Theism is based on beleive, and it cant be felt by others unless they start believing...
Oh that's something I never heard before!!Very well then, since you have got such a hard on about mindlessly believing any random shiit without having to care for even a shred of evidence, then would you believe me that I've got shoes to sell that can make you taller or shorter whenever you wish for it..................but the catch is, you will only get to experience it after you make the payment??Not good enough, here's a even better deal for ya, I've got a briefcase to sell, you see, it's no ordinary briefcase but a ultra futuristic, straight outta sci-fi borderline magic briefcase, which can double up as a giant fuckking bayblade with razor sharp fucking blades that can cut through 10 meter solid blocks of DU and comes with auto tracking to a missile launcher to a mini gun and a whole 663 other different types of weapons at your will but again, the catch remains the same - you will get a demo only after you make a payment of 2 billion USDs (which of course, is non refundable) to my bank account!!Wanna take the ride??How bout you start practising what you preach by keeping your money where your mouth (or your belief in this case) is ??
universe or life is a mystery science is unable to explain correctly, (and NO, big bang theory or multiverse theory cant explain everything)
So cliche.................and so fuckking boring!!Really, by now you people should have realised that babbling this same shit over and over and over again (and again after that) wouldn't make it a fact!!Sure, science can not explain everything, yet but that doesn't make your stance wrt the existence of a supernatural deity anymore sustainable!!
What you are doing here is simply dabbling in the same age-old 'Gods of gap' shiit!!The ones before you did the same thing!!Like, oh we can't explain sun set or sun rise with logic, so therefore God!!And then when science did prove that it is in fact just a natural phenomena and can indeed be explained by simple logic, then at first they just tried to promptly shot it down by uttering their usual bs and then when that became unsustainable, they said, 'oh no no no no no, may be it ain't the handiwork of god but you can't explain eclipse or tides, so therefore god!!' And as that shiit got proved wrong too, you people again shifted the goal posts and then it was the same thing all over again with even more no nos and this and that!!And shitt's been the same for time immemorial.This god hypothesis shiit has been brought up and then thoroughly debunked so many times over and over again, that your god is now reduced to mere inconsistencies in our knowledge base, and his existence,his domain itself has been reduced to mere gaps and narrow fissures in our knowledge base!!Frankly speaking, that's a rather dangerous and precarious position to be in, I mean the more we keep finding out new things the shallower those gaps and fissures gonna get and eventually, your god or whatever will get crushed to nonexistence as the gaps get filled up completely!!It's not a matter of if but a matter of when!!Our time has already begun and we already outnumber the Hindus as a group of people with scores of erstwhile religious folks kicking their faiths in the @rses and flocking to our club in droves, swelling our ranks by leaps and bounds!!Buckle up and brace yourself m8, interesting times ahead, muhahahaha!!
according to me atheists are confused
Well, that's just your opinion and you do know what they say about having an opinion, don't ya partner??
and atheism is incorrect connotation in use, since no "Atheist" can prove that god is not present...
Is that so??Well let me make one thing aptly clear to you m8, atheists do not need to prove
SHIIT!!Clearly you do not know the @sshole from piehole to bellybutton of what you're talking about!!No atheist worth his/her salt has ever made any claim that "god doesn't exist'!!No one, not a fuckking one of them has ever made such a claim.Instead, our stance is rather state forward, that there is no evidence what so ever to prove the existence of a god or anything supernatural for that matter, and therefore it's illogical for people to dabble in such shiit!!And as we don't make any positive claims, we need not prove shiit to anyone!!In fact, it's you people who actually needs to come up with all the evidence since you are the ones making a positive claim here, the claim that 'god exists'!!Surprise surprise, your argument doesn't work in the real world!!You been sleeping for far too long now kid, wakey wakey!!Wake up and smell the coffee now, add some muffins if you must, cause in the real world (unlike in your lalalala dream land of fairy tales) it's the one making the positive claim who needs to bear the burden of proof!!too bad, so sad!!
agnostics are better than atheists.
Why??Because they are less scathing of your bs??Or is it because they are so easy to shut off by hard gesturing and strong words??You know what I think about them??You know what they really are- they are just like us atheists,just like us with one big difference!!They are closet atheists, too afraid to come forward with their identities and confront the society as real human beings!!They are just a bunch of selfish people with no self esteem, just sit on the fence and watch their
'atheist brethren' (their words not mine, hence the quotation marks) bearing the burnt and do nothing about it..............nor they can do, they just don't have the stomach.
and no science and scientific method is still not able to solve natural mysteries including the life, universe, time etc etc
Read up on the works of Oparin and Haldane, study some real science books for a change.
Probably if you had based you beliefs on logic and reason ,rather than on bluster, you would never have made such a momentous error.
Ahhh..........I'm afraid you're confusing me with your highness here, cause the only one dabbling in worthless bluster here, is you and not me!!
Yes, you highness is correct in this matter,
Yeah, as much correct as much his piehole is the same as his @rsehole!!
It's your highness by the way, just saying.
and has much deeper knowledge of belief systems than most lay people.
Apparently, so deep that he has himself fallen into that gorge and the resulting brain trauma has reduced him to his present mental state!!
Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion ,traditional or non-traditional. The belief of Atheism lies in the fact that "God does not exist" which is impossible to prove philosophically and logically ,or say as difficult to prove that "God does exist".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh I beg your pardon but
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok sorry, I'm sober now, but wait, no
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok Ok, now I'm really sober, but my belly is still aching from the laughter!!Don't get me wrong but do you happen to be a or at least considering to take the profession of a stand up comedian??I mean you will make a fortune in that line of business...................seriously, I kid you not!!
