And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

Not really, if you said that on a completely unrelated topic, I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

Not really, if you said that on a completely unrelated topic, I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

 

 

wat

And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist.

And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist.

 

 

It doesn't always work that way. If you're arguing for non existence of a pre existing concept, then yes you would need evidence. Are you saying I don't need to put evidence showing the sun doesn't exist? A bit more physical than spiritual sure, but an assertion of opinion nonetheless.

And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist.

 

 

It doesn't always work that way. If you're arguing for non existence of a pre existing concept, then yes you would need evidence. Are you saying I don't need to put evidence showing the sun doesn't exist? A bit more physical than spiritual sure, but an assertion of opinion nonetheless.

 

No, you may need explanation and reasoning, but not proving.

Why don't you need to prove it? You are saying that the sun, which everyone can see, doesn't exist. I'd need some proof. I could explain\reason by saying:

 

 

Sun makes light, lamps make light. Maybe thats just a big lamp? And if it provides heat, why is it cold in the winter?

 

 

Ok, that won't get you very far. You need proof.

And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist.

 

 

It doesn't always work that way. If you're arguing for non existence of a pre existing concept, then yes you would need evidence. Are you saying I don't need to put evidence showing the sun doesn't exist? A bit more physical than spiritual sure, but an assertion of opinion nonetheless.

But we have evidence that the sun does exist.... oh and we can actually see it.

And if on a completely unrelated topic I said that Mr. Green was not a God it would be up to me to prove it because it's now my statement, not yours.

No. You need evidence for existence not for non-existence. Why the hell would you need evidence for something not to exist. Having no evidence that something exist is evidence that it does not exist.

 

 

It doesn't always work that way. If you're arguing for non existence of a pre existing concept, then yes you would need evidence. Are you saying I don't need to put evidence showing the sun doesn't exist? A bit more physical than spiritual sure, but an assertion of opinion nonetheless.

But we have evidence that the sun does exist.... oh and we can actually see it.

 

Exactly what I was going to say :S...

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

 

Except those that do, base it on personal experience. You can't prove anything by basing it on personal experience.

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

 

Except those that do, base it on personal experience. You can't prove anything by basing it on personal experience.

 

 

What about the sun? Someone whos lived underground their whole life (let's not argue the possibilities of that) If they've never seen the sun... is that not similar?

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

 

Except those that do, base it on personal experience. You can't prove anything by basing it on personal experience.

 

 

What about the sun? Someone whos lived underground their whole life (let's not argue the possibilities of that) If they've never seen the sun... is that not similar?

No, because technically, I could eventually show him the sun.

What if you couldn't?

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

Well good for them. I can't see him and so can't many other people I know. Seeing him through his works is not them seeing him, its them thinking they are seeing him. For example a theist might say "I know there is a god, because we (people) are all here." They would think this is seeing god through his works, when really its just them thinking it is god because they don't have knowledge of anything else that could have caused it, or they refuse to believe that anything but their god caused this event to occur.

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

Well good for them. I can't see him and so can't many other people I know. Seeing him through his works is not them seeing him, its them thinking they are seeing him. For example a theist might say "I know there is a god, because we (people) are all here." They would think this is seeing god through his works, when really its just them thinking it is god because they don't have knowledge of anything else that could have caused it, or they refuse to believe that anything but their god caused this event to occur.

 

 

In other words, they're simply too stupid to understand how humans came here through evolution, so they call it God?

What if you couldn't?

 

That scenario would necessarily mean there isn't proof of the sun, and if there isn't proof, I probably wouldn't believe there's a sun either.

Some could argue (I can, but won't because I'm not debating the existence of God on this forum anymore) that there is evidence of God, and you CAN see him through his works.

Well good for them. I can't see him and so can't many other people I know. Seeing him through his works is not them seeing him, its them thinking they are seeing him. For example a theist might say "I know there is a god, because we (people) are all here." They would think this is seeing god through his works, when really its just them thinking it is god because they don't have knowledge of anything else that could have caused it, or they refuse to believe that anything but their god caused this event to occur.

 

 

In other words, they're simply too stupid to understand how humans came here through evolution, so they call it God?

In some situations, yes.

The point is that if you said the sun doesn't exist, he could easily just point up at the sky and say "There it is." Therefore he was able to prove you wrong, and was the one arguing for existence.

 

Conversely if I say that bigfoot exists and I've seen him, the burden isn't on you to search the world for bigfoot to prove me wrong, it would be on me to show you bigfoot.

