Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

It doesn't look like we'll agree on this point, so I'll agree to disagree.

 

I say we take it to a vote.

 

 

 

All people on warri0r's side, raise your hands.

 

 

 

Now, all morons on Zierro's side, raise your hands.

 

 

 

What do you know. Thirty to two, con-side wins. It looks like the other one is the guy who said the square root of negative one is irrational (kidding, kidding, I'm only laughing at the moronic and defeated 50/50 idea, not you mate. Unless you buy into it, then I am laughing at you).

 

 

 

eh messed up irrational and imaginary my bad. (-1)^(1/2) is still a relevant example as it cant be placed but exists.

 

 

 

as I said i moved from 50/50 to 0%

[Saru Inc]

No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe).

 

 

 

Well technically, a baby does not believe in Physics, or atoms, or elements, or Pi, or Square roots, but someone had to tell them. Does that mean none of those are true? Of course not, simply because someone doesn't know something, doesn't mean it can't exist. While this would make sense with the God dilemma, couldn't God have waited, and shown himself to the first man and or woman? He\she (just speaking about the idea in general, not the Christian God) have given them a clean slate, semi similar to Tabula Rosa, and them shown himself, and give them the choice? If that's true, let's say it is, then of course the baby wouldn't know, because the God would not want the baby to know, for any reason. But simply because one does not know of something naturally, doesn't mean it can't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't read my post. It means that for them to be rationally argued about, they accept the burden of proof, because they are not the default position, if someone was born alone in the wilderness, not that they are untrue because of it. I'll respond to cannibalisms post later today, I have classes.

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I didn't read the post. I was simply referring to that line, because many people use it.

[No_99_Melee]

If god does exist how did he get past the impossibility of creating colors without having any knowledge of the appearance of any colors?

[Saru Inc]

The problem is; you're referring to God as having human qualities. Who says he needs to know what the colors looked like? Wouldn't it make sense, that if he made everything in the Universe, then he could make colors, also?

[Lenticular_J]

If god does exist how did he get past the impossibility of creating colors without having any knowledge of the appearance of any colors?

 

Was the orange named before the carrot?

[mmmcannibalism]

colors are how the human body interprets different wavelengths of light. So as long as I dont claim that god created the concept of color the point is invalid.

[No_99_Melee]

colors are how the human body interprets different wavelengths of light. So as long as I dont claim that god created the concept of color the point is invalid.

 

 

 

Yeah, but if god created the human body and mind then that means he created how it intereperets wavelengths of light (color).

[mmmcannibalism]

colors are how the human body interprets different wavelengths of light. So as long as I dont claim that god created the concept of color the point is invalid.

 

 

 

Yeah, but if god created the human body and mind then that means he created how it intereperets wavelengths of light (color).

 

 

 

I never claimed that god created the human body, I firmly believe in evolution. In some limited way that is a small discredit against creationism based gods but it has no barring on the larger argument on a god existing. As far as my beliefs go, its possible god has quite limited powers, maybe being the spark that began formed a primordial sack of chemicals into the first cell, or maybe god exists as a being but has no actual powers. As long as I am not claiming that god created color the concept that natural evolution gave humans eyes that see different wavelengths as colors is perfectly reasonable.

[Zierro]

as I said i moved from 50/50 to 0%

 

 

 

Thank you. You got my point across better than me. Again, I'm sorry for saying there is a 50% chance that God exists because I can understand where your objections are coming from. I guess I was just trying to say that neither side of the argument (theism VS atheism) is any more likely to be right than the other because we don't have anything conclusive to work with the in the first place.

[venomai]

I guess I was just trying to say that neither side of the argument (theism VS atheism) is any more likely to be right than the other because we don't have anything conclusive to work with the in the first place.

 

Of course, even though there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of the invisible and non-corporeal Tooth Fairy, this does not mean that we consider its existence no more or less likely than its non-existence.

[Zierro]

Equating God to something everyone (except the kiddies) knows humankind fabricated to fulfill a purpose is a strawman. I'll let you have it if you can prove to me that mankind invented God.

