If God can not be proven or disproven and there is no evidence for him...

[VALIS]

Why believe in him?

It is smarter not to believe in something that has no evidence for it than to believe.

[Atatürk]

Why believe in him?

It is smarter not to believe in something that has no evidence for it than to believe.

Well there are things like eye-witnesses of miracles, prophets, holy books, etc.

[Orko]

Well there are things like eye-witnesses of miracles, prophets, holy books, etc.

Like in Harry Potter?
A fantasy book written by a bored Shepard is proof of nothing.

[VALIS]

Well there are things like eye-witnesses of miracles, prophets, holy books, etc.

All conveniently have a message to push and an agenda. Notice all these miracles, prophets and holy books dry up within the advent of modern science, communication, and verifiable and reliable history.

[Atatürk]

All conveniently have a message to push and an agenda. Notice all these miracles, prophets and holy books dry up within the advent of modern science, communication, and verifiable and reliable history.

Do they?

[Lord Tomyris]

All conveniently have a message to push and an agenda.

Even if you disbelieve in what, for example, Muhammad had to say, it doesn't mean he had an 'agenda'; why would he not seriously believe in what he was saying? Most historians agree now that Muhammad was probably not teaching the message of Islam just to gain temporal power; regardless of whether you believe his message or not (and I am personally not a Muslim), he didn't necessarily have an ulterior motive in saying what he said.

[VALIS]

Even if you disbelieve in what, for example, Muhammad had to say, it doesn't mean he had an 'agenda'; why would he not seriously believe in what he was saying? Most historians agree now that Muhammad was probably not teaching the message of Islam just to gain temporal power; regardless of whether you believe his message or not (and I am personally not a Muslim), he didn't necessarily have an ulterior motive in saying what he said.

I disagree with that. I think Muhammad probably had somesort of spiritual beliefs.
Then realised as he started to become a military and civil leader that claiming he was receiving messages from God was an amazingly efficient and alluring way to make people conform to his will.
Along the way he probably started to believe in his own big lie and got caught up with it. (However I suspect deep down he knew that what he was saying was probably false similiar to how I think Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard knew they were charlatans)

If Muhammad was a man of peace who never hurt anyone and was just a peasant who got brutally pwned, then I would be more likely to believe that he honestly believed in what he said.

But the fact that he was a military warlord and a ruler of a kingdom claiming that his rules and commands were coming from God as opposed to himself sets alarm bells ringing.

Given that a large portion of the population thinks that there is most certainly sufficient evidence of God's existence, your statement is simply your opinion but you've made the mistake of convincing yourself that you're opinion is the conclusion to this question for all. You can most certainly say that you think there is 0 evidence but the manner in which you've stated this begs the question "Are you so full of yourself that you give no consideration in regards to others or you simply don't know any better?" - I encourage you to approach such discussions in a much more tolerant manner so the discussion can continue without anyone being offended. I believe in God, but if you don't I have no problem with that as long as you do not try to impose you ideology on me or make remarks on my beliefs that are intrusive. God loves you and I don't hate you. I think that's pretty fair in my oppinion.

What crap. So because millions believe in something it must be true?

[Hun Birodalom]

What crap. So because millions believe in something it must be true?

No, I was just pointing out the fact you are absolutely convinced that everything you say is above all else and by implying that all religious people are mentally ill and atheist ideology is superior and the pinnacle of intelligence. Just like the majority of atheists. Thanks for proving my point.

[Djûn]

All conveniently have a message to push and an agenda.

Who doesn't have an agenda, religious or not? You yourself have an 'agenda' in this post, whether it be to simply rouse some interesting debate or to be an attempt to rally people against Religion. Everyone acts with an 'agenda' or a 'message'. What other incentives are there to mankind?

[Helm]

So Pascals Wager in reverse? Though in this case if you are actually right in not believing in him you don't recieve anything particularly nice.

