There is no evidence for God

Its illogical not to believe in God.

Its illogical not to believe in God.

Its illogical not to believe in God.

A lot of religions are about having a sense of purpose in life (eg helping others or achieving enlightenment). Believing in an afterlife and/or reincarnation (also a part of a lot of religions) also makes the concept of death less unknowable and therefore less scary. There is also the fact that religions provide a source of hope and community for people who might need those things.

Also, the whole idea of "faith" is that you don't need evidence.

Religions help people, stop trying to tear them apart.

A lot of religions are about having a sense of purpose in life (eg helping others or achieving enlightenment).

Also, the whole idea of "faith" is that you don't need evidence.

Religions help people, stop trying to tear them apart.

In society, one's actions affect others. If someone practiced their faith in a vacuum (ie behind closed doors), then there'd be little issue. That shouldn't be what happens in theory given the prescribed verses the insane person replying to me memorised by rote, and neither in practice.

I think we - academics and atheists - get tired of being marginalised, of the inhumanity of barbaric practices in the Middle East, of the insanity of rejecting birth control, of the opposition to science and education, of the involvement in national politics, and of the terror ravaging throughout the Western world.

If religion was used appropriately to inspire, to teach love and acceptance, etc that Abrahamic religions profess, then we'd have less of a problem with it. Is there many on this thread that seem to have a problem with Buddhism, or Hinduism? It's not, most of its practices are fundametally regressive and anti-reason.

Faith in itself should never be seen as a good or noble thing, it's time to stop pretending it is.

You don't need to be religious to help others or to become more enlightened.



And why is religion any more valid than any other baseless claim that doesn't have any evidence behind it? I can't sit here and claim that michael jackson is on mars and then attempt to hide behind faith when questioned about it.



1) It hinders scientific progress. e.g. US Congressman Paul Broun (R-Georgia) has dismissed evolution, the Big Bang theory and embryology as "lies straight from the pit of hell." He is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee, deciding how tax dollars are spent on science programs.
Also it's very difficult for stem cell research to get funding because religious fundamentalists oppose it.
They also attempt to restrict access to birth control for religious reasons.

2) Religious groups have fought extremely hard to try and deny various people rights e.g. gay people.

3) People are slaughtering each other every day because others don't believe in the "right" god.

Religious extremists are another matter. Many do not in fact practice what their religion teaches - e.g the Quran states that you should not attempt to spread Islam by force.

The vast majority of religious people are practicing peacefully. The few who aren't would find another excuse for their actions.

I also definitely do not believe I am marginalised for being atheist.




I'm an atheist. I'm well aware that I'm perfectly capable of being a good person despite my lack of religion.

If there was a community of people who believed that, I wouldn't have a problem.

1. Birth control and scientific advancement are important, yes. I never said religion was perfect, and it should definitely be criticised for that. Just not in a way that targets peaceful believers.

However, on the same note, there are non-religious reasons for opposing stem cell research (eg the potential for life of an embryo) and not all who oppose are religious. Plus, it's a debate. You have an opinion - is it so hard to believe other people do to? Is it so hard to fathom that they might not agree with you?

2. I am part of the lgbt+ community and I'm well aware that people have used religion as a reason to hate. But I also know plenty of supportive and lgbt+ religious people, and hateful atheists. People will always find a reason.

3. And people slaughter each other for a lot of reasons. Religion isn't to blame, humanity is.

You talk a lot of sense.

But what you fail to see is motivation. Religion is a very good motivator and a very good excuse. That is the problem.

That is true, yes. But I still don't believe the entirety of religion should be opposed - just certain parts of it, those that are causing problems - because for the vast majority of religious people, my original post stands true. The purpose of this thread was not to critique those parts, but rather attack religion as a whole.

If we're having a discussion, we need to be having the right one.

Christianity.

Why did the Protestants split? While they are still not "perfect" let's say, they are miles better than the Catholics. They reformed.

Why can't Islam reform? Why can't people openly say, hey look there are obviously some things that cause a lot of misinterpretation, there are some things that were true in the past, let's bring Islam into modernity. No. Every time an attack happens Muslims are #NotOneOfUs. All words, but no actions behind them.

