then He has remained loyal. My life is far from easy or perfect, but He is definitely providing for me and my family.

            A bet implies either party has a chance of winning. God allowed it because He knew Job would succeed.

            And again, your faith in God cannot rely on human validation. There were a lot of years I didn’t hear God either, even before I walked away from my faith. I would get really mad sometimes because I couldn’t hear God and I never understood why, but it takes a sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ, which I didn’t have. When I was finally right where I needed to be I made a bad call and set myself back a bit.

            You know it’s God through discernment of the Holy Spirit and when you can compare what you’re hearing to Biblical law.

            Who is Jesus to you? Do you believe he existed at all?

            • Yeah, that doesn’t help. The description of how you know it is god speaking means nothing to the uninitiated. That whole discernment of the holy spirit is a bit fuzzy… can you define that please.

              Biblical law says I can take Canadians as slaves. Somehow I don’t think that will work out too good. So now how am I supposed to know?

              It seems to me that the entire book is a myth written by Jews and those who wanted to capitalize on religion to gain power.

              My faith in god is not in question… I questioned my faith because his followers found no favor in life. They were beset with all the problems that sinners have. There was no protection from anything for them. They all suffered exactly as if there was no god at all. Why would a loving god do that?

              Did you read the book of Job? It was a wager. Job didn’t win. He lost his family to horrible deaths. His family did not win. Wake up!

              • God never said his followers win every battle in this life. God’s promise is that through Christ we end up in Heaven. THAT makes the suffering on Earth worth it. THAT is winning.

                Well I’m sorry you’re only interested in a God who serves you how you want to be served and I’m sorry I wasn’t able to help. I pray you find all the answers your looking for.

                • You know what? I’d have been happy with not winning all the time if even just a few of god’s followers seemed to be winning. There is no evidence for god. None. Just some words in a dusty old book.

                  I was looking for truth, not god. The truth is that god doesn’t exist.

                  • If that’s what you want to believe nothing I can say right now will change it. If there ever comes a time when you change your mind, God does want a relationship with you and Jesus Christ did die on the cross for you. Whatever hardship Christians go through, don’t forget God humbled Himself and became man so that He could endure the hardship of sin for you. For everything.

                    Thank you for talking with me, it was great getting to know you and your opinions.

                    • Here is the problem with what you are saying. You are implying that when I’m in need and vulnerable, then your god is available which means that until I’m vulnerable he is invisible and doesn’t seem to care about what I want from him. It only works when I’m down or in need. This is a clue that it’s a complete sham. You can assure me of many things but the simple fact remains that you can’t prove any of it. You ask me not to forget that god humbled himself yet you can’t tell me anything about that humbling, you cannot prove it happened and don’t even recognize the significance of what that story says yourself. The most powerful being in existence can’t forgive – he has to h ave a blood sacrifice. Has that never caused you to think? Why the ‘king’s’ first born? Why a sacrifice? Why a blood sacrifice? Why does your god like the smell of blood? How exactly does this scapegoating work? Why do you believe stuff without asking any questions?

  13. I don’t think all religious people are idiots, and assholes, just the ones that get the most attention. Throughout history religion has been used as a way to cope with disasters in the government and so on. It gave people something to believe in, and I think having faith is good, just not when you’re using your faith to hurt people. Religion should be used for faith and not as a weapon. For instance, guns are only as dangerous as the people wielding them, same thing goes for religion.

    • I kind of agree with you except on the ‘having faith is good’ part. Having a plan and hope is good… faith, not so much.

      Having faith doesn’t rebuild burned out homes or fix levees. A plan and hope do.

      • I agree no one should use faith as a crutch, and depend on it to fix everything, because you’re right, it doesn’t fix burnt houses or feed children. Are hope and faith interwoven? xD

        • Hope is something you feel, faith is something you decide.

          • Faith can also be a feeling or used to mean “to be true,” as in “he was faithful to his wife for the last 30 years.” xD

            • Grammar challenge: replace faithful in that conext with something else and see if it is a feeling? He was mean? It’s not a feeling in that context. To be true is not a feeling either. You decide to be or remain true. You don’t decide to be sad or happy, those are feelings.

              • Oh well now that makes sense. xD

  14. Reblogged this on The Iniquitous Church Crimes.

  15. In the Christian world, today is Good Friday. That means Jesus Christ is dead on the cross. There’s the Christian answer to your question. Tomorrow’s another day, though. So if you ask the question again, they might say he’s in a cave or in his tomb. In short, he’s anywhere except the one place where one could absolutely prove he is there.

    • Yep, everywhere and nowhere… useless.