 

Of course it's never that clear, especially in some situations. An example of this would be anything that has evidence to suggest it's existence due to it filling a void of sorts where understanding is limited. A non-religious example (for the most part) would be the Higgs Boson or God particle. I don't know too much about it so I'm not going to get into any detail, but there are theories that suggest the existence of this particle and there are few other things that could take it's place, yet there is no concrete proof of its existence. Because of this, while the burden of proof is mainly on those who claim it exists, there is also some burden on those who say it doesn't because of how it fills in the gaps.

 

In many ways I believe that burden of proof is similar in the religious context. The fact that a deity isn't something we can sense means that someone needs to give evidence of it, but the way a deity can explain the unexplained and unexplainable makes it hard to disprove as well. Unfortunately, deities have historically existed to explain things that we otherwise cannot, so the credibility of this "void filling" idea being used as an argument for existence is damaged.

In many ways I believe that burden of proof is similar in the religious context. The fact that a deity isn't something we can sense means that someone needs to give evidence of it, but the way a deity can explain the unexplained and unexplainable makes it hard to disprove as well. Unfortunately, deities have historically existed to explain things that we otherwise cannot, so the credibility of this "void filling" idea being used as an argument for existence is damaged.

 

That may be correct for no specific deity, I was discussing a (any) specific one.

A distinction must be made between "not believing that gods exist" and "believing that gods do not exist". They are not the same.

 

The latter is a statement of belief, comparable to and counterpositioned to the belief that gods do exist. There is no possible way to show definitively that gods don't exist, and so anyone holding this position must (honestly) admit that it cannot be proven.

 

The former, however, is a simple logical position based on lack of evidence. I don't believe gods exist because nobody has shown that they do. I have no more reason to try to prove that they don't exist than I have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. If someone wants to convince me that gods or invisible pink unicorns exist, they must profer the necessary evidence (which, by the way, doesn't mean near-prehistoric, self-contradictory, violent scratchings in a silly book).

 

Dieties don't explain anything unexplained. Answering a question with the supposition that a deity did something does not increase knowledge or understanding. Quite the opposite in fact -- it's a copout that allows the uninquisitive to shut down their minds.

[hide=Ridiculously long reply to Godofjoy and Romy:]

Well, I still stand by my stance that I only believe in things that can be proven. I still hold the possibility that god may exist but only if actual evidence is found, and not like my friend said " I know he is real because of faith."

 

And that's perfectly reasonable. I've been using "God" in the loosest sense of the word; I'm not referring to any one, specific diety. Through my posts, I've been trying to rely the point that simply dismissing the possibility that a supernatural diety exists is foolish. There have been a few people who have posted in this thread stating that they won't even consider this possibility because no "proof" exists. This is hypocritical and closed-minded because, in truth, no evidence can be found which can either confirm or deny such a being's existence (again, the supernatural cannot be tested through purely natural means). Strong atheists who claim that "there is no God" are at just as much fault as those theists who claim "there is a God, and his name is [XXX]", in my opinion. This is my point; I'm not asking anyone to profess belief in any one diety, but rather to not dismiss the possibility that a diety may exist in the first place.

 

 

I'm sure everyone who subscribes to that quote is already well aware that there is no physical, concrete proof which can corroborate God's existence (or that of any other supernatural being/phenomenon), yet they still ask for definitive "evidence" anyway while stating that the original assertion can simply be dismissed if no such proof is provided.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for proof for something as important as a human perspective or as a way of life. Anyone who lives his life believing in something that cannot and will not be proven, is a fool IMO.

 

Again, the 'supernatural' can neither be proven nor disproven through the strictly 'natural' means available to us. You and I are both aware of this, I'm sure, so why would you even ask for proof from the start if you know that everything ultimately comes down to personal belief? There is no evidence one way or another, so why even bother?

 

Assuming that you're a strong atheist (as I suspect), would it be fair to question your belief that "there is no God"? That's certainly a positive assertion, so I could demand that you prove to me beyond a doubt that no supernatural deity exists. However, I realise that it would be unfair to ask for such evidence, since I already know that there is none to be found. Perhaps if I wished to discredit the person anyway, I would go ahead and ask such an impossible and loaded question, but that would be unfair of me and good debate etiquette would have me refrain from doing so. I hope you get my point.

 

And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself. You come across as very elitist and somewhat closed-minded through your posts when you make these implications, and far fewer people will take you seriously in a debate as a result. A bit of respect, even if you feel otherwise, goes a long way.

 

 

Anyone who makes this stipulation does so with no intent of hearing the other side out from the start, as they've already decided that nothing can be done to change their minds;

Mind you, I belonged to the other side myself. I was the perfect believer, I did anything I could think of to "reach God", I studied, I preached, I read, and I even defended God from people like me.