I just want to point out that the reformation happened for vital theological reasons. You may want to do some more reading on the theology behind the split. It wasn't just because of divorce, which is what British schools tend to focus on in history lessons. The reformation wasn't just about improving the Catholic Church. There were and still are fundamental theological problems with what it teaches. It's a matter of authority - who do we go to for truth about God and why?

Look up concepts like sola scriptura, sola fide, these are so vital to the topic.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Its illogical not to believe in God.

It is illogical to provide a supernatural explanation for something without any evidence. Baseless beliefs are not worth anything.

Also, scientific theories are improved upon when new evidence is discovered, or are cast aside if proven to be false or if a better theory comes along. This is a strength.
Religious theories do not change to fit the evidence, and anything in the religious texts that is completely wrong is conveniently ignored or excused away. This is a weakness.

Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.

You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.


Posted from TSR Mobile

No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation". Has nothing to do with science, or implying anything.

And I just just skimmed through the rest of your post. So you are actually supporting our argument - not everyone would agree what evidence even is, and in the end it's just faith and what people believe. That's all we are saying, believing in God is blind faith. Nothing more and all those people not admitting that, and instead trying to justify his existence or even prove it, are delusional fools.

At least respect me enough to read what I said and reply to it. I took time to explain his fallacy - you didn't approach my explanation or ask me for clarification of terms like 'begging the question' or 'the scientific method'. I took time to explain the implications of using science as a source of truth. I explained the conversation I had with a friend who also doesn't believe in God. I showed how his reasoning is faulty - science doesn't deal in the supernatural. You are mistaking naturalism (a philosophy that you cannot prove is true) for science. I also pointed to this idea that you have no basis to absolutely trust any of your knowledge - it's circular - faith-based, like the theists you are mocking.

But you won't respond to what I actually said.

Finally, I want to reply to this idea of blind faith. I think one of the things with Christians is that they can live consistently with what they profess to believe. You can't live consistently with your atheistic belief - nobody does (I would point you to morality, love, justice, responsibility for people's actions, validity of the senses and reason as just a few contradictory things you steal from the theistic framework everyday). Indeed, we all rely on (have faith in) things outside of ourselves in order to formulate a worldview. But if you can't live consistently with what you believe, then it's not a convincing worldview.

So why do people still believe in God?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh boy so edgy. Live and let live mate, people can believe what they want. You all look stupid when you're trying to make the other side look like the bad one, the argument is going nowhere. Be the bigger person whatever side you're on and shut up. Debating something when one side says "there's no evidence he exists" and the other saying "there's no evidence he doesn't exist" is getting nowhere, the real question should be if he did exist, would it be a good thing?

Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.

You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.

But you need to see 3 things:
1) when we do scientific experiments, we must assume a methodological naturalism. This allows us to isolate causes, get to reproducible results, and therefore learn about the mechanisms in the universe (how things work, how things happen).
2) what you're doing is extrapolating methodological naturalism (there are no extraneous, 'supernatural' forces acting in the experiment, simply the laws of physics and chemistry, a closed system) to the entire universe (the universe is a closed system, there is no supernatural, just physics and chemistry)
3) finally, you have no basis to trust the validity of the assumptions of science. I'm not saying that science is not valid. I'm saying that you have faith in the tenets of science, and you have extrapolated them into a philosophy called naturalism. You don't have evidence for what you believe. You cannot for example demonstrate how human reasoning is valid.

I'm very happy to chat further about this stuff. It's all about worldviews, it's not about evidence. We have the same evidence. We interpret it differently.



I can understand why you say these things, but you are guilty of what you say the religious are guilty of. It's quite clear, if you would think about the philosophy behind your statements.

I will give you one illustration. I was talking about God with a friend when he said there's no evidence for his existence. I asked him, "What would count as evidence of God to you? How could God prove his existence to you?"
He said, "If God were to give an indisputable sign, like if he were to move the stars into the shape of words saying, 'I AM GOD. WORSHIP ME.'"
I said, "Would everybody believe then? Would everybody think that was convincing evidence? How sure would you be that it wasn't aliens from another planet, and they'd worked out how to move the stars? People would believe all sorts of things. And each belief would be faith."
Science can't approach the question of the supernatural. As soon as you start to talk about God, you leave the scientific method, and you venture into philosophy, theology and history. If you insist non-scientific sources of truth are not valid then you give up science itself and then you don't believe in anything.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Isn't it crazy to believe in someone that doesn't exist though?


Posted from TSR Mobile