PROOF that GOD Exists......

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

It would seem by the fact that our founders did not ban religion outright they must have envisioned some acceptable level of religious practice. Rather than restrict the existence of religion, they created conditions in which could exist as many religions as wanted; a place where religion is totally free to spread or even be invented. They made clear the necessity to keep religion in check, and I agree they would probably be unhappy with the lack of separation we see in many areas today, but I think the claim that they would want God removed from society needs a lot of support before I would accept it as more than conjecture. I've seen only evidence that they wanted God removed from politics.

Of course they wanted Americans to be able to practice religion. But practicing it and injecting it into a culture are two different scenarios. I think it's confusing because until recently, society and religion went hand in hand. A secular society is unknown to most. What do most humans do when they encounter unknown situations?

Religion is a great tool to divide populations. THAT is why politicians argue it's relevance.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...place-religion

Weird stuff.

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.

Originally Posted by afrawfraw

I have no interest in what one delusional entity thinks it sees. My senses and thought processes are fallible. So I don't trust what I perceive, however "real" it may seem. Manipulate my emotions, manipulate my perception. Who can I trust? A practice which seeks information only. A population of all faiths and backgrounds, drawn together to discover common truths. Can I say, "There's no god."? Of course not. I can only say that everyone who looked at the problem, discovered we don't have enough information. So "?" will have to do for now.

Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Speaking genuinely, I would be interested in seeing a specific real world example of the big A atheists.

I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing

Originally Posted by Zaehet Strife

Be reasonable and not belief something that we cannot see, smell, taste, touch or hear. Great post.

So where does misperception fall into this? can you see, smell, taste touch or hear the subconscious mind? there are many phenomena which do not exist in a physical way such that man may perceive them but that does not mean they (a) don't exist, and (b) don't matter. I understand you're going to add all of the equipment and technological advancement that enables us to study things we don't immediately or directly perceive, but with each addition of machinery etc. you add another layer of accepted error; What i don't understand is why there is some great feeling that this point in time will never have its knowledge base rocked by some incredible discovery the way it has over and over throughout history.

Originally Posted by Doer

In quantum speak, we actual change our world by Observation. Therefore the worldview in the past was not only different, the world was different, in that we were closer in our perceptions to the Many Worlds. That is scary and so we tried and tried to get to an Objective basic for Reality. But, the quantum case is practically closed, imo. There is no Objective basis for Reality.

We don't even know if dark matter was "there" before we observed the pans of galaxies rotating as if they were spheres. [Perception?] is Conception, I'm afraid.

Quantumspeak is speculative at best. It's metaphysics dressed up in the latest hard-science terminology. So I take it with the proverbial grain of salt.

Since all we have is our perception, cognition, experience and memory ... I have no difficulty with the idea that everything one knows is subjective. I consider objectivity to be an abstraction, a boundary condition. cn

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

I would think Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin would fit into the capital-A Atheist group you're discussing

Below is my standard response to this idea, although I originally wrote it to someone who was claiming this idea as hard truth, which you are not, so it may sound a bit harsh. BTW, I was responding to the Big A atheists as a hypothetical idea. I do not believe atheism is the root of any problem.


Equivocating non-belief in God with committing heinous acts is a blatant duplicity and no intelligent person here is going to tolerate it.


We have said it, over and over and over in many threads. Pick any name from that list, any example, and ask yourself. Was the problem here that these people were being too rational?


Lets take Jim Jones. Did this atrocity occur because Jim and his followers applied too much critical thought? Did they demand too much evidence and were too consistent in their logic? Was the problem that they wanted things to make too much sense?


Lets take Kim Jong. Is the problem with this situation that he and his people apply too much analysis? Are they being too careful in their thinking and being too reasonable in their actions? Are they too concerned with being conscientious and precise?


Lets take Jeffrey Dahmer. Was his rape, murder and cannibalistic acts a result of being too focused on legitimacy? Was he requiring too much validation and keeping his thoughts too organized? Was he too involved with accuracy and fastidious inquiry?


Do I need to go through the entire list? Skepticism is essentially what every atheist here is promoting. We advocate applying critical examination to the claim of a deity. Is this what lead Alfred Kinsey to exploit children for sex?


The atheist posters in this sub forum are simply promoting rational skepticism. We are trying to discourage dogmatic adherence to an ideology, which was the engine of Hitlers reign. Knowing that we do not believe in God tells you nothing about what we do believe in or what our intentions are.

Religion has been defended in 3 ways in this thread.


Religion is true - We've shown that can't be proven or even supported.


Religion does good things - We've shown nothing good religion provides is unique to religion itself, although the potential evil religion holds is indeed unique and all too easy to unleash.


Atheism leads to bad things - As stated, we are promoting skepticism. Atheism is a term vested on us by theists. The same thing we can find wrong with atheistic regimes are the same things we find wrong with religious regimes; dogmatic adherence. Rational thinking, evidential accountability, and enlightened attitudes helped us overcome fascist and communist dogmas. We should let these forces of sophistication eradicate religious dogma as well.