[pureprayer]

Yes because with evolution little bacteria just up and sprouted winds and started to fly =D>

[venomai]

Equating God to something everyone (except the kiddies) knows humankind fabricated to fulfill a purpose is a strawman. I'll let you have it if you can prove to me that mankind invented God.

 

First and foremost, as I have stated numerous times in the past, I am not equating god to the tooth fairy when using this analogy. (In the same vein, Russell's Teapot does not intend to equate god to a teapot.)

 

 

 

Secondly, if you agree that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, which you have stated numerous times in this thread, then you must concede that it was indeed a concept first imagined (i.e. "invented") solely by the human mind, rather than, say, by observation. [NB]was[/i] observable, which some claim to be the case, then strong evidence can exist to support its existence, and so your entire argumen would be moot.]

 

 

 

Take early theories of atoms, for example. Although we now have evidence to support their existence, it was originally a notion "fabricated" by the human mind in order to try and explain the world around us. Likewise, the concept of god was also fabricated by the human mind in order to try and explain the world around us.

 

 

 

This, obviously, leaves open the possibility that, one day, god may be shown to exist. I also leave open the possibility that the tooth fairy, or pink unicorns, or anything else that you can imagine, may indeed be shown to exist. However, this does not mean that we must consider the existence of these entities to be as likely as their non-existence.

 

 

 

Lastly, "every body knows the tooth fairy to be fabricated, therefore it must be fabricated" is a logical fallacy (ad populum).

[Zierro]

Secondly, if you agree that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, which you have stated numerous times in this thread, then you must concede that it was indeed a concept first imagined (i.e. "invented") solely by the human mind, rather than, say, by observation. [NB]

 

 

 

There's no evidence as far as we know, but that's not to say the people who claim to have spoken with God/had spiritual experiences with him are just lying or imagining things. Just because we have no objective evidence to work with doesn't mean God must have been fabricated in the same sense as pink unicorns and the toothfairy.

 

 

 

This, obviously, leaves open the possibility that, one day, god may be shown to exist. I also leave open the possibility that the tooth fairy, or pink unicorns, or anything else that you can imagine, may indeed be shown to exist. However, this does not mean that we must consider the existence of these entities to be as likely as their non-existence.

 

 

 

No, the purpose of the toothfairy is for kids to be happy about losing their teeth. Parents know the toothfairy does not exist, so they put money under their children's pillows instead of hoping for the toothfairy to do so. And pink unicorns were only imagined because you need something ridiculous to equate to God so that you can say, "See, you do need evidence!" To say that the possibility of them existing is the same as the possibility of God existing is a stretch. Do you wonder why you don't see threads about the existence of the toothfairy or pink unicorns?

 

 

 

Lastly, "every body knows the tooth fairy to be fabricated, therefore it must be fabricated" is a logical fallacy (ad populum).

 

 

 

I'm starting to wonder whether you know what the purpose of a logical fallacy even is. It seems like you're just throwing them out there for the sake of it instead of for the sake of proving your point. If I'm wrong, then what is your point? That she does exist? To state that mankind as a whole (except the kids) has the knowledge that they fabricated something out of the blue to fulfill a purpose (and they consciously know it's nothing more than a fabrication) then how is that in any way a logical fallacy?

[mmmcannibalism]

The main key difference between a god and any of the proposed arguments, (bunnies, tea cup, etc.) is that some people actually believe god to be real. We all know that none of you actually believe in the (bunnies, tea cup) just wanted to point that out for the sake of further argument, and to agree that they dont equate to god but the example is reasonable.

[venomai]

There's no evidence as far as we know, but that's not to say the people who claim to have spoken with God/had spiritual experiences with him are just lying or imagining things.

 

Refer to my note: "If god was observable, which some claim to be the case, then strong evidence can exist to support its existence, and so your entire argument would be moot."

 

 

 

[unless you are referring to the commonly claimed "connection with god," something that I have even experienced at times. I have seen and felt many things that do not reflect objective reality, from my cell phone melting in my hand to the walls moving in front of me. This is not strong evidence to support the occurrence of these things, nor is it any evidence at all.]

 

 

 

First you suggest that evidence does not exist, hence the whole "50/50" ordeal, and now you suggest that evidence may exist?

