Why there almost certainly is No God!!

[tenpoundsleft]

Zuckerman M, Li C, Diener E. Religion as an Exchange System: The Interchangeability of God and Government in a Provider Role. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2018. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

An exchange model of religion implies that if a secular entity such as government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities.

Controlling for quality of life and income inequality (Gini), we found that better government services were related to lower religiosity among countries (Study 1) and states in the United States (Study 2).

Study 2 also showed that during 2008-2013, better government services in a specific year predicted lower religiosity 1 to 2 years later.

In both studies, a combination of better government services and quality of life was related to a particularly low level of religiosity.

Among countries, government services moderated the relation between religiosity and two measures of well-being, such that religiosity was related to greater well-being only when government services were low.

We discuss the relation between the exchange model and other theoretical approaches to religion.

On this we agree, the vast amount of the sheep (80/20 rule) need some kind of higher power to provide the pillar for their lives, whether a God or Government - look, they both begin with a G.

They way Christians in the olden days (even now I guess) chanted "God will provide" is pretty damn identical to liberals and their "Gov't will provide" ideology. God and clergy replaced by politicians as gods and their bureaucratic minions as angels.

 

[staynattybruh]

Yes, Hitchens was all of that AND an arrogant atheist asshole hellbent on proving a negative.

I'm very high IQ too, and well educated - to the point that I know what I don't know, and I certainly know that only an idiot would try to prove a negative. Which is why Hitchens, for all his qualities, failed.

What's idiotic is to think what he did wasn't in need. If you've listened to any of his lectures, discussions or read any books of and about him, you'd realize the whole point is advocating aginst letting religious establishments have any power or control over laws.

You sound like a man child and utterly fail to understand what he tried to do.

The fact that you think there's no point in trying to stand aginst religous and divine attitudes shows exactly how useless your high iq is when it comes to this discussion.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

What's idiotic is to think what he did wasn't in need. If you've listened to any of his lectures, discussions or read any books of and about him, you'd realize the whole point is advocating aginst letting religious establishments have any power or control over laws.

You sound like a man child and utterly fail to understand what he tried to do.

The fact that you think there's no point in trying to stand aginst religous and divine attitudes shows exactly how useless your high iq is when it comes to this discussion.

Look, try to comprehend that being convinced that there is no God is purely a faith based conviction. One that is based on proving a negative - which makes it pathetic as atheists are claiming higher ground than deists. Give that some thought.

 

[staynattybruh]

Look, try to comprehend that being convinced that there is no God is purely a faith based conviction. One that is based on proving a negative - which makes it pathetic as atheists are claiming higher ground than deists. Give that some thought.

Lol trying to tell me to comprehend... first of all, you're the one completely disregarded my point.


His stance isn't about proving negative you twat. Theist think they have actual proof or it's logical sense for a case against a god or even worse a specific one. Therefore they are making a positive claim and all he and many other atheists like him do, argue aginst this.

It's simply this for a theist defense

X= unknown; therefore X= God .

Which is what he fights aginst.


Also if you think that no theist has have lost faith to out spoken atheists showing them they're wrong you're being completley intellectually dishonest.

Keep coming at me man child. The only person you're impressing with your "high iq" is yourself.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

Lol trying to tell me to comprehend... first of all, you're the one completely disregarded my point.


His stance isn't about proving negative you twat. Theist think they have actual proof or it's logical sense for a case against a god or even worse a specific one. Therefore they are making a positive claim and all he and many other atheists like him do, argue aginst this.

It's simply this for a theist defense

X= unknown; therefore X= God .

Which is what he fights aginst.


Also if you think that no theist has have lost faith to out spoken atheists showing them they're wrong you're being completley intellectually dishonest.

Keep coming at me man child. The only person you're impressing with your "high iq" is yourself.

You're still not getting the distinction.... sigh

Go in peace

 

[Eman]

being convinced that there is no God is purely a faith based conviction

It's more of a logically based conviction... Being convinced that there IS a God is a faith based conviction. I mean, that's pretty much the whole meaning of faith with regard to religion.

X= unknown; therefore X= God

Lol, it reminds me of, "I saw flashing lights in the sky last night... Aliens."

 

[staynattybruh]

You're still not getting the distinction.... sigh

Go in peace

Agree to disagree because you're don't seem to either.

 

[Eman]

Agree to disagree because you're don't seem to either.

When he feels that he's losing a debate he typically accuses people of not being able to comprehend his argument. Or he accuses the other of being a liberal, even when they're not, and that somehow wins the argument for him.

 

[staynattybruh]

It's more of a logically based conviction... Being convinced that there IS a God is a faith based conviction. I mean, that's pretty much the whole meaning of
faith with regard to religion.