I'm also willing to hear the other side, and have done so, times and times again.

Unless I see proof, I'm not going to enslave myself in the favor of a fairytale, yet I'm all ears to anyone who wishes to show me the other way with proof.

 

Again and again, I state that there is no proof to support either side. Why do you continue to ask for such, regardless? The debate concerning "God's existence" is one founded on personal beliefs and thoughts - not on facts. You can believe what you want, but don't demand to be shown phyical evidence by one side when you know perfectly well that you have none to support your beliefs either. Also, please lay off the negative connontations you've been applying to religion. Religion does not "enslave" anyone, and I'm sure theists in general would appreciate the gesture if you'd stop trying to insinuate otherwise. This is supposed to be a reasoned debate, but here I find you attempting to subtly demonise the opposing side. 'Poor form.

 

 

for the most part, they merely wish to discredit their "opponents" by asking the impossible under the guise of innocent curiosity/debate. In other words, it's something of a loaded question, and really wouldn't be used by someone genuinely interested in debating this topic.

Oh, I'm geniunely interested in debating this topic, but after years of thought and debate, I don't believe the other side can present anything new. I am, however, fully willing to keep hearing the other side, and explaining myself aswell.

 

Really? Then why do you continue to ask for physical proof if you already know that there is none to be had? Are you not trying to discredit theists by asking the impossible (please correct me if I've misunderstood)? And yes, considering how long this debate has been raging throughout time, I doubt either side has any "new" argument to offer, and yet the opposing sides are still deadlocked over what ultimately comes down to a difference in personal beliefs.

 

 

Now, under normal circumstances, it would be natural to expect the opposing side in a debate to present evidence which supports their claims/arguments, but here we're debating over our personal beliefs concerning the possible existence and nature of "God" - a supposedly supernatural being.

At one point, Apollo fit that description exactly, today Apollo is nothing but mythology. The fact that a large part of the world's population believes in something does not mean the "burden of proof" no longer stands.

 

You assume I refer to the Judeo-Christian God? I use quotations in the attempt to be as non-specific as possible; by "God" I mean "supernatural deity". Certainly Apollo is a supernatural deity, and so fits the description. Because of this, I accept the possibility that such a supernatural being called "Apollo" exists, although I doubt that he truly does. This is why I am an agnostic atheist (or otherwise known as a "weak" atheist). And as I explained in my last post, the "burden of proof", which would normally fall on both theists and strong atheists for their absolute beliefs, cannot reasonably be applied to this debate. Both sides know the other has no evidence. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's a debate revolving soley around personal beliefs presented as persuasive arguments.

 

 

Because of this, neither side (those who believe in some form of diety and those who do not) can possibly find/provide evidence as support for their claims, since we live in a strictly "natural" world; the "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond our reach and unable to be tested.

Technically, FSM is "beyond our reach and unable to be tested", but that does not mean that we should be agnostic towards it or not "levy the burden of proof" on anyone who truely believes in FSM (even if no one fits that description).

You see, only one truth can exist. There can't be no God and at the same time be, it's not possible that both Christianity and Hinduism are correct. And so, I think not believing in any specific God is the natural thing any of us would have done if our parents and/or society did not present the concept in front of us. As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'

 

The FSM was quite clearly created by Bobby Henderson as a parody of "God". No one would seriously compare the two (I would hope), as it's still uncertain whether or not a supernatural deity exists, while it's obvious that the FSM is merely an invention of man. Over time, it has degraded into a ridiculous method of mocking religion; very few people take it seriously these days, although the core argument still holds some merit, in my opinion. Concerning that, I agree that (IMO) theists who believe in a specific "God" through a defined religion are at fault, although no more so than the strong atheists who declare that no form of "God" exists. Both make absolute, positive assertions which would normally require substantial proof, however, there is none to be had to support either assertion. It is not possible to definitively prove either argument, so I'm curious as to why you would try to force one side to do so and not the other, or why you're making such an attempt in the first place.

 

Anyway, as an aside, I believe that if there is a "God", then it most likely hasn't made itself known to us yet. I doubt if such a being would even care about us, to be honest, considering how insignificant we are in comparison to the rest of the universe.

 

 

All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything.

For that paragraph alone, I can present the Mr.Green case again.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm well aware of the "FSM" argument, but how does that apply to the paragraph you've quoted?

 

 

In many ways, God is already "real" despite whether or not he actually exists; belief in God has had a much more profound and lasting effect on the human race than any single person or group of people can ever hope to have. Even if there's no definitive evidence to attest to God's existence, it's noteworthy that such a staggering number of people have held a belief in him/her/it for so long. The concept of God is not so easily "dismissed" as you claim, or at least shouldn't be by any open-minded, reasonable person. It's a worthy topic for debate and study, and so shouldn't be trivialised as you appear to be doing.