 

 

 

To say that the possibility of them existing is the same as the possibility of God just because of the lack of objective evidence is a strawman.

 

I am not suggesting that the possibility of god and unicorns existing is the same -- I am suggesting that the possibility of these things existing is not equal to the possibility of these things not existing. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

 

 

 

I'm starting to wonder whether you know what the purpose of a logical fallacy even is. It seems like you're just throwing them out there for the sake of it instead of for the sake of proving your point.

 

Logical fallacies are used to point out flaws in other arguments, not to support or "prove" one's own argument. You've made it quite clear which one of us does not understand the purpose of logical fallacies.

 

 

 

To say that the possibility of them existing is the same as the possibility of God just because of the lack of objective evidence ...

 

This in itself, for example, is the beginnings of a logical fallacy. You have responded not to my argument (that "the possibility of God and all other things may one day be shown to exist"), but a distorted view of it. The "straw man" of sorts that you have created is that I am equating the possibility of God existing to that of pink unicorns.

 

 

 

For more information about the straw man fallacy, I suggest you look here:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

 

 

If I'm wrong, then what is your point? That she does exist? To state that mankind as a whole (except the kids) has the knowledge that they fabricated something out of the blue to fulfill a purpose (and they consciously know it's nothing more than a fabrication) then how is that in any way a logical fallacy?

 

You have argued that, based on a lack of evidence, the existence of god is no more or less likely than her non-existence. If you are wrong, this does not mean that god exists, nor does it mean that god does not exist, it simply means that your claim is not correct.

[Zierro]

First you suggest that evidence does not exist, hence the whole "50/50" ordeal, and now you suggest that evidence may exist?

 

 

 

Even if I don't think there is evidence, that doesn't prove that God was consciously fabricated to fulfill a purpose in the same sense of the toothfairy and pink unicorn. Who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe you forgot that I'm agnostic.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting that the possibility of god and unicorns existing is the same -- I am suggesting that the possibility of these things existing is not equal to the possibility of these things not existing. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

 

 

 

Yes, but the fact that we know the toothfairy was consciously fabricated to fulfill a purpose makes it a different story. If you ask me, that would make the odds much much lower. Plus there is proof against the existence of the toothfairy. If a kid stayed up at night and caught their parents putting money under the pillow then doesn't that tell you it was just a made up story?

 

 

 

Logical fallacies are used to point out flaws in other arguments, not to support or "prove" one's own argument. You've made it quite clear which one of us does not understand the purpose of logical fallacies.

 

 

 

I might have a lot to learn about them, but I still think it's ridiculous to bring up the population argument here.

 

 

 

You have argued that, based on a lack of evidence, the existence of god is no more or less likely than her non-existence. If you are wrong, this does not mean that god exists, nor does it mean that god does not exist, it simply means that your claim is not correct.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I was talking about the population argument about the existence of the toothfairy. You're basically telling me that just because everyone acknowledges the fact that mankind made the toothfairy up to fulfill a purpose it doesn't mean she does not exist.

[tryto]

Quote:

 

Logical fallacies are used to point out flaws in other arguments, not to support or "prove" one's own argument. You've made it quite clear which one of us does not understand the purpose of logical fallacies.

 

 

 

 

 

I might have a lot to learn about them, but I still think it's ridiculous to bring up the population argument here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You brought it up in the FIRST PLACE, by appealing to the amount of people who believe in god as a claim that your argument is more likely because of this and that because many people did not believe in the tooth fairy, it must be more unlikely.

 

 

 

In the middle ages the majority believed in a geocentric, flat earth model. This is completely untrue, yet the majority of the population believed in it. That is why this is a fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I was talking about the population argument about the existence of the toothfairy. You're basically telling me that just because everyone acknowledges the fact that mankind made the toothfairy up to fulfill a purpose it doesn't mean she does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

While it does make a compelling argument against it, it is by no means conclusive, and basing an argument solely on that fact means nothing, as the population's position over time has been shown to be flawed, even if you take only these two examples- there are many more.

 

We have other reasons to think the tooth fairy does not exist, which are all fairly obvious.

 

 

 

If a kid stayed up at night and caught their parents putting money under the pillow then doesn't that tell you it was just a made up story?