Exactly. Hitchens among atheists are not proving a negative. They are disproving there positive claim.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

When he feels that he's losing a debate he typically accuses people of not being able to comprehend his argument. Or he accuses the other of being a liberal, even when they're not, and that somehow wins the argument for him.

Not losing any debate, that's not possible when faced with someone who can't comprehend the inherent impossibility of proving a negative.

Anyone who's a firm believer in the soundness of the argument that anyone (in the physical realm) can *prove* the nonexistence of a metaphysical entity is truly out to lunch.

Enjoy your lunch.

 

[Eman]

Not losing any debate, that's not possible when faced with someone who can't comprehend the inherent impossibility of proving a negative.

Anyone who's a firm believer in the soundness of the argument that anyone (in the physical realm) can *prove* the nonexistence of a metaphysical entity is truly out to lunch.

Enjoy your lunch.

You're the one that cannot comprehend that this isn't a case of proving a negative, how many times must that be said before it absorbs? It's a fallacy based entirely on a leap in logic, and quite frankly it's odd to have this debate with you at all because the logic of a God existing is based primarily on feelings and not logic, and you chastise members on the forum incessantly about logic vs feelings.

When you have gifts on Christmas, do you argue that no one can prove to you that Santa didn't bring them? How about chocolate on Easter... Did a 6ft rabbit break into your house and leave it there? I mean, what else could it be, right? Your existence does not equate to there being a God. I saw lights in the sky last night, therefore I saw aliens from another Galaxy... How silly does that sound? But I'm the one whose out to lunch? You religious zealots are real cute.

How entitled the human race is to think they are, essentially, immortal. That after we die, we just go to a nice place in the clouds forever. Good luck with that.

 

[RandallNowan]

It is very hard for people to break out of their programming.

And very rare for people who used to be atheists to 'find' God without a tragedy occurring in their lives, or having themselves done something awful.

 

[Eman]

It is very hard for people to break out of their programming.

And very rare for people who used to be atheists to 'find' God without a tragedy occurring in their lives, or having themselves done something awful.

In both instances, it gives people more comfort to believe.

 

[staynattybruh]

So I was at the London event with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris... Sam seemed to be taking it easy on him tbh. I like Jordan but he is incredibly dodgy and his followers are cult/dogmatic like. I was seriously surrounded by them and was the onlu one clapping when Sam would make a point lol.

At one point Jordan like loses it because Sam calls him out about being evasive when asking if he believes in a divine god or not and everyone claps and Jordan freaks out at the crowd saying we don't know what we (the audience) believe in either. Sam just goes.... Well I've never heard so much applause for someone dodging a question.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[hurricane]

Was just having a discussion about this with my wife Doc. She's Catholic and I'm Anglican. One of our children is baptized Catholic, the other Anglican.
We were arguing over what Church our soon to be born child would be baptized in. I said I couldn't allow another child of mine to be born Catholic when a bunch of child molester run the Church.
My theory is that my Church, and most Christian Churches allow priests to be married and have a family of their own. The Catholic Church doesn't allow this. Hence I believe alot of the problems stem from this(I could be very wrong of course).
I never understood why a Christian faith would forbid marriage for a priest. It contradicts what Christians value.
Regardless I find it all very disgusting and the Catholic Church should be ashamed. Just glad I'm not Catholic. LOL.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[hurricane]

I got a laugh out of that one. You know where I stand Doc. I love being a Christian and Love JC.
But I'm with you in the sense that the Church should NOT be making or included in legislative decisions.
I love my small Anglican congregation(only about 100 of us). No one in govt would listen to us anyways. lol.
They love the corporation known as Catholicism. Jess wouldn't like that. lol
Hope your weekend was well.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Sp2.0]

Was just having a discussion about this with my wife Doc. She's Catholic and I'm Anglican. One of our children is baptized Catholic, the other Anglican.
We were arguing over what Church our soon to be born child would be baptized in. I said I couldn't allow another child of mine to be born Catholic when a bunch of child molester run the Church.
My theory is that my Church, and most Christian Churches allow priests to be married and have a family of their own. The Catholic Church doesn't allow this. Hence I believe alot of the problems stem from this(I could be very wrong of course).
I never understood why a Christian faith would forbid marriage for a priest. It contradicts what Christians value.
Regardless I find it all very disgusting and the Catholic Church should be ashamed. Just glad I'm not Catholic. LOL.

My sister and I just discussed this last night. She's a Catholic and shares your view that these problems stem from the priests not being able to marry. I'm not religious but my take is they're just sick fucks who can only be cured one way. If marriage was the issue they'd be caught banging women and not kids.