Non-believers-Convince us God doesn't exist

[Imperator Romani]

[Gordon Freynman]

I had a vision of the flying spaghetti monster and he told me God didn't exist. The next day I spilled some spaghetti, and remarkably the mess resembled the flying spaghetti monster, and when I cleaned it up some of the noodles arranged themselves into the words "no god". Clear proof that God doesn't exist....


...In all seriousness, a better challenge would be "convince us to not believe in God," since we take the position of disbelief, mostly due to a lack of any evidence.

[Manco]

Why should I? I'm not sure that he doesn't. All I know is there's no convincing proof for a deity's existence.

[spanish_emperor]

Because he can't otherwise life wouldn't suck big time. And if he can't change our lives, why do we pray again??

[Valandur]

The proof that he doesn't exist is the fact that believers can't provide normal evidence that he does exist.

Or alternatively, I think its just a load of gay crap.

[Holger Danske]

Because he can't otherwise life wouldn't suck big time. And if he can't change our lives, why do we pray again??

Here is a newsflash: He Can't.

[Vizsla]

There are many possible gods. There are an almost infinite number of gods I could invent on the spot if I felt so inclined. People who believe in God don’t believe in any of those gods. How could they we haven’t made most of them up yet?
So the only difference between the religious and the nonreligious is that nonreligious people don’t believe in one more god than religious people. So we are all atheists. Some of us are just one god more atheistic than the others.
Given that religious people do not believe in a vast number of gods (just one less than us atheists) they have already accepted by default the concept that gods do not exist unless proven to exist. So God does not exist and you knew it all along.

[Imperator Romani]

Basically proving a point. The thread Believers-convince us God exists is the same as this one...thought I'd set up the contradictory

[Thanatos]

Basically proving a point. The thread Believers-convince us God exists is the same as this one...thought I'd set up the contradictory

Sorry, things don't work that way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement (God exists), not the person making the negative one (He doesn't).

[Elfdude]

Basically proving a point. The thread Believers-convince us God exists is the same as this one...thought I'd set up the contradictory

It would be nice if you had a contradictory argument to offer. Unfortunately you have this vague conception that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Which is true, however you forget that the philosophical burden of proof is on you to prove your positive statement that god does exist. Occam's razor more or less eliminates belief in god as a rational or logical position to hold. Essentially, you're telling us to disprove a fairy tail and we're left wondering why you would ever think it true in the first place. Thank you logic for defeating another bad theistic argument.

Also it'd be important to note that the common conception of atheist on this board is an agnostic atheist. Someone who does not believe in god merely because they believe no evidence as been presented. This is far different than the positive statements of anti-theists who believe no god exists and that they can prove it.

[InsaneHanz]

Gladly, but first, please prove that invisible unicorns don't exist.

[Imperator Romani]

Gladly, but first, please prove that invisible unicorns don't exist.

For all I care, they do exist...but this does not help prove He doesn't exist.

[Strelok]

For all I care, they do exist...but this does not help prove He doesn't exist.

Which in logic is utterly irrelevant.

[Vanoi]

Well god doesn't exist. Thats all. No proof needed since their is no proof of him existing. This poster will explain

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Maulet]

Well, as you said you believe in god, that is you think he exists despite the lack of evidence. Beliefs are one thing, and knowledge another. Knowledge is, by definitio, truth, and needs therefore evidence and or proof, whilst belief is not necessarily the truth, and therefore asking for evidence to show that something that doesn't need to be true, is true, is not really useful.

However, given you seem interested in treating god as some kid of knowledge and not as a belief, I will tell yu why it's not a valid knowledge. God is a hypothesis, and it certainly does explain some things that could otherwise not be explained yet, but, it does not predict any results for further experiments, as any good theory should. And besides there's no evidence of the veracity if that hypothesis, therefore it has to be discarded as scientific knowledge.

The actually good question about god, would be: If it does not provide any knowledge, why do people believe and pray?

I think the answer is very easy: To avoid any responsibility. I mean, if god controls us, we could think that any (bad) thing occurring in the world is god's fault, and not our own. For instance, many people ask themselves why god allowed the Holocaust to happen, whilst they should be asking themselves why humans let it happen, why anybody did anything... But of course that means accepting our part of responsibility, of guilt.

It also works as some kind of supreme justice, that will judge our crimes and punish us for them, even if they went unpunished by humans' justice, however, even most fanatic believers of any religion do not believe this, for we all know that most religions, not to say all practice, or have practiced in the past harsh punishments, even death, for "religious" and other crimes, thus showing that they do not believe God will actually make justice... Or simply taking advantage of their status of gods representatives on earth to take control over the population...

[Strelok]

This thread is based on a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the positive assertion and hence it is up to you to establish that God exists. You can't in an intellectually honest fashion be called upon to prove a negative.

Basically proving a point. The thread Believers-convince us God exists is the same as this one...thought I'd set up the contradictory

No. It happens to have a valid point and to not be based on a logical fallacy.

Sorry, things don't work that way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement (God exists), not the person making the negative one (He doesn't).

Beat me to it.

[NogaOsibisa]

Kant says about metaphysics that her final purpose with all her gear is orientated toward the resolution of the same.*


*CpR B7

[Helm]

It would help if you describe wht kind of God you mean, no-one would deny that everything will have had to have come from something.

[Tacitursa]

It would help if you describe wht kind of God you mean, no-one would deny that everything will have had to have come from something.

And that something does not have to be a god.

Non-believers-Convince us God doesn't exist

Nobody knows if god exists or not. But we can try to convince you that it is very unlikely and beleiving in such a thing is irrational and illogical.

There is zero evidence and nobody has every seen , heard , touched , smelt or had any type of contact with god. No son or prophet of god has ever visted earth. No miracles or supernatural events have ever taken place. Morals do not come from religion or god.

And science has repeatedly replaced incorrect religious explanations with testable and accurate correct explanantions that are backed up with evidence and it will continue to do so untill religion has nothing left to stand on.

[Ishoss]

Why are so many people suffering? God is benevolent, is he not? Why do good, honest Christians get sons who ruin their lives? It makes little sense that God would exist when he punish those who are doing good deeds.