 

 

 

If you found someone who claimed to speak to god and was revealed to be a fraud, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story? If you found someone who faked miracles, wouldn't that tell you it's a false story? If you found someone who lied about visions and made false predictions, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story?

 

 

 

Your arguments are devastating against your own argument, as well as being incorrect. Now you see how difficult it is to prove a negative.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

That only applies to gods that are defined with clear charicteristics, not the agnostic belief that there could be a god. Also, most organized religions can have a clear contradiction in there dogma that provides a logical disproving of their accuracy.(like christianity having a god that is forgiving yet flooded the earth).

 

 

 

All I definitively believe is that there is a god and that it is a generally good being. As I anticipate the classic how is god good if the world has so many problems lets note that I did not claim god was an all powerful being (could have any amount of power from infinite to zero with infinite being highly unlikely due to problems in the world). If you can find a flaw in that I will be impressed.

[tryto]

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

That only applies to gods that are defined with clear charicteristics, not the agnostic belief that there could be a god. Also, most organized religions can have a clear contradiction in there dogma that provides a logical disproving of their accuracy.(like christianity having a god that is forgiving yet flooded the earth).

 

 

 

All I definitively believe is that there is a god and that it is a generally good being. As I anticipate the classic how is god good if the world has so many problems lets note that I did not claim god was an all powerful being (could have any amount of power from infinite to zero with infinite being highly unlikely due to problems in the world). If you can find a flaw in that I will be impressed.

 

 

 

I was referring to Zierro; you two have very different belief systems.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Well, there's the fact that you're basing your belief on no proof at all.

 

If god has no power at all or very little power, why call him god at all? He would merely be a very powerful cosmic being.

 

I will still posit the problem of evil. If your god has very little power to thwart evil, then he's not really a god of sorts. If your god has lots of power to thwart evil, you could surely post some examples. If your god has power to thwart evil, but doesn't, then he's not good.

 

 

 

Then, I will then again refer to my argument from non-cognitivism.

 

Your last response was:

 

 

 

 

1) I guess in a way debating the existence of god is actually ridiculous because neither of us can prove our side. Its also could be considered that human logic is flawed which would explain the flaws in the human concept of god. I realize this isnt a good defense but its hard to defend something that is inherently illogical with logic

 

 

 

God is inherently illogical? God can be A and not A? Then I will refer to the law of non contradiction. Hey, you're honest when what you're defending can't hold up.

 

 

 

 

 

2) I agree that most/all abilities a god could have would disobey logic; after all, we derive our logic from natural laws which god would not be regulated by. Which means a debate on if god can exist is at its purest form a debate on whether or not logical laws have to apply to everything.

 

 

 

Please observe this list of steps to knowledge claims.

 

* Syntaxically Correctexpressing a coherent sentence structure in ones assertion. To say that, did not Bob food today eat is not a syntaxically correct statement. The statement Bob did not eat food today is a syntaxically correct statement. Simply, it is a statement made in accordance with the rules of language.

 

* Meaningful/lessness At this point, one must prove everything. One must prove that the term (s) in the proposition that they are presenting forward has actual referents to its formalization that can be all be meaningfully explained. If not, such terms may automatically be rejected.

 

* Coherent/Incoherent this next step requires one to make certain that their claims are not self-defeating or contradictory in nature when compared to any other given or known facts. Incoherency breaks the laws of logic, thereby falsifying the statement, while coherency allows one to move on to the next step in proceeding toward a knowledge claim: hypothesis.

 

* Hypothesis A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Because it is a meaningful proposition that does not contradict itself, this stage admits the given proposal as being a possible truth or fact.

 

* Probable reaching the point where the majority of evidence available seems to point to ones own provided conclusion.

 

* Known where all the evidence on hand points conclusively to the given proposition as being correct, solidifying the proposal into a positive truth-value.

 

 

 

The concept of God does not stand up to this list of steps of knowledge claims, and thus it's truth value must be zero. You cannot claim a god is possible, when you can't even define it.