Again, the fact that many believe/believed in God at one time or another doesn't make him "real" by the original meaning of the word. Apollo was widely believed in at one time, and in the same way you claim God to be real, so is Apollo.

 

Sure, I agree. My point here is that you simply wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any form of supernatural being, but to do so is hypocritical and unreasonable. Again, neither atheists nor theists have any physical evidence which can validate/invalidate "God's existence", so the possibility for either belief to be true is still open.

 

Religion/belief in God has had a significant impact on the human race, so it is already "real" to an extent (which is what I was getting at in the paragraph you quoted). Therefore, is it truly too great a stretch to allow for the possibility that one or more of these "Gods" (if not some other) actually exist behind the scenes? All I ask is for the possibility to be taken into consideration, rather than blindly dismissed for "lack of evidence".

[/hide]

[hide=My response..:]

Again, the 'supernatural' can neither be proven nor disproven through the strictly 'natural' means available to us. You and I are both aware of this, I'm sure, so why would you even ask for proof from the start if you know that everything ultimately comes down to personal belief? There is no evidence one way or another, so why even bother?

That's the main point of my argument. There's no need to prove something doesn't exist. You wouldn't expect me to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist whether someone first claimed that he does and whether not, despite the lack of evidence that supports Bigfoot's inexistence.

 

Assuming that you're a strong atheist (as I suspect), would it be fair to question your belief that "there is no God"?

Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God.

 

That's certainly a positive assertion

No it's not, it's definitely a negative asserertion...

 

so I could demand that you prove to me beyond a doubt that no supernatural deity exists.

The burden of proof does not stand here, just as it doesn't stand for someone who claims Bigfoot doesn't exist. I obviously couldn't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, even if that's the truth. Dedicating my whole life (and let's go as far as saying my children's life, and my children's children's life) to walking around the world, checking everywhere, and not finding Bigfoot, is not enough to prove beyond the slightest doubt Bigfoot doesn't exist, but for someone to say that Bigfoot does exist, it may take a while, but if he really does, he could eventually be found.

 

However, I realise that it would be unfair to ask for such evidence, since I already know that there is none to be found. Perhaps if I wished to discredit the person anyway, I would go ahead and ask such an impossible and loaded question, but that would be unfair of me and good debate etiquette would have me refrain from doing so. I hope you get my point.

I get your point, but think you're wrong. The mere definition theists give God, makes it impossible to prove he exists. And here lies the problem.

What if I told you an unbelieveable story, not necessarily about the supernatural, and claim that I could never prove it to be true, wouldn't my credibilty fall down the drain?

 

And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself. You come across as very elitist and somewhat closed-minded through your posts when you make these implications, and far fewer people will take you seriously in a debate as a result. A bit of respect, even if you feel otherwise, goes a long way.

What can I say? I find it absurd that so many adults wholeheartly believe in something that cannot and will not be proven.

 

Again and again, I state that there is no proof to support either side. Why do you continue to ask for such, regardless?

Again, because the fact that there's no proof for a positive statement (such as "There is a God") is enough to dismiss it IMO. I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument.

 

The debate concerning "God's existence" is one founded on personal beliefs and thoughts - not on facts. You can believe what you want, but don't demand to be shown phyical evidence by one side when you know perfectly well that you have none to support your beliefs either.

Just as I explained up this post, it's quite usually impossible to prove a negative statemet.

When someone states 2 statements, one claiming that "There is a God" (a positive statement) and that "I can't prove God exists", he fills his argument with pointless "air". He presents a positive statement, something which should be proveable, and supports it with a negative one. "Mr. Green is God", "I can't prove that", together mean nothing.

 

Also, please lay off the negative connontations you've been applying to religion. Religion does not "enslave" anyone, and I'm sure theists in general would appreciate the gesture if you'd stop trying to insinuate otherwise. This is supposed to be a reasoned debate, but here I find you attempting to subtly demonise the opposing side. 'Poor form.

I probably should have clarfied myself better here. When I say "enslave", I mean "strictly follow". What I meant by that quote is, that I'd never be fully religous, unless I see concrete proof. To further explain myself here, I'll give you an example. If someone believes that some amulet they're carrying will bring them luck- there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I may be skeptic about that amulet, but the one carrying it (probably) wouldn't worship that amulet or risk their life in it's favor.