[Dr. Croccer]

Yes Duke, we totally needed another thread on the existence and powers of God. It's not like we had room in the last 3 threads made by you in less than a week.

I can't prove or disprove pulsars either. A pulsar has never actually been seen, though it's presence is plausible. The only proof we have is scientists who, with their calculations and observations, have declared that pulsars exist, even though they admit that they have no idea how they work and have only theories about their creation.

[Orko]

I can't prove or disprove pulsars either. A pulsar has never actually been seen, though it's presence is plausible. The only proof we have is scientists who, with their calculations and observations, have declared that pulsars exist, even though they admit that they have no idea how they work and have only theories about their creation.

well, that is more than what religious people have...

[VALIS]

Yes Duke, we totally needed another thread on the existence and powers of God. It's not like we had room in the last 3 threads made by you in less than a week.

I can't prove or disprove pulsars either. A pulsar has never actually been seen, though it's presence is plausible. The only proof we have is scientists who, with their calculations and observations, have declared that pulsars exist, even though they admit that they have no idea how they work and have only theories about their creation.

A pulsar however can be scientifically explained in the natural universe. God is unfalsifiable but there is and never will be evidence for his existance. So why believe in something with your whole heart for which there is no evidence for and never will be?

It is smarter not to believe in something that has no evidence for it than to believe.

[Dr. Croccer]

A pulsar however can be scientifically explained in the natural universe.

It doesn't because there is no proof, only theories. Scientists have nothing apart from vague calculations and estimates and have no idea how these things are created or how they function., what their life span is, etc. There is just as little evidence supporting it's existence as there is for God. The only evidence for the existence of God are several opinions made by enlightened men based on little, if no evidence and the only evidence for the existence of pulsars are several opinions made by enlightened men based on little, if no evidence.

God is unfalsifiable but there is and never will be evidence for his existance. So why believe in something with your whole heart for which there is no evidence for and never will be?

There is no evidence for many things. I mentioned pulsars. The existence of molecules is based largely on 19th century laws, yet we'll never see a molecule. Similairly, we might be too scientifically underdeveloped to pin-point the existence of God. Untill the 17th century, the existence of molecules was dissmissed. You couldn't see molecules; you couldn't pin-point their existence; you can't prove or disprove their existence. People back then relied on the more logic elements of fire, earth, wind and water, which you could see, which you could feel, which you could prove.

[Templar Hospitaller]

A pulsar however can be scientifically explained in the natural universe. God is unfalsifiable but there is and never will be evidence for his existance. So why believe in something with your whole heart for which there is no evidence for and never will be?

It is smarter not to believe in something that has no evidence for it than to believe.

Why is it smarter not to believe? What makes it smarter? Do you get a prize or something for not believing? Like, an atheist prize?

[VALIS]

Why is it smarter not to believe? What makes it smarter? Do you get a prize or something for not believing? Like, an atheist prize?

Because if theres no evidence to support believing in X, it makes sense not to believe in X. Don't you think?

[The Count(er)]

Wait, why would getting a prize or some sort of reward make it smarter? With that logic I could say that bank robbing is smart because you can get lots of money.

[Templar Hospitaller]

Because if theres no evidence to support believing in X, it makes sense not to believe in X. Don't you think?

There is no evidence supporting atheism, so... guess you don't make sense.

[Oldgamer]

Yes Duke, we totally needed another thread on the existence and powers of God. It's not like we had room in the last 3 threads made by you in less than a week.

I can't prove or disprove pulsars either. A pulsar has never actually been seen, though it's presence is plausible. The only proof we have is scientists who, with their calculations and observations, have declared that pulsars exist, even though they admit that they have no idea how they work and have only theories about their creation.

This is true. "Scientists" also believe in Dark Matter, but they've never detected any.

[Playfishpaste]

This is true. "Scientists" also believe in Dark Matter, but they've never detected any.

Do we need to explain observational evidence and occam's razor again?

Nobody "believes" anything in science.