 

 

 

The point is not whether God is restrained by logic; it is whether the god concept you are extolling does, and it does not, as it is simply not coherent. You must have a coherent statement before you can posit the existence of such a being. Your statement is not coherent, as the god concept is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

3) beyond logic may mean irrational(see 2) but then again I admit a god would have to disobey logic so its not an inconsistancy. I believe its possible for things to exist in a way that seems illogical to us and you dont, so we are ending up in circles because whether or not god exists will come down to faith or lack there of in him/her/it. Also, two small examples on irrational things existing (-1)^(1/2) being square root of negative one and pi. I dont remember specifics of story but apparently at least one person was killed for pointing out things like pi cant be located on a number line due to irrationality, so if it has no location its odd it exists. I realize math=/=metaphysics but I think the point is reasonable

 

 

 

Irrational numbers !=Illogical numbers. Irrationality in mathamatics merely means a real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers, with n non-zero. They still have a logical meaning, and express defined propositions.

 

 

 

I have to concede atheism has a slightly more logical basis for its belief. This debate has turned into quite an interesting exercise, always a good outcome for such things. I have to concede that I cant logically prove god and that an argument against god is potentially more reasonable, though the statement (chance god exists)<100%>(chance god doesnt exist) so agnosticism stands as logical. Only point I have left to argue is that you cant that god cannot exist. Nice job on the proof tryto

 

 

 

 

 

The god concept as a statement is meaningless, and thus the hypothesis can be discarded as illogical by default, the same as if I posited the existence of "gritchnaehndkj". If I said that, you might immediately start wondering what on earth it could be referring to, while it does not refer to anything at all- it is completely and inherently meaningless. While the concept of God subjectively might stir powerful emotions and images of men in white robes, the term god itself lacks a positive, objective identity, having no primary attributes as shown several pages back. Since God is supposed to be "infinite" lacking time restraints (etc), it can be shown that god is a meaningless, negative concept, much like "I am not Stephen Harper, I do not have blonde hair, I do not hate everyone, I do not _______." While God is undefined as of now, it is meaningless, and atheism is completely justified.

 

 

 

While I agree with you that your version of deism is the most rationally justified theistic belief system, it is still flawed inherently, as shown. If you'd like to try to define god logically, please try :twisted: I've enjoyed this particular argument(much better than lecturing people on burdens of proof :P ).

 

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gless.html

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ition.html

 

 

 

EDIT: I promised. Now I have to ask several easy questions and one hard one to try to get a handle on your god and to fulfill my statements.

 

 

 

Can your god create something ex nihilo (i.e., without using materials that already exist)?

 

Can your god create a water-breathing man?

 

Can your god create green snow?

 

Can your god create red grass?

 

Can your god create flowers that speak Chinese?

 

Can your god create a human being with 30 legs?

 

Can your god create a woman who gives birth to elephants?

 

Can your god create a teacup that dances with a spoon?

 

Can your god create a second moon to orbit the earth?

 

Can your god remove all salinity from the worlds oceans?

 

Can your god create a biological organism which requires no nutrients or oxygen to live?

 

 

 

and finally; you've heard it before folks; can god create a rock so heavy, he can't lift it?

[Flyingjj]

You logical people think you are so smart, don't you? :P (Just trying to lighten the mood a bit with that statement, in case my internet tone can't be read properly)

 

 

 

Frankly, I find discussing God based on classical logical principles to be a little pointless. I've never considered belief in God logical, but that doesn't stop me from believing. Logic is simply one system of thought, and it has its limits.

[mmmcannibalism]

Ill respond properly in the morning have to get some shut eye right now. Ill try to answer those questions properly as soon as possible, especially due to the quality of this debate.

 

 

 

Bear in mind agnosticism is accepting ones own lack of knowledge of god so I cant answer them in the context that most people would consider "proper".

 

 

 

On the issue of a non infinite god not being a god, that is caused by no religion having a non infinite god and since I dont have a better term Ill refer to all beings that exist outside of our physics as god(unless we get proof universes and not just one being exists outside our universe in which case Ill be too amazed to care for a few years :lol: )

[Zierro]

You brought it up in the FIRST PLACE, by appealing to the amount of people who believe in god as a claim that your argument is more likely because of this and that because many people did not believe in the tooth fairy, it must be more unlikely.

