GOD DOES NOT EXIST

Rich_Rodriguez's picture

Does God exist? This is one of the most important questions affecting our modern world. Primitive man attributed almost everything in his natural environment to god or gods of some kind. Many devout ancient northern Europeans once worshipped the god Thor. Legend has it that he defeated the personification of “Old Age” in battle. Thor, whose name in Old English is “Þunor” gave his name to the day Þunresdæg, meaning the day of Þunor, known in Modern English as Thursday. Þunor (Thor) is also the source of the modern word thunder for which he was once thought to be responsible for. Primitive man would hear Thunder and attribute it to Thor having a bad day or dispensing judgment for some blasphemy.

The question we should ask is why Thor is no longer worshipped? Even today science has yet to fully explain the phenomenon of thunder. Aristotle thought it was the caused by cloud collisions. In the 20th century a consensus evolved that thunder must begin with a shock wave in the air due to the sudden thermal expansion of the plasma in the lightning channel. The reason I bring up Thor and the phenomenon of thunder, is they are representative of what was once considered a gap in human understanding. What was once considered a mystery is now easily answered with the advent of science. Sure it’s a theory but it is one which can be tested and has a high probability of truth.

Do you know any Christians who protest the scientific stance on the theory of thunder? No, to them the scientific data is sufficient enough to falsify the belief and worship of the god Thor. Why is it that they are willing to accept high probabilities based on Science when it relates to Thor, but cringe at the thought that we reconsider the improbability of talking donkeys?

Christians themselves are Atheist in regards to Thor, Odin, Mithras, Dionysus, Baal, Attis, Osiris, Horus, Ahura Mazda, Huracán, Zeus, Apollo, along with countless other gods, the difference being that we simply believe in one less god than they do! One could argue that there is no point in refuting something which has yet to be proven. In this case, “God exists” is the positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially an extraordinary claim such as this. Simply positing a god with zero proof proves absolutely nothing. Often theists like to follow their unproven claim with “well you can’t disprove god” which is a false dichotomy. It must be proven first otherwise the claim to improvability could fall to any outrageous claim. You can’t disprove anything that has not yet had positive support. What if I said the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the true creator of the world and simply fell back to well you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence? No reasonable human being (Christians included) would accept that without some sort of proof, yet this is exactly what we find all over the world.

Burden of proof aside, I will address the unproven claim in detail. This will be done using several systematic topics and techniques. The first topic I will address which speaks to the god of the bible (GOTB) being false, are the incoherency arguments i.e. (all just but all forgiving etc.) attributed to him. This part of the case I call “the logical case against the creator”. Secondly, I will address the more technical aspects of the books reportedly inspired by him. I have a fairly good lexicon of both Hebrew and Koine Greek which will be employed when evaluating many of the contradictions, redaction and interpolations found throughout the Tanakh and Greek Testament. I will also use Archaeological materials from Ras Shamra (Ugarit) , Khirbet el-Qôm and other pre-Israelite cities in antiquity to show this supposed tradition of monotheism was unfounded. Judaic monotheism rose out of a Henotheistic belief system which is heavily attested to in the Tanakh itself. Many Christians love to call this an evolution of religion. "People used to worship many gods but now we know better, there is only one god" - N.T. Wright. Well if the evolution from many gods to one is progression, whats the next logical sequence? to be continued.....

Visit my blog @ http://christianpwnage101.blogspot.com/index.html

 

 

Evolved Morality's picture

religous pantheons

did  many cultures go  from multiple gods to a single deity naturaly     or was it more a take over of said religion by  a new deity thru invasion  like christianity  silly question i know but still learning

Evolved Morality

EM,  Forgive me for

EM,

 Forgive me for picking on you a little, but you seem awfully convicted for someone who is "still learning." By that I mean that you seem to have come to atheism based on an overwhelming lack of information. This seems to contradict the whole idea that is based on reason, rather than on intuition, emotion, etc.

First of all, an atheist is

First of all, an atheist is someone who denies the existence of deity altogether, not just particular gods. Thus, "Christians" are not atheists in regard to Thor and other Germanic gods. They simply don't believe in them. It is an obvious distinction. Atheists don't just deny one more god, they deny the existence of the category "god." So we're talking about a qualitative, not just quantitative, difference between atheists and theists. That's one.

Secondly, for the Christian it is not the scientific explanation of thunder that precludes the need for Thor, it is the belief in the One God. Furthermore, it is not a sociological/anthropological given that religion exists because man has a need to explain natural phenomena outside his control, therefore he makes up beings that control them. At best, that is a theory of the history of religion. At worst, it is an atheistic ideology. At any rate, it is not a presupposition that I would be willing to grant, and it is certainly not  necessary, even if you don't believe in divinity. You may think that's where the whole notion of gods comes from, but there's no proof that that's the case. There are other reasonable explanations, even for an atheist.

 

TPin wrote: EM, Forgive

TPin wrote:

EM,

Forgive me for picking on you a little, but you seem awfully convicted for someone who is "still learning." By that I mean that you seem to have come to atheism based on an overwhelming lack of information. This seems to contradict the whole idea that is based on reason, rather than on intuition, emotion, etc.

 

Umm excuse me he is asking about the history of religion. Now that isn't to say that he doesn't know about the religiosn of today and the nonsense that they assert. So no it does not contradict the idea that it is based on reason. 

