I have proof that God does not exist.
RB
The debate goes on and on. One side states God exists, and the other
states otherwise. Both sides want proof of the other side's
assertions. I was Christian until the age of 24. About 3 months of
peering through a telescope, and realizing the granduer and sheer
wonder of the universe put everything into it's proper perspective for
me.
I have argued my point with individuals here and there, and admitted I
had no proof of the non-existence of God, while still certain there
was not a God to be found.
But, I came to a realization one day. I in fact have concrete proof
all around me that God does not exist. My proof is humans. Simply
and perfectly. The fact that no shred or sliver of evidence is
anywhere in the animal or plant kingdom, clearly demonstrates to me
that God and divinity are simply human ideas. Wonderful human ideas.
It is amazing that the human brain could (with profound irony)
conceive of a concept as profound as God. Our minds do soar don't
they?
Ivan
> But, I came to a realization one day. I in fact have concrete proof
> all around me that God does not exist. My proof is humans. Simply
> and perfectly. The fact that no shred or sliver of evidence is
> anywhere in the animal or plant kingdom, clearly demonstrates to me
> that God and divinity are simply human ideas. Wonderful human ideas.
> It is amazing that the human brain could (with profound irony)
> conceive of a concept as profound as God. Our minds do soar don't
> they?
>
that that means that God Does Exist as a figment of society's collective
imagination. Mankind has created many God's and many of them have been
created in our own image and is therefore anthropomorphic. Of course none
of this means that their are any Gods other than in the minds of their
creators/proponents. It is kind of like God is a character in one of those
online games and has all the powers and properties that it has been
assigned to his/her character. I therefore propose that as the IPU's
creators we atheists make it superomniscient, superomnipotent and
superomnipresent. As a matter of fact the IPU created all of the other
Gods as part of both a practical joke and an experiment. Christians and
other theists are of course in the "experiMENTAL" group and are bearing the
brunt of the joke which all of us atheists can't help but find amusing.
The IPU is so good to us, in part because of her superomnihumor. She makes
Seinfeld sound like a boring old man.
Please don't take all of the above too seriously or expect any real
consistent logic in it, since like the Bible it was inspired by the IPU,
written by man and subject to the idiosyncratic interpretation of every
"true" atheist. Hell a lulu, i pee u u. - Ivan
Niall McAuley
rob...@wt.net (RB) writes:
>The debate goes on and on. One side states God exists, and the other
>states otherwise. Both sides want proof of the other side's
>assertions.
Only if they are not very well read in basic philosophy. Proof
is an impossible standard for belief. If we can only believe
what we can prove, we can believe nothing.
All systems within which proofs are possible rest on unproven
axioms or assumptions.
What I as an atheist would require to believe in a god is a
meaningful definition or description of that god, and evidence
which makes the existence of that god a reasonable conclusion.
>I have argued my point with individuals here and there, and admitted I
>had no proof of the non-existence of God, while still certain there
>was not a God to be found.
Same as me.
>But, I came to a realization one day. I in fact have concrete proof
>all around me that God does not exist. My proof is humans. Simply
>and perfectly. The fact that no shred or sliver of evidence is
>anywhere in the animal or plant kingdom, clearly demonstrates to me
>that God and divinity are simply human ideas.
That's not much of a proof. Christians have various daft (but logically
possible) explanations for what we see.
>It is amazing that the human brain could (with profound irony)
>conceive of a concept as profound as God.
"God" is a stupid answer to any question.
Newbies, guess who used to use that in his sig !
--
Niall #36 [real answer ends in se, not es]
David Batchelor
In article <3564d1c2...@news.appman.com>, RB <rob...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>
>The debate goes on and on. One side states God exists, and the other
>states otherwise. Both sides want proof of the other side's
>peering through a telescope, and realizing the granduer and sheer
>wonder of the universe put everything into it's proper perspective for
>me.
I was raised Christian (Baptist) and began to lose faith about age 14.
I still wish that the loving, just God I was raised to believe in
existed. But He's just a character from literature.
>I have argued my point with individuals here and there, and admitted I
>had no proof of the non-existence of God, while still certain there
>was not a God to be found.
>
>But, I came to a realization one day. I in fact have concrete proof
>all around me that God does not exist. My proof is humans. Simply
>and perfectly. The fact that no shred or sliver of evidence is
>anywhere in the animal or plant kingdom, clearly demonstrates to me
>that God and divinity are simply human ideas. Wonderful human ideas.
