"@Rachel: Realizing I have only one life to live also encourages me to live a happier and fuller life, as well as invest in a future I know I will not be around to appreciate. It seems only logical to me.
@Dennis: I've always wondered what it…"
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Right or Wrong?
In the entire history of the human race and the many Gods that they have conceived and closely examined over considerable periods of time, most to the point of religious obsession, no evidence has EVER been discovered to prove that any one of those Gods is a true God.
Since it is logically impossible that all these different Gods with their contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true, then most must be "false".
So is any one God more provable than any other? The historical answer to that is a resounding NO, were that not so we would all worship the true provable God, including me.
So every conceivable God is equally un-provable, and there are 1,000's of them including Christianity's major God and its many minor ones.
For the sake of argument lets assume that there are a 1,000 Gods conceived since the dawn of mankind, and each one is equally un- provable, then Christianity's God is only 1 in a 1,000
Those figures would also indicate, that even should a God exist, which, given the time and manpower expended fruitlessly in such searching, is itself a chance in a million.
So Christianity as a religion only has a 1 in a 1,000 of 1 in a 1,000,000 of having the right God, too long odds, even for Pascal's Wager.
So this logic dictates that God, certainly as envisaged by mankind, does not exist.
And even should he exist, it would be impossible for us to visualise him, after all he would be GOD and for us to have any real concept of him would make us minor Gods, which clearly we are not.
If he does not exist then it’s even more impossible for us to visualise him as he does not exist.
So in either case man can never have any concept of God that relates to any sort of reality.
That said, and generally speaking, the believer is actually believing in something that is NOT GOD, and therefore does not exist, so he is wrong on all counts.
The non believer is not believing in something that is NOT GOD and where he may be right not to believe, he is wrong in what he is not believing in.
While the Agnostic awaits proof of something that is NOT GOD and does not exist so could never be proven either way, so he is also wrong awaiting proof of the un-provable.
As most agnostics, believers and non believers seem to be believing, disbelieving or doubting in the WRONG God, then none of them can ever hope to be right.
Since it is logically impossible that all these different Gods with their contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true, then most must be "false".
So is any one God more provable than any other? The historical answer to that is a resounding NO, were that not so we would all worship the true provable God, including me.
So every conceivable God is equally un-provable, and there are 1,000's of them including Christianity's major God and its many minor ones.
For the sake of argument lets assume that there are a 1,000 Gods conceived since the dawn of mankind, and each one is equally un- provable, then Christianity's God is only 1 in a 1,000
Those figures would also indicate, that even should a God exist, which, given the time and manpower expended fruitlessly in such searching, is itself a chance in a million.
So Christianity as a religion only has a 1 in a 1,000 of 1 in a 1,000,000 of having the right God, too long odds, even for Pascal's Wager.
So this logic dictates that God, certainly as envisaged by mankind, does not exist.
And even should he exist, it would be impossible for us to visualise him, after all he would be GOD and for us to have any real concept of him would make us minor Gods, which clearly we are not.
If he does not exist then it’s even more impossible for us to visualise him as he does not exist.
So in either case man can never have any concept of God that relates to any sort of reality.
That said, and generally speaking, the believer is actually believing in something that is NOT GOD, and therefore does not exist, so he is wrong on all counts.
The non believer is not believing in something that is NOT GOD and where he may be right not to believe, he is wrong in what he is not believing in.
While the Agnostic awaits proof of something that is NOT GOD and does not exist so could never be proven either way, so he is also wrong awaiting proof of the un-provable.
As most agnostics, believers and non believers seem to be believing, disbelieving or doubting in the WRONG God, then none of them can ever hope to be right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by OutlawGirl on -
How can we be disbelieving in the wrong god if no gods exist? To say that we are doubting the "wrong" god implies that there is a right god, which there is not.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on -
To disbelieve in something, one must have some concept of the thing you disbelieve in or its not possible to disbelieve, and that concept is wrong. Therefore you disbelieve in the wrong concept, and as the reason the concept is wrong is because there is no God and no alternative, then there can be no logical implication that there is a right God.
Saying I don't believe in killing people by shooting, does not imply that gassing is a more believable alternative, both concepts are equally as wrong. -
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on
-
Only if your concept of my concept is wrong
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on -
Exactly. But according to your logic, if my concept of your concept was true, it'd still be wrong.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on
-
Only if I was wrong, then we would both be wrong. Or right, I think I am loosing track of this conversation.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on
-
Ah so, but most conflicts are not between right and wrong or three lefts. They are between two rights.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Johnsky on -
So, if all options are "wrong", belief, non-belief, and even agnosticism, the state of unknowing... I'm interested to know where you exist.