Ok, here is the thing, you know nothing about atheism, PERIOD!!No two way around it m8!!Your line of thinking is pretty consistent with that off all the others I've had the fortune of coming across and it stems from inadequate understanding of what's atheism is all about!!Atheism is lack of belief!!Our stance is very much simple - 'that there is no evidence what so ever to prove that the god or anything supernatural actually exists, none.So therefore, there is no sense in trying to answering something from that point of view and instead, we should try scientific method the unlock the mysteries of nature and so far, it has been highly successful to that point where your god has become reduced to duel in mere gaps!!
And saying atheism is also a belief is as true as saying something for example like,
"abstinence is a sex position" or
"not collecting stamps (or whatever) is also a hobby", like
"bald is also a hair color", like
"not playing cricket is also a game" or shiit like that!!And i know where you're coming from - you are coming from that basic mistake all of you people tend to make.That you equal the position of
'not believing in the existence of god' with the position of
"believing no god exists"!!But it could not have been further from the truth!!
It's like saying, just because one doesn't believe that there are an even number of stars in the universe,therefore one must believe that there are an odd number of stars in the universe!!It really sounds that much illogical and absurd and hilarious when you people utter things like this.
You know the problem with you people - everything is like a binary choice to you, every damn thing there is!!For you, it's either black or white, in the meanwhile, you remain wilfully ignorant of the fact that, there is in fact a grey area in between, in fact if there are virtually an infinite shades of greys lying there!!
And no, Scientific methods does not work in proving and disproving existence of God.
Proves my point, isn't it??That there ain't no proof of the existence of god what so ever!!
Induction (of Hume) is a critique of over-reliance on scientific methods; and proving or disproving any extra-sensory entity based solely on sensory knowledge is a baloney.
Philosophy ain't really my cup of tea.I'm a man of science and cold, hard logic and I'll take them over philosophy any day.
It is western corollary of "Blind man and Elephant" tale of Paramhansa.
I've heard that story countless times, I'm an Indian after all!!But unfortunately, there arises a lot of problems when you try to use this metaphor on the context of religions and its relation with reality!!Let me break them out to you point by point.Ok, here is -
Number 1. This view runs into logical contradictions. All the religions can be wrong. But, because of the varied truth claims, they cannot all be right. What about the exclusive claims of each religion? Take for instance the three major, monotheistic religions and their view of Jesus. In Islam, Jesus is merely a prophet. In Judaism, Jesus is a false prophet. In Christianity, Jesus is a prophet who is actually God incarnate. They cannot all possibly be true. Some might persist and say that they’re true for that person but not for another. Does this not make truth relative? No one thinks 2+2=4 is only true for them.
Number 2. The example never really adds anything to the discussion about the relationship between religion and truth. Which part does each religion get right? What parts of the varied worldviews are true and which ones are false? The genius is in the details and there are none in the above example.
Number 3. In what ways are the blind folks and religions similar? An analogy is only strong if there are sufficient relevant similarities and a paucity of relevant dissimilarities. It would seem to me that they are quite dissimilar. Are people blind? Is religion a shot in the dark? How does the person giving the analogy have his eyes opened? What about the Christian doctrine of revelation? Are all people essentially “searching” for God?
How is God like an elephant? Do the people have enough evidence to say anything meaningful concerning the nature of God? What counts as a religion? Is a religion a living organism like the blind man?
Number 4. The analogy is fraught with assumptions. First, the example assumes that all are equally blind. All religions are on equal footing despite the veracity of the claims made by each one. But, this is most certainly false. A religion built upon the facts of history that is logically coherent as well as existentially viable is in another ontological category than one without those features. Second, the example is one-sided. There is one person who isn’t blind. The tolerant pluralist has had his eyes opened. In the end, the pluralist is arrogant and his pluralism reduces itself to a form of exclusivism.
Number 5. Does the analogy presuppose the reality that it is arguing for? “All religions tell a part of the truth but not the whole truth as evidence by the fact that all religions say something about the truth but none are holistically true. They’re describing truth from their perspective.” It would seem that this example is begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim.
Number 6. Last but not least - an elephant is still a real thing, which can be heard,seen,felt,tasted and smelt!!Elephant is a thing that duels in the same plane of existence as we do but the same can't be said about god!!There is no evidence for his existence what so ever.And therefore, it's not really prudent to use this metaphor on the relation between god and religions and the perception of reality!!
And it still doesn't bring forward any evidence in support of your stance what so ever, so this is moot anyway.
Now let me give you a metaphor of my own.You see, between two of us you and I that is, we are like two random dudes who have been blind folded and then set inside a dark room with the instruction of looking for a black cat in there, which isn't really there.See, there is not that much of a difference between the two of us,except for one - that being you managed to find that cat where as I'm still looking for it!!Get it??
Every criticism ,every shortcoming of argument that you could bring forth for disproving existence of god, could be turned around to disprove disproving of existence of God.
I (or any fellow atheist/free thinker/none/humanists/sceptic or whatever the way one would like to address oneself for that matter) don't have to do anything to disprove the existence of your god, since you guys are yet to bring any evidence in support of your stance!!Heck, forget about evidence, you do not even present any logical arguments in support of your tall claims!!So there no question of disproving something that is not even standing on a firm ground of logic!!Don't you know how things work in the real world, m8??
And btw, Scientific progress never killed religion. It is consumerism and rise of professional Psycho-therepy services which killed religion by making clergy redundant.
By that logic, religion should have been wiped clean out of countries like Saudi Arab or USA yet they continue to remain two of the most religious nations on the face of the earth!!