  16. Your logic is waaaaaaaaayyyy off, buddy. A few points:
    1. The difference between a “real” God and a “fake” deity, according to most interpretations of Natural Theology, is that God is *uncreated* whereas false deities are created.
    2. Matter is, by definition, created. It hasn’t always existed.
    3. Hence the true God is NOT material. I.e. he doesn’t have a physical body as we know it.
    4. By demanding to “see” God and shake His hand, you are only including material gods (such as a god that might love on Mount Olympus for example). A God not made out of matter is outside the scope of your argument.
    5. Why *should* God show Himself to you anyway? He has already given you more than enough evidence to believe in Him. Asking for more is either foolishness, stupidity or arrogance on your part.
    6. The existence of a creator for the universe is pretty obvious and denying that is analogous to a fish denying the existence of water. Unless you believe in universes “popping out of nothing” or the universe “creating itself” or any of that delusional crap atheists are preaching these days.
    7. The fact that you don’t want to hear counter-arguments to your point suggests an intellectual weakness on your part.

    • Matter is, by definition, created. It hasn’t always existed.

      LOL! You’re not too bright, are you, my Muslim friend? Try looking up the conservation of matter before babbling.

      • According to current scientific theories, matter emerged after the “Big Bang.” Try doing your research before mocking and thinking you’re so funny.

        • Matter, in this universe, began to form after this universe started to cool and the impossibly hard radiations abated. Matter is neither created nor destroyed… in this universe. You do see where I’m going with this, don’t you?

    • 1 – prove your god is not fake. Can you?
      2 – You have zero proof that matter is created as in made by a creator. The matter we know is condensed from the release of energy at the singularity. That energy is the matter we see today. To assume that energy did not previously exist is to assume you know more than you can.
      3 – Prove that your god is true and the others are not. Can you? Can you even describe your god that the rest of us might know your god if we meet him.
      4 – If your god is omnipotent then he can make it so I can see him and shake his hand. If your god is bound by your definition of him then how is such a being a god?
      5 – If your god loves me and is intimately concerned with my well being, sexual adventures, and whether I love him or not then it should be right in line for him to show himself. Your god, nor any other, has given enough evidence to be shown credible. The fact that you think your god has only proves that you are not a critical thinker and have been drinking the koolaid for far to long.
      6 – It is not at all obvious that there is a creator of the universe. You mock the big bang yet presume to tell the rest of us that your non-evident god made the universe from out of nothing. You preset two incredible claims in one and I simply say that I don’t know where the universe came from. We have some theories we are testing, good ones, but as yet we cannot say. It is you that claim the universe came from nothing.
      7 – I’m tired of hearing the same tired and fully refuted arguments over and over again as if the theists think that repeating them enough times will make them true.

      Your god, all gods, is non-existent. There is no credible evidence never mind proof of your god. All that you have is your claims and a book of dubious origin with known contradictions and edits. There is no biological, historical, geological, or scientific evidence for your god. There is ample explanation in psychology to show that your belief in a god is an artifact of how the human/mammal brain works. In just a few paragraphs of a reply you have shown yourself to be deluded, ignoring both the evidence and some of the smartest thinkers and thoughts on the planet in favor of what you simply want to be true, and you do so without any credible evidence to support such a decision and course of action. Yet, here you are telling me that I’m wrong. Well, I challenge you to answer the questions posed and do so with credible evidence to support your claims. Go on, show us your god exists. Be very careful to avoid using any of the failed methods used by all the believers before you. Remember that all of them have failed to show that their god exists in a credible way – just making claim after claim and failed logic and reason. Avoid all the pitfalls of those who have come before you yet manage to show us that your god exists. I dare you.

      • Sorry for not responding for so long; I made a mental note to respond but I forgot.

        Anyway, I think you’re misunderstanding the point here. If somebody tried to prove the existence or non-existence of individual deities, that couldn’t work at all. This is because:
        1. Humans have been on this Earth for 1000s of years and have worshiped 1000s of gods. It would take forever.
        2. The process of determining whether a particular deity is real or fake would be inductive in nature, so we can’t rely on it 100%.

        So, the solution is: let’s put all the gods aside for a minute, and *start with what we know*.

        We know that there is at least one (1) Creator, Designer, God, or whatever term you would use to describe it. The universe is a very ordered place, and the laws of physics state that order cannot come from disorder (see: The Second Law of Thermodynamics). Current models show that the solar system emerged from cosmic dust; but that couldn’t have happened spontaneously because you *cannot* go from disorder to order unless an outside influence is acting on the system. The identity of this outside influence is the big question, obviously.

        We start from what’s rationally deducible about the creator of the universe and see which religion’s god matches up with that.

        For example: God must be uncreated, because a created god would cause an infinite regress of causes/creators (i.e.: something created God, and something created that something, and something… going to infinity).

        So any religion that talks about God being created or born is automatically out the window.

        Also, God must be one. If there were 2 or more, they would disagree on something or another (by definition, because they are distinct entities), either:
        1. The first god’s will would be followed (and the second god is no longer a god)
        2. The second god’s will would be followed (1st god is no longer a god)
        3. They compromise. Ergo; neither is a god.

        So as you can see, we don’t have to open any holy book to learn about God – we just have to use our intellects. Plus, we’re using deductive reasoning so our conclusions are necessarily true.

        Hope that makes sense.

        ~ Yousuf

  1. November 15th, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: