The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

[megabyteme]

God exists, you can't prove otherwise. God doesn't exist, you can't prove otherwise. I exist, therefore I am.

As far as I know, you are just an idea. Some might argue a bad one.

@macky: I am hoping Idol can expand on the concept he was putting out there. I would like to see if he can give it legs, or not...

[IdolEyes787]

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?
@ mjmacky by your same logic like Abybeats says, prove otherwise.

[bigboab]

If something does not manifest then it is like hope. Just an idea or notion.

[Quarterquack]

I didn't realize that something needed concrete manifestation to exist. Take hope for example .Is hope real ? You can neither see nor touch it, only feel it. So real or not?

Don't cheat. Hope is a descriptive word about an abstract feeling. It's like asking whether Books or Unicorns exist. Pragmatic laws apply here. We use blanket words to direct attention or allude to concepts; the beauty of human language is the displacement and continuity of a concept mentioned in speech that passes by. Regardless, while I won't get into the many complexities of linguistic research in the modern day scientific community, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because something has a name doesn't mean it has to exist, or has to continue existing. The laws of language allows for both the existent and the non-existent to be named.

I just mined a hypothetical stone that has a purple hemisphere sitting on top of a diamond encrusted slate pyramid and called it Johnny. Does Johnny exist? Not necessarily, but that doesn't stop me from naming the non-existent. Two Scientists can discover a mechanism at the same time, and each can name it differently. The referencing does not change the existential property of the process they observed. By the same logic, I can call Hope by a different term, such as Blurgh, but that doesn't change the property of that which I reference. It is still the worst of all evils. And we could both still experience it. This is without even going into cognitive and functional brain scans that can "show you" Hope with your own eyes.

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote. Not essentially a snipe at Aby, more like a general foot-note, that before people argue about existence and deities, they might want to read a rich history of over 2000 years of philosophical arguments on the matter, than limiting themselves to what they could come up with from sitting in front of television sets.

[OlegL]

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.

Descarted said, "I think; therefore I am", but what AbyBeats said was "I exist; therefore I am."

[mjmacky]

Point was, given a variety of contextual meanings, you need to define what you are claiming to exist.

As far as proving a god exists or does not exist, you'd also have to examine what you mean by "exist". There's our physical world, a metaphysical world that some believe can interact with our physical world, and then there's the magical anything goes fantasia where objects (people/places/things) only exist as a concept. So if we use "exist" to mean things that occur in the physical world, and to grant some leeway things that exist in the metaphysical world, lets address the theory. If you want to state the case that god exists, you currently suffer the burden of absolutely no proof indicating god's existence. If you propose god does not exists, his absence is supporting proof of that claim. The absence of something doesn't outright prove something doesn't exist, but it's the only proof you can obtain by the design of the inquiry. The biggest confusion here is that people contextualize feelings or interpretations as proof of god's existence, and they're totally illegitimate. So as far as I can tell, god doesn't exists 1, god exists 0.

[darkstate01]

For the record, darkstate01, my mother insists she saw the virgin Mary. As did hundreds of thousands of others. The event is widely known: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm .

Total and utter nonsense,Proof would equal to a picture as a photographic picture of this virgin mary thousands of years ago,What the hell does she really look like? Photographs of the time were not even invented back then,Some human draws a picture of Jesus christ/Mary and everyone presumes that's what he/she really looks like thousands of years later,come on really, In Europe we think this middle eastern Jesus has blonde hair and blue eyes.

Having a bunch of believers saying that they saw there idle isn't proof to me. Neither is a glowing light above a church that's similar shape and design to any human designed statue,Saying that a virgin gave birth to a son of god is even more unbelievable.

In the Tudor time's in England,Henry's soldiers, headed by the brutalist Cromwell,went into churches and stole all the gold and silver they could and also uncovered that these churches were suckering there followers into believing that there statues were crying blood and what ever other liquid suited the time. Believe me when i say that some,not all,but some humans are very easily pushed over by so called proof that this or that is real, these god believers are among the easily suckered sadly to say.

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE,do research then decide.

[A]

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

edit:

Also, I'm starting to really grow a distaste for everyone who just quotes Descartes' most influential one liner without realizing the man had a lot more to give than one silly quote.

I don't know who Descrates is, or any other philosopher as such; except Laozi and Vivekananda. My pops kinda "locked" me out of anything related to philosophy; saying: "When you are mature enough, philosophy will enrich you. Until then, experience the world for yourself and keep an open mind" (something along those lines). The only philosophical discussion I ever do is, once every weekend with my father, while playing go. So ...

[mjmacky]

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design. In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence. So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory), absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.

Now I don't think most invest that many brain cycles into their beliefs. I think for most it comes down to this:
believe --> if right, saved --> if wrong, none the wiser after death
don't belief --> if right, non the wiser --> if wrong, totally fucked

An atheist has more to lose if wrong, while a theist only has to hope they chose the right religion/god/cult. I have heard people approach their beliefs this way, and to me it's a cop out, but that's for pussies. All this bullshit that we experience here... if gods turned out to exist, I would rather spend my eternity as far away from them as possible. Even if my soul will be tormented for all that eternity, or I'm reborn as a goat or some shit.

[A]

If you are after proof, you have to wait; so that science (hopefully) advances to solve the ultimate questions relating to anything and everything. Or, you can contribute to the advancement by being a scientist yourself. Else, you can waste all the brain cycles you want; weaving and reasoning whatever you like. Also, you can start threads like this and argue with each other, where everyone throws their imaginations at each other. Is it fun? Yes. Anything conclusive comes out of it? No.

I pity the girl in that first post really. She makes fun of creationists, and yet she is a firm believer of the theory of evolution which she has no first hand knowledge of. What differentiates her from those creationists' out there? Oh wait, she must be a subscriber of American scientist, which makes her obviously right, right? People who preach what others have said to them are the lamest of all.

Sure I've heard the phrase casually thrown around. I have a feeling that you didn't quite comprehend what I wrote. What I explored was the design of the question and what kind of evidence could be used to test the theory. By design of the question, absence is the only evidence that could be used to support the theory of non existence in a general sense. It's faulted by design.

Proving absence of God is what the theory of non existence is trying to prove, Isn't it? How is it faulted by design?

In comparison, there are all types of evidence that could be used to support the existence of gods, however it is completely deficient of any evidence.

Isn't that contradicting each other?

So in regards to the theory that gods do not exist, we have absence of existence (which would negate the theory),

We have absence of evidence of existence. Who proved they don't exist at all?

absence of any evidence supporting antithesis, and no compelling logical reason to be believe they do exist. So even in its faulted design, the theory of non existence should be the more popular. This process is confined to a very limited space, so let's turn back to reality.

eh!?