good news for all of us!

[Lion IRC]

if there WAS a transcendent moral law, your god has neither shown it, nor any proclivity towards following one.

Yes He has.

...Your god gave the world evil and practiced it and bragged about it. 

No He didn't.

...Your god is the most immoral of all gods man has invented.

LOL. You are projecting. (Irony much?)

[Green Bottle]

[stromboli]

Transcendent moral law speaks to that which is common to all cultures, i.e. transcendent. Murder, incest, thievery and so forth. Your god condoned slavery in the Old testament and made rape a property crime. There is nothing treanscendent about allowing a rapist to get off the hook by marrying his victim. And based on sheer numbers, is responsible for the death of more human beings than any other. Their crime? Disobedience and exercising the free agency not to worship your god.

Christians saying their religion is based on love is no different than Islam labeled the religion of peace. Same level of hypocrisy, different set of beliefs.

[christy starseeker]

Yes He has.
No He didn't.
LOL. You are projecting. (Irony much?)

Denial isn't much of an argument mate ;)

Your "loving, benevolent god" killed 40,000 people just for LOOKING at the ark.

Your kind,caring God cursed the entire human race just because adam and eve ate a piece of fruit. this is made all the more egregious when you realize that adam and eve had no concept of good and evil and couldn't have possibly known this act was truly wrong until hey ate the fruit(and even then,it's implied they atleast felt pretty bad about it),yet god knowing this subjected every human being to horrific suffering and burden over the minor transgression of two beings. Your God is a sadistic asshole.

[Sargon The Grape]

Who gives a shit what some character in a book did or did not do? The character doesn't exist.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[christy starseeker]

I agree, "god" itself is ultimately a meaningless term when you really start to analyze it's meaning.

[Lion IRC]

I agree, "god" itself is ultimately a meaningless term when you really start to analyze it's meaning.

LOL
I'm gonna treasure this little gem of atheist wisdom.

[christy starseeker]

LOL
I'm gonna treasure this little gem of atheist wisdom.

Who ever said i'm an athiest? idiot =w=

[Moralnihilist]

LOL
I'm gonna treasure this little gem of atheist wisdom.

From Merriam-Webster:

God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

This is the definition of god. The definition is quite vague as one can see....


You know what, Im simply to tired of dealing with religious idiots to put much effort into this. So Im just going to save a bunch of time and go to the end of the argument.

Until you can provide proof for your claims of god kindly fuck off and die.

[christy starseeker]

the keyword being "die"

[GrinningYMIR]

"They will kill you because their god tells them too"

Pretty much sums up religious folk for the past couple of millennia. And then there's the whole "god has to exist because the universe exists"

Yup. Solid logic that.

Humans created god as a means of expressing things tey didn't understand, like when lighting struck someone, he was obviously smited by the almighty for some sin.

It's just their way of attempting to explain things they can't grasp: GAWD DID IT,


On a personal note you do seem like the average internet user/troll so if you were attempting to sound unique you failed miserably

[christy starseeker]

I think this sums it up perfectly.

[Green Bottle]

I agree, "god" itself is ultimately a meaningless term when you really start to analyze it's meaning.

Yep

LOL
I'm gonna treasure this little gem of atheist wisdom.

As well as spouting bullshite and denying facts Lion is also a patronising fk....

[justme]

Why doesn't this man, the pope, stick to tending to his flock and leave the rest of us alone?

[stromboli]

Why doesn't this man, the pope, stick to tending to his flock and leave the rest of us alone?

Because that is the controlling nature of religion. Welcome.