Why I raise my children without God.

[Gold_Certificate]

i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence..."

His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.

Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.

he didn't say anything about supernatural, if the laws of the universe are "god", the universe is not supernatural. my whole point is, faith is doubt (i know that sounds like one of the phrases from animal farm) and what you choose to make it, at least that's how it is for me. i don't think this is an issue you come to a conclusion on and move on, for me it's a lifelong kind of thing, that is riddled with doubt and questions

i'm not even sold on the realness of ours or anythings existence to be honest. and i find the more i learn the more i realize how much i don't know.

He said "God"; which is a supernatural concept:

If he was referring to the laws of the Universe, there was no need to use the word "God" in the first place.

That's no better than saying "If this oxygen atom is "the internet", than "the internet" is not technological.".

Defeats the purpose of words having meanings.

perhaps our definition that "god" is in fact supernatural is wrong

By that reasoning, perhaps our definitions for all words are in fact wrong. Because by removing the "supernatural" aspect from the concept of "God"; it becomes objectively disprovable, observable, and measurable. At which point the burden proof falls squarely upon those claiming the concept exists.

Perhaps "pigs" aren't mammals because our definition for "pig" is also wrong; it's a slippery slope b.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I dislike these topics now because which god are we talking about? Which book are we saying isn't correct? What is a god? How can you say something isn't real if you don't even know what it is you're saying isn't real? Pertinent questions need to be answered before you can question the rest.

 

[Ajackson17]

Bambi YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!! Go back to the depths of darkness from which you inhabit and reside till the age of time passes YOU FOUL BEAST OF IDIOCRACY!!!

 

[cobbland]

There is plenty of evidence that God exists.

 

[powerman 5000]

I agree with the OP, there is a time and place for everything. The worst thing that could happen would be to force people to go along with a religion...... again. However, the article is poorly written. it's like the person that wrote it took as many cliche's as they could find and wrote a rebuttal on it. They seem to not be following any text or any foundation or they spent a sunday in Creflo Dollars building. I'm no bible thumper but proverbs 29, 15 clearly spell out the "rod of correction" in no part does it say tell your kids to be good because a god is watching.

 

[DMTxTHC]

Godzilla the GOAT.. "Simon Says" >>>>..

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Is it so hard to ignore someone that you don't want to read their posts? Trolling? Aggravating? Skip their shit, brutal.

 

[Ajackson17]

i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence..."

His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.

Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.

My reasoning stands correctly and Carl Sagan stands because all you are saying is you have proof of your beliefs in which you don't because you can't see it. Your logical fallacies are showing. All in all is that we don't know because we can't approve or disapprove God exists. Until we can actually travel through hyperspace and know what is there to know about the universe we wouldn't have the capacity to express such a belief is actually true.

I actually said the opposite of this b:

His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.

Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.

Unscientific claims are untestable, so there will never be any proof for or against them.

So the claim that "supernatural" beings exists has the same weight as the claim that a giant objectively unobservable\unmeasurable teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars; which has the same weight as any other unscientific claim.

You said it's "arrogant" to dismiss such claims; if so, it is also "arrogant" to consider anything to be "false" or "true".

That's my whole damn argument man!! >

We know the supernatural doesn't exist that everything has laws and there is order in everything, we don't know all the laws that are in place, but we do know the universe functions on LAWS, but we don't have enough information on every anomaly, etc as of NOW to say if we can say a deity actually exists or not. That's all. You are not FIAT!

If that's your whole argument, then that's the reason I said it was "poor reasoning"; because subscribing to such reasoning also makes it "arrogant" to say that ham exists or that unobservable giant horseshoe crabs don't exist.

The underlined substantiates my argument, since the concept of "God" is a "supernatural" one.

Now this is trolling.

 

[Ajackson17]

I dislike these topics now because which god are we talking about? Which book are we saying isn't correct? What is a god? How can you say something isn't real if you don't even know what it is you're saying isn't real? Pertinent questions need to be answered before you can question the rest.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Ajackson17]

Is it so hard to ignore someone that you don't want to read their posts? Trolling? Aggravating? Skip their shit, brutal.

To some that is a huge HELL YEAH! They are emotional folks so if you go against their beliefs (SHOCKS like any religious believer they don't like) than they are going to go crazy about it.

 

[bambu]

Oh great, Bambi is here.

/thread

oh no he's not about to troll in here. i broke my banning virginity, i have no qualms about doing that shit again

@kai_valya.....

I see you broke your bury posts that make you look stupid virginity as well.......

Internet tough guy......

You would like to ban me wouldn't you??????

Even if you did you cannot erase the ether I poured on your dizzy ass..........