>It is amazing that the human brain could (with profound irony)
>conceive of a concept as profound as God. Our minds do soar don't
>they?
Unfortunately, while I agree with your sentiments, they aren't proof.
The evidence is clear that people deceive themselves in wishful
thinking, and don't properly test their beliefs (selectively accepting
"evidence" for God's existence). As Voltaire observed, people would
invent God whether or not God existed. But I don't think you have
proof, just a more honest attitude for what the human world means.
I agree it is amazing what people can conceive.
Regards,
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Batchelor, Ph.D. batc...@cpcug.org http://cpcug.org/user/batchelo
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
Christopher A. Lee
In article <3564d1c2...@news.appman.com> rob...@wt.net (RB) writes:
>
>
>The debate goes on and on. One side states God exists, and the other
>states otherwise. Both sides want proof of the other side's
>assertions. I was Christian until the age of 24. About 3 months of
>peering through a telescope, and realizing the granduer and sheer
>wonder of the universe put everything into it's proper perspective for
>me.
What debate? There isn't really one. Believers insist that their
deity exists. It's simply irrelevent to non-believers who would
just get on with their own business because it's just somebody
else's belief. But a large segment of believers think it applies
to everybody else too. Which is where this so-called "debate"
comes from.
And it's not eve "whether it applies to everybody else". It's
responding to the believers that think that way to point out
that they haven't actually got any evidence, that we have no
reason even to consider sharing their belief etc. To get them
to realise they have to put up or shut up - we know they can't
put up, so it's to get them to realise that they can't expect
everybody to share their belief so they should keep it amongst
themselves.
But Christianity is an evangelising/proselytising religion.
Which doesn't equip its followers with the reasoning skill
to understand what they have to do to to convince us and
then realise they haven't got it.
There's a cognitive dissonance at work here. They are utterly
convinced that they are in possession of something special
and think it's A Good Thing to tell us all about it - from a
perspective they already know we don't share using premises
that moment's thought would tell them are worthless. To an
extent which borders on religious harrassment. To the extent
of using backdoor methods like creationism.
And all the time they think they're Doing A Good Thing and
we're being ungrateful. Expecting us to show them the
consideration and understanding they don't us. Accusing us
of hatred and intolerance when we react negatively to
their actions. Because that's all we see, their actions.
Whatever their motive which we have difficulty understanding.
And they they don't even realise why they're treated like
idiots for it.
>I have argued my point with individuals here and there, and admitted I
>had no proof of the non-existence of God, while still certain there
>was not a God to be found.
You don't need it. Any more than you need to prove there aren't
UFOs behind comet Hale-Bopp. We're in the defaust state of having
no reason even to consider their belief: it's irrelevant to us.
If they expect to be taken seriously it's up to them to provide
something convincing. Whether the claim is for UFOs, Santa Claus,
cold fusion or deities.
The god-sized blind spot most theists have cause them to imagine
that their god-claims are subject to different rules than
everything else.
>But, I came to a realization one day. I in fact have concrete proof
>all around me that God does not exist. My proof is humans. Simply
>and perfectly. The fact that no shred or sliver of evidence is
>anywhere in the animal or plant kingdom, clearly demonstrates to me
>that God and divinity are simply human ideas. Wonderful human ideas.
>It is amazing that the human brain could (with profound irony)
>conceive of a concept as profound as God. Our minds do soar don't
>they?
That's true. If you approach it from the observation that people
believe in lots of different gods of different religions then
*most* of them are definitely human ideas. And we have no way
of differentiating "the one true deity" from these. But
unfortunately every believer knows his own one isn't - and that
we should somehow realise this too.
The mistake is in using reason and intelligence. Which even
the most intelligent believer doesn't have when it comes to his
god-sized blind spot, no matter how rational he is normally.
Which is why there will always be argument. Never debate
because debate requires two willing participants.
And as long as theists proselytise, witless etc, use back
door tactics like creationism etc then they will be resisted.
Which is self-defence not debate.
And as long as they do this there can't be any compromise
either. What would that be? A halfway impact on my right
of freedom from their religion? I don't care what they
believe and practice as long as they leave me and mine
alone. Why can't they show me the same courtesy?