Sapient's picture

As I said elsewhere get

As I said elsewhere get ready for a theist badge on "Tpin"

If it turns out "tpin" is not a theist, I suggest we start an "ignorant atheist" badge.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient wrote: As I said

Sapient wrote:

As I said elsewhere get ready for a theist badge on "Tpin"

If it turns out "tpin" is not a theist, I suggest we start an "ignorant atheist" badge.

 

How about questionable atheist? For the people who call them selves atheists but act just like theists in almost every way. 

Again, you're really hurting

Again, you're really hurting your credibility here. When you call someone ignorant based on their subscription to certain views that you associate with theism, which you in turn associate with ignorance, you are not being very "rational" unless you show why and how what they are saying is ignorant. You are displaying behavior that is typically associated with fundamentalism. Even the need to throw the label on someone is symptomatic.

Quote:   Umm excuse me he

Quote:

 

Umm excuse me he is asking about the history of religion. Now that isn't to say that he doesn't know about the religiosn of today and the nonsense that they assert. So no it does not contradict the idea that it is based on reason. 

 

Are you arguing that he has denied the existence of divinity based on the teachings of contemporary religions?

TPin wrote:   Are you

TPin wrote:

 

Are you arguing that he has denied the existence of divinity based on the teachings of contemporary religions?

I assume that he LACKS A BELIEF IN GOD because he hasn't been presented with evidence for a gods existence.  So no thats not what i'm saying. 

TPin wrote:When you call

TPin wrote:
When you call someone ignorant based on their subscription to certain views that you associate with theism, which you in turn associate with ignorance, you are not being very "rational" unless you show why and how what they are saying is ignorant.

Ok, TPin, here's one little thing you are ignorant upon.

MOST atheists do not give the positive claim that there is no god.  That's called "Strong Atheism".

The more common type of atheist is called a number of things, "Weak Atheism", "Agnostic Atheism", etc.  A lot of atheists when they first become atheist mistakenly call themselve agnostic.  In truth they are a type of atheist.  They simply haven't figured out what the term atheist really covers.

Those atheists DO NOT deny the possibility of god, they simply state that they have no reason to believe in one.  It's not a positive claim.  It's a negative claim to a specific type of idea or neutral claim to a general type of idea.  They will neither say 'yes' or 'no' to the possibility of a god, just that certain gods in today's religions are contradictory by definition or...well stupid.

So first figure out what atheists really are before you start telling people about atheists.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci

Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture

Rich_Rodriguez wrote:

Rich_Rodriguez wrote:
"People used to worship many gods but now we know better, there is only one god" - N.T. Wright.

Monotheist my ass !

If Christianity is monotheist then what the hell are : Seraphim, Cherubimm, Archangels and Guardian Angels ? If they are not divinities, then what are they ?

Like in every other religion, you have the Big God Boss and then you have the lower gods. There is no such thing as monotheism in abrahamic religions.

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com

Sapient's picture

TPin wrote:Again, you're

TPin wrote:
Again, you're really hurting your credibility here. When you call someone ignorant based on their subscription to certain views that you associate with theism, which you in turn associate with ignorance, you are not being very "rational" unless you show why and how what they are saying is ignorant.

Whoa there buddy.  I'm managing a site, speaking to my mod team who associates themselves with me because they find me credible.  

They do so in part because I can easily peg someone like you by reading one post alone.  I don't have the time to slam your ass to the wall like the others will, I'm busy with more important issues.  

Quote:
You are displaying behavior that is typically associated with fundamentalism.

And to think you were just telling us how you lose credibility when you make an argument without showing us why.  Don't worry though, we already pegged you.  

 

Mods... start the investigation on the troll, I vote for a timeout so tpin can take the time to snoop around and learn a little before making the world dumber on my dime.

 

Quote:
Even the need to throw the label on someone is symptomatic.

If you had knowledge of the issue, you'd know the need for the label.  You are ignorant of the issue however and by your own rules of credibility hurt yours the entire way.  

You're projecting your insecurity about your absent credibility. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

Watcher wrote: TPin

Watcher wrote:

TPin wrote:
When you call someone ignorant based on their subscription to certain views that you associate with theism, which you in turn associate with ignorance, you are not being very "rational" unless you show why and how what they are saying is ignorant.

Ok, TPin, here's one little thing you are ignorant upon.

MOST atheists do not give the positive claim that there is no god.  That's called "Strong Atheism".

AGNOSTIC OR ATHEIST?  (it was right here on site)

The more common type of atheist is called a number of things, "Weak Atheism", "Agnostic Atheism", etc.  A lot of atheists when they first become atheist mistakenly call themselve agnostic.  In truth they are a type of atheist.  They simply haven't figured out what the term atheist really covers.

Those atheists DO NOT deny the possibility of god, they simply state that they have no reason to believe in one.  It's not a positive claim.  It's a negative claim to a specific type of idea or neutral claim to a general type of idea.  They will neither say 'yes' or 'no' to the possibility of a god, just that certain gods in today's religions are contradictory by definition or...well stupid.

So first figure out what atheists really are before you start telling people about atheists.

 

Thanks for saving me the 5 minutes on something that has been said no less than a few hundred times on this website already.  

Feel free to stay on Tpin, there is generally an ignorant assertion asserted as fact in the name of reason (which he/she seems to have little clue as to how to utilize) in each of his/her posts. In fact I'm modding you up.  Feel free to put tpin on a several day timeout if you want to get your feet wet.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

FallenKnight's picture

I can save you a bit of time...

...with the valuable insight granted me by the exhaustive research I conducted on this site:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

 

Enjoy! Eye-wink