 

 

 

Does anyone (besides children) believe in the toothfairy? Does anyone believe in pink unicorns? It might be wrong to base truth off the amount of believers, but when some guy made up a story and everyone, even him, knew it was a story then you can't tell me that's not saying something...

 

 

 

If there really is a logical fallacy stating it's wrong to say there is a difference between God and the toothfairy because mankind accepts the fact that the toothfairy is nothing more than a fabrication used for children, well then that's a bit of irony right there. All you are doing is taking things out of context.

 

 

 

In the middle ages the majority believed in a geocentric, flat earth model. This is completely untrue, yet the majority of the population believed in it. That is why this is a fallacy.

 

 

 

The people who don't believe in the toothfairy might be wrong?

 

 

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

I don't see this as an argument against the existence of any god. If anything, it only shows that their concept of god was most likely the wrong one if god/gods really do exist.

 

 

 

If you found someone who claimed to speak to god and was revealed to be a fraud, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story? If you found someone who faked miracles, wouldn't that tell you it's a false story? If you found someone who lied about visions and made false predictions, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story?

 

 

 

Nope. The sole purpose (or intention) of the fairy is to exchange money for your teeth. You can prove that it's fake by observing how the fairy doesn't fulfill that purpose. God has many more roles than that and I'd imagine it would be quite difficult to be a human being and at the same time tell me what God's intentions are. And you say my arguments are devastating?

 

 

 

Well, there's the fact that you're basing your belief on no proof at all.

 

 

 

I believe there is a chance of there being God because it's such a universal concept and I think the idea of there being no intelligent mind-work behind creating the universe and our existence is just as unrealistic as God existing. I don't believe there is a chance of there being a toothfairy because a long time ago somebody decided to make kids happy about losing teeth, so he came up with the idea for parents to lie to their children and say that a fairy would replace their tooth with money, but the parents would actually be doing it while they slept.

 

 

 

If god has no power at all or very little power, why call him god at all? He would merely be a very powerful cosmic being.

 

 

 

I see no reason why the term "god" can't be used loosely. Even if that cosmic being didn't qualify with our expectations of a god, he would be the closest thing and we could always change the definition.

 

 

 

I will still posit the problem of evil. If your god has very little power to thwart evil, then he's not really a god of sorts. If your god has lots of power to thwart evil, you could surely post some examples. If your god has power to thwart evil, but doesn't, then he's not good.

 

 

 

Or maybe evil has a purpose.

[fastortoise]

My only problem with people who are devoted to God is that I don't understand their motives. Obviously God can be real or not, but who cares? Do you really gain that much from your faith to keep praying? Any emotions evoked by preaching to an invisible omnipresent being can be found somewhere here on Earth, reality.

 

 

 

Instead of humans praying to Poseidon to help with their sea voyages, we now build huge ships that tower over the tallest waves. Maybe soon we will stop praying to some dude and take some more happy pills, I dunno. Maybe it's because that i'm such an "anti-philosopher" that I just don't see the point in believing in God. If you can't cope without the guy, adapt you lifestyle or something, get help. Some people may argue that if believing in God helps you sleep at night then there's no harm in it, but I strongly believe that people should just deal with their reality.

 

 

 

Now you're thinking that I'm all against Faith and stuff. n-no. It's just that instead of wasting all your faith on someone who doesn't even listen or talk back (which is the main reason why believing in God is so detrimental), I invest mine in friends and family. They always have the answers to my tough lifechanging questions, and if you don't have super fantastic friends like me, get off your knees and make some friends, man.

[Zierro]

Now you're thinking that I'm all against Faith and stuff. n-no. It's just that instead of wasting all your faith on someone who doesn't even listen or talk back (which is the main reason why believing in God is so detrimental), I invest mine in friends and family. They always have the answers to my tough lifechanging questions, and if you don't have super fantastic friends like me, get off your knees and make some friends, man.

 

 

 

You can have friends and build huge boats and still believe in God at the same time. Not everyone uses God only to answer their prayers. Sometimes when people pray to him they are thanking him. And your main point is that there is no reason to be a theist. Well, is there any better reason to be an atheist?