Oh great, Bambi is here.

/thread

@VIBE.....

This stupid shit should be in the R&R or donkey anyways you square-head bastard......

Bambi YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!! Go back to the depths of darkness from which you inhabit and reside till the age of time passes YOU FOUL BEAST OF IDIOCRACY!!!

And @Ajackson17.....

I already ethered your dumb ass.....

You must have forgot nigga......

I can jog your memory.....

 

[ohhhla]

Ah, the presuppositional arguments.

Looks like Eric Hovind's argument

 

[ohhhla]

Im not religious but human beings are way too complicated in the way we are made for it to be purely evolution. Something created us, I stop short of the whole God and Religion thing, but something created the template for what we are.

You and your argument for personal increduity.

Everything that happened was random, we're not special, evolution isn't goal oriented, we weren't created and humans are far from perfect.

This is why science is needed without it, mannnn

 

[Meta_Conscious]

The religion u subscribe to is irrelevant ...

 

[Gold_Certificate]

i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence..."

His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.

Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.

he didn't say anything about supernatural, if the laws of the universe are "god", the universe is not supernatural. my whole point is, faith is doubt (i know that sounds like one of the phrases from animal farm) and what you choose to make it, at least that's how it is for me. i don't think this is an issue you come to a conclusion on and move on, for me it's a lifelong kind of thing, that is riddled with doubt and questions

i'm not even sold on the realness of ours or anythings existence to be honest. and i find the more i learn the more i realize how much i don't know.

He said "God"; which is a supernatural concept:

If he was referring to the laws of the Universe, there was no need to use the word "God" in the first place.

That's no better than saying "If this oxygen atom is "the internet", than "the internet" is not technological.".

Defeats the purpose of words having meanings.

perhaps our definition that "god" is in fact supernatural is wrong

By that reasoning, perhaps our definitions for all words are in fact wrong. Because by removing the "supernatural" aspect from the concept of "God"; it becomes objectively disprovable, observable, and measurable. At which point the burden proof falls squarely upon those claiming the concept exists.

Perhaps "pigs" aren't mammals because our definition for "pig" is also wrong; it's a slippery slope b.

the definition is wrong because our understanding is wrong. and when it is the bolded, science is then "god" which works for me

You're still moving the goalposts by changing the definitions b.

In the bolded you're calling one definition wrong, and with the underlined you're redefining the word.

What's the point of you using the word "god" if you're not referring to what it's defined as or if you're referring to something else such as "science"?

 

[Copper]

if there is a supreme being wouldnt he be incomprehensible to us?

Your providing the answer before you even provide the question.

therefore one cannot say he does or doesnt for a fact

lol

I can say that about a lot of things.... Trust... its a whole lot of shyt that doesn't exist .... I'm not holding out hope for it...lol. I'm more concerned about real life problems.

Also... my life is not built on me NOT believing in God...

because I dont care to even consider NOT BELIEVING in a God.. see what I'm saying.

but I gather your just hung up on the term "ATHEIST". That seems to strike a cord with you.

Which is normal cause people seem to swallow my lack of beliefs when I dont use the "A" term...

Hardly... i can care less what the next man believes or not but when u try to push beliefs no matter what they may be onto the next man i have problems with that especially when ur logic is flawed

 

[Ajackson17]

Bambi is the type to get riled up and mad cause no one wants to believe in his religion that he created from egyptian, hebrew, bablyonian, persian, christianity, islam, greek, etc. He worst than a street preacher, he comes up when he is not wanted and doesn't want to go back to his hell in which you will go if you believe in any bullshit that comes out of his fingers.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

You wack the weirdest shit Five.

 

[Copper]

I dont think the human race is advanced enough to be saying for a fact if omnipotent beings exist or not....we still rage war against one another over money and religion

Sure they are yo.

The only thing supporting the claim that "supernatural" beings exist is the claim that "supernatural" beings exist.

If humans applied such circular reasoning to everything, they'd have to be agnostic about an infinite number of claims that others come up with.

If ur not certain of a certain things theres nothing wrong with saying ur not certain..theres something wise in being agnostic instead of feigning proof of non existence

So humans are to be agnostic when it comes to any one of the infinitely-many conceivable concepts that other humans can create?

If I say "Godzilla exists and he rules the world from the shadows, controlling your every action and desire; and you can't prove he doesn't.", then is it unwise to rule out such a claim?

If anything, it's wise to rule out fantastical claims lacking in any form of proof or provability.

Horrible example... my actions prove that my actions are only being controlled by me

 

[ohhhla]

@CopperKing

We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.

The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but

When it comes to god, we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH