Define "God". Then we can discuss whether or not he, she or it exists. For example, I have no problem destroying the god of Abraham aka the deity of the Old Testament of the Christian bible. That book is full of so many contradictions, a bright middle school student could take it apart. And if the book is a piece of crap, why would anyone but a fool believe in the deity described therein?
I am late to the party here, but I take issue with people who state atheists are wrong because they can't prove that god does not exist. How do you prove something that doesn't exist? It's like the FBI telling me to prove that I didn't kill JFJ...If it didn't happen, or it doesn't exist, how do you prove such a claim? You can't. The burden is on believers to prove that god DOES exist, not the other way around.
There is no "truth" to adequately support a belief in the existence of a god aside from feelings and such. Therefore, as a seeker of truth, you would logically dismiss notions of such an existence unless and until genuine evidence supports the premise. Until then it is as fanciful a notion as any other dreamed up by people with either too much time on their hands or an agenda.
That is a VERY naive viewpoint. The concept of god in humanity goes back > 50,000 years. Even the Neanderthals buried their dead for the afterlife. It is hard to find a major historical or modern civilization who were atheists. Atheists have little clue how to explain what they see in the Universe, it is beyond comprehension. They cannot even answer a large number of very basic questions. So, to dismiss their own responsibility of backing their belief is basically admitting they are incapable of doing so. Debate: Team 1 vs. Team 2. Team 2 announces "it is Team 1's job to prove their side of the argument, otherwise we, Team 2, wins." That is not how it works... (sorry: stu, vhehn, you have been on ignore a long time, so will not hear your vents)
How can I believe in something that's never been proven? Your debate team example is not relevant here. Example #1. Again, I go back to my very basic FBI JFK example. The FBI thinks that I killed JFK. They bring me into their office and tell me to prove that I didn't do it. If I cannot prove that I didn't kill him, then that means that I did kill him. Example #2. I personally believe that I come from another planet, Melmac we'll call it. Can you prove that this planet does not exist? Because if you can't, well that means that it DOES exist! See my point?
I was asking those on here intelligent enough to have a sensical debate. By no means do you fall into this category.
That's funny because I kicked your ass all over the place in our last discussion. Figures you have the hubris to think you are an arbiter on the existence of God. The answer is not to be found by debate on the net. The questions most likely to be fruitful are: 1)What would it take for you to believe in God? 2) What efforts have you made for the answer? Personally I don't care about your level of illumination, I'm not your guide. So feel free to keep your lame answers to the 2 questions to yourself.
I use the word God because it is an accepted term by most when referring to a creator. Call it what you will. You assume I take the Bible as some sort of factual assessment of the creation of the universe, when in fact I don't believe that at all. Like most atheists, you lump God and religion as the same thing. They are not! Your fight is with religious zealots, and yes, their beliefs are full of holes, as are those of the hardcore atheist. It amuses me to observe both parties contort themselves in their convoluted logic to support what is no more than a assumption of belief. I happen to believe in a creator as a result of personal experiences, shared experiences with others and observation of events around me. However, I would never insult the intelligence of another by claiming my personal experiences are factual evidence of the existence of a creator, much less one that will take a interactive role in ones life, if allowed. I practice no religion and feel no need to burden others with my beliefs. My argument is only with those, on either side, that claim to know for certain whether a creator exists or not. Given what we humans know at this point in time, the truth has yet to be discovered. Set aside your need to convince others that you are right and you will then be ready to take the path wherever it leads. Until then, you're just making a sales pitch.
I made no such assumption about you, but you're clearly making assumptions about me. Why do you think I asked you to define God? If I assumed you were a typical Judeo-Christian, I wouldn't have asked that. I used to be a typical Christian so I'm fully aware of what Christians mean when they say "God". You also assume my atheism is of the sort that says God doesn't exist. Again, I've said no such thing. What I did say in a previous post in this thread is that no one can prove that gods don't exist. However, if a theist describes a specific god (e.g., the god of Abraham), then it becomes rather easy to take apart the basis for believing in that specific god in most cases. No one can disprove Intelligent Design, but that doesn't make it a scientific theory. Scientific theories are based on facts aka evidence. And the current set of facts say nothing one way or the other about ID. There is a simpler explanation for the origin of life on Earth than ID. ID doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test. That's another reason why it's not a part of science. Furthermore, ID doesn't answer the question of the origin of life because it doesn't tell us where the Intelligence comes from. In other words, it just passes the buck on to another planet, galaxy, dimension, whatever. Passing the buck is something politicians do, not something scientists do.