To me, Atheism is the logical outcome. There is a complete and utter void of evidence of a gods existence... to me, this means the sane assumption is that it does not exist.
And so it will remain until some form of evidence exists to the contrary... and that's a big "if".
However, there does exist an abundance of evidence that religions were simply created by mankind to manipulate mankind for ulterior motives.
Hence, my logical conclusion is to stand clear of religion, even if the only outcome is freedom.
My doubt in religion exists strongly enough to take me from the Agnostic State of un-knowing, to a state of dis-belief. Call it being jaded, call it what you like, I'm Atheist.
I may have been wrong about you.
I'm grounded enough to realise this.
If I have previously offended you by implying you hold theistic tendencies... I apologise.
Either way, the way I see life and human life itself is as a random combination of chemicals that happened to lead to the present configuration. It could be all considered a mistake... but that only works if you think there was intent to begin with.
So in the end, we're already un-intentional in either event. -
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on
-
Where do I exist, in a state of frustration I suppose. Perhaps there is no label, and I dislike labels anyway, but I could be an active apathist in the sense that I don't give a damn about the size shape or colour of non existent deities, but I am still prepared to debate the issue.
Granted atheism is the logical label as its as close as one could get to my position. I just prefer my atheism without the "if" as no matter how big it is as in my world "if" implies doubt and doubt implies agnosticism.
I also agree with the creation of religion by man for man and I am working on that, see my rough draft "The Decent of Man" on my Atheist Nexis Home Page. My position on that is that religion is totally separate from Deities. Religion is the tool created by man to see God, so in that sense there can be no argument as to who created religion.
No apology necessary, I admit to a sense of frustration when others can't perceive me as I perceive myself, but then that's just another manifestation of ego which perhaps I have to much. I am also grounded enough to realise I often get up peoples noses and some of what I say can be very irritating to say the least. I also make statements simply to incite passioned responses, but I have often found that passion creates many interesting answers. And as perhaps this response may indicate I do try to tell the truth, as I see it, at all times, perhaps not the whole truth....
Agreed, life is no mistake, it just is. Its also no big deal, except to the individuals involved.
In the end I would have thought incidental rather than un-intentional -
-
Permalink Reply by Tarquin St John Sh'gn'sty on -
"Since it is logically impossible that all these different Gods with their contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be true, then most must be "false"."
IF it's logically impossible of course you're correct within the principles of logical inference.Unfortunately you've made an assertion, not a statement a fact. Your assertion has been a controversial one for several thousand years.
A logical inference may be valid and untrue at the same same time. Logic does not guarantee truth. -
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Easton Le commented on blue pashmina's blog post Not believing in an afterlife does not mean i am a "sad' person."Loren, i was thinking about you and your likely response as i was writing this post. i know your rightful indignation with the papacy and share it, albeit probably with slightly less ire.
i must say that i just freaking love your pov.…"
Easton Le commented on Debra Stevenson's blog post Some Wiccans and their seeking approval from Christians"I suppose in regions of the country where Christianity is a major influence in local culture working towards a level of acceptance would be in Wicca's best interest. When I visited a gem shop in the bible belt with one of my friends I learned…"
Loren Miller replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven"Hmmm, an outreach to atheists from the pope? I wonder ... is this an attempt at engagement and maybe a dialogue ... or is it an act of desperation from an organization which may finally be recognizing that it is failing at both engagement and…"
Karim R. joined Darrel Ray's group
Recovering from Religion
Unless you were raised by atheist parents, you probably had some recovering to do when you left religion. The purpose of RR is to provide a landing place for people when they jump from religion. With local support groups throughout the US, Canada, UK, and Australia, and real-time resources accessible to everyone, RR is where to turn when faith has lost its luster.See More
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Methane, more scary than we thought in the group Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists"In addition to the methane spike over Antarctica there was
Is the permafrost's integrity breaking down?
In sum, the half-life of methane in the atmosphere depends upon available hydroxyl ions to break it down. The oft cited values of methane…"
Easton Le commented on Randall Smith's blog post The Rednecks are coming, the Rednecks are coming"Hello, Randall. Did you move to the region or have you lived there your entire life? I'm just curious because even my friends in the military who weren't rednecks and grew up in the region still loved motorcycles and racing. They…"
Sentient Biped commented on Sentient Biped's group Godless in the garden"Rainy for several days now. Down into the 40s. Not much ambition.
Some of the irises look nice, anyway.
"
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