 

Really? Then why do you continue to ask for physical proof if you already know that there is none to be had? Are you not trying to discredit theists by asking the impossible (please correct me if I've misunderstood)? And yes, considering how long this debate has been raging throughout time, I doubt either side has any "new" argument to offer, and yet the opposing sides are still deadlocked over what ultimately comes down to a difference in personal beliefs.

" I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument."

 

You assume I refer to the Judeo-Christian God? I use quotations in the attempt to be as non-specific as possible; by "God" I mean "supernatural deity".

Alright.

[/hide]

 

Lol, apparently, I quoted you too much on this post. I'm splitting it :P!

[hide]

Certainly Apollo is a supernatural deity, and so fits the description. Because of this, I accept the possibility that such a supernatural being called "Apollo" exists, although I doubt that he truly does.

You don't seriously mean that, eh? If you do, you should think the same about anything that couldn't be proven not to exist, including fairies, leprechauns, demons, ghosts, monsters, Bigfoot, FSM, the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and another infinite number of possibilities.

 

This is why I am an agnostic atheist (or otherwise known as a "weak" atheist). And as I explained in my last post, the "burden of proof", which would normally fall on both theists and strong atheists for their absolute beliefs,

Except I don't "believe there's no God", I "disbelieve in God".

 

cannot reasonably be applied to this debate. Both sides know the other has no evidence. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's a debate revolving soley around personal beliefs presented as persuasive arguments.

Again, I don't think it's atheists' job to prove there's no God. I guess you already understand my point here though, after reading it twice in this post.

 

 

The FSM was quite clearly created by Bobby Henderson as a parody of "God". No one would seriously compare the two (I would hope), as it's still uncertain whether or not a supernatural deity exists, while it's obvious that the FSM is merely an invention of man. Over time, it has degraded into a ridiculous method of mocking religion; very few people take it seriously these days, although the core argument still holds some merit, in my opinion.

Surely there lies the possibility that FSM is real despite it being the fruit of Henderson's imagination, you must admit. FSM can be perfectly compared to God on the basis that neither own evidence of existence.

 

Concerning that, I agree that (IMO) theists who believe in a specific "God" through a defined religion are at fault, although no more so than the strong atheists who declare that no form of "God" exists.

"Pics or it never happend". As I've said quite a few times on this topic, someone who's completely unaware of any form of religion or God, is very likely not to believe in any specific God, not to mention not believe any God at all. When someone as described reaches 30, any religion presented to him would certainly be seen as a fairy tale and nothing more.

Atheists do not present a story, it's theists that do. Atheists just doubt that story.

 

Both make absolute, positive assertions which would normally require substantial proof, however, there is none to be had to support either assertion.

"God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think?

 

It is not possible to definitively prove either argument, so I'm curious as to why you would try to force one side to do so and not the other, or why you're making such an attempt in the first place.

Except, as I said, defining God as unproveable, fills theists' argument with pointless "air". Sure, it means their statements could never be disproven, but that does not mean there's any truth in them.

 

All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything.

For that paragraph alone, I can present the Mr.Green case again.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm well aware of the "FSM" argument, but how does that apply to the paragraph you've quoted?

Wow, I feel like I'm repeating the same things again and again...

Because if I presented the "Mr.Green-as-a-God" concept, it would be my job to prove it correct, yet if I stated here that Mr.Green isn't a God, no one would expect me or want me to prove my statement, even though the opposing statement couldn't be disproven.

 

 

My point here is that you simply wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any form of supernatural being, but to do so is hypocritical and unreasonable. Again, neither atheists nor theists have any physical evidence which can validate/invalidate "God's existence", so the possibility for either belief to be true is still open.

You probably already know what my answer is here :).

 

Religion/belief in God has had a significant impact on the human race, so it is already "real" to an extent (which is what I was getting at in the paragraph you quoted). Therefore, is it truly too great a stretch to allow for the possibility that one or more of these "Gods" (if not some other) actually exist behind the scenes?

I don't understand your reasoning here. Sure, I agree that you could call God "real" in the name of the concept's influence, regardless of whether or not it really is real, but what does that have to do with whether or not God really is real, or even the possibility of that? That "therefore" you put there seems quite pointless...

 

All I ask is for the possibility to be taken into consideration, rather than blindly dismissed for "lack of evidence".

But I did take that possibility into consideration. As I had already mentioned, I was a great believer in God, and ended up dismissing the idea. I really don't see why you'd call someone "Close-minded" for disbelieving in something without proof.[/hide]

 

That sure was long :ohnoes: !

And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself.

 

Their personal beliefs don't make any sense :(

 

If the beliefs were consistent, logical, honest, had some explanatory value, had no derogatory implications, etc, it would make life with them much easier.