Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[Dyakovo]

The complete lack of evidence for Theism, plus the fact that Physicists trying to see the conditions of the early Universe, occurring right after the Big Bang have found that all the conditions can be explained by the Laws of Physics.

Source: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5m4j ... verse_tech

1. Complete lack of evidence for something is not positive evidence for its opposite.

Yes, it actually is.

[Geilinor]

The complete lack of evidence for Theism, plus the fact that Physicists trying to see the conditions of the early Universe, occurring right after the Big Bang have found that all the conditions can be explained by the Laws of Physics.

Source: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5m4j ... verse_tech

1. Complete lack of evidence for something is not positive evidence for its opposite.

"X doesn't exist" is not a positive claim.

[Vendee-Anjou]

1. Complete lack of evidence for something is not positive evidence for its opposite.

Yes, it actually is.

Um, no it's not. If John is accused of committing a crime, and there is a complete lack of evidence that John committed the crime, that does not prove that he did not commit the crime; it merely fails to prove that he did (and thus, in a court of law, we would proclaim John "not guilty"). But this still leaves open the possibility that John did, in fact, commit the crime. To prove John did not commit the crime, you need to prove that it was impossible for John to do so.

To truly prove that God does not exist, you must prove that God's existence is impossible; by the same token, to truly prove that God does exist, you have to prove that God's non-existence is impossible. I will be the first to admit that theists have yet to prove the necessity of God's existence. But atheists have yet to prove the necessity of God's non-existence.

[Dyakovo]

Yes, it actually is.

Um, no it's not.

If you search for evidence of "X" and never find any, that is evidence that "X" doesn't exist. It may not be proof, or conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence.

[Vendee-Anjou]

Um, no it's not.

If you search for evidence of "X" and never find any, that is evidence that "X" doesn't exist. It may not be proof, or conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence.

Alright, as long we can both acknowledge that evidence is not necessarily proof. And this holds for both the theist and the atheist.

[Yitzchak Winternitz]

Religion can explain most things with thin or little evidence whereas Science can't explain very much but of what it can explain it has brilliant evidence for it! So I'm a bit on the fence while leaning on the side of Religion.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Satanist. It's a more interesting flavour of objectivist individualism.

[Othelos]

Religion can explain most things with thin or little evidence whereas Science can't explain very much but of what it can explain it has brilliant evidence for it! So I'm a bit on the fence while leaning on the side of Religion.

Religion attempts to explain things, but it's not based on any objective evidence, so it's not reliable.

[The New Velociraptor Empire]

Religion can explain most things with thin or little evidence whereas Science can't explain very much but of what it can explain it has brilliant evidence for it! So I'm a bit on the fence while leaning on the side of Religion.

You lean more towards the method that is based on flimsy "evidence" just because it claims to explain more?

Science can explain a lot, just not everything yet. It will be a sad day when it does, because there will be nothing left to discover.

[Lalaki]

Religion can explain most things with thin or little evidence whereas Science can't explain very much but of what it can explain it has brilliant evidence for it! So I'm a bit on the fence while leaning on the side of Religion.

You lean more towards the method that is based on flimsy "evidence" just because it claims to explain more?

Science can explain a lot, just not everything yet. It will be a sad day when it does, because there will be nothing left to discover.

I honestly think that is impossible.

[Rostogovia]

Question for all you Christians out there. From an atheist standpoint I fail to see how anybody could worship a god who is literally responsible for every tragedy on earth. If god is omnipotent as you claim, couldn't he have easily prevented the holocaust and other genocides? Also, how could a "Good" god condemn somebody to eternal damnation? Either god dosent exist or he's a mass murdering maniac, and hence I refuse to worship him.

[The New Velociraptor Empire]

You lean more towards the method that is based on flimsy "evidence" just because it claims to explain more?

Science can explain a lot, just not everything yet. It will be a sad day when it does, because there will be nothing left to discover.

I honestly think that is impossible.

It is possible, just probably not in our lifetimes or the near future. Either humanity may achieve it or may be extinct before it happens.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Question for all you Christians out there. From an atheist standpoint I fail to see how anybody could worship a god who is literally responsible for every tragedy on earth. If god is omnipotent as you claim, couldn't he have easily prevented the holocaust and other genocides.Also, how could a "Good" god condemn somebody to eternal damnation? Either god dosent exist or he's a mass murdering maniac, and hence I refuse to worship him.

To me, God isn't omnipotent, we gave us free will to what we want. All those horrible things that humans have done to others, God would have been looking down at the perpetrators with complete and utter contempt for their actions. If you have been sinful, God offers the opportunity to repent for sins. Those who do go to hell (for me) are those who do truly bad things such as murder.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Question for all you Christians out there. From an atheist standpoint I fail to see how anybody could worship a god who is literally responsible for every tragedy on earth. If god is omnipotent as you claim, couldn't he have easily prevented the holocaust and other genocides.Also, how could a "Good" god condemn somebody to eternal damnation? Either god dosent exist or he's a mass murdering maniac, and hence I refuse to worship him.

To me, God isn't omnipotent, we gave us free will to what we want. All those horrible things that humans have done to others, God would have been looking down at the perpetrators with complete and utter contempt for their actions. If you have been sinful, God offers the opportunity to repent for sins. Those who do go to hell (for me) are those who do truly bad things such as murder.

Omnipotence is one of the base characteristics of the Abrahamic god.

[Rostogovia]

Question for all you Christians out there. From an atheist standpoint I fail to see how anybody could worship a god who is literally responsible for every tragedy on earth. If god is omnipotent as you claim, couldn't he have easily prevented the holocaust and other genocides.Also, how could a "Good" god condemn somebody to eternal damnation? Either god dosent exist or he's a mass murdering maniac, and hence I refuse to worship him.

To me, God isn't omnipotent, we gave us free will to what we want. All those horrible things that humans have done to others, God would have been looking down at the perpetrators with complete and utter contempt for their actions. If you have been sinful, God offers the opportunity to repent for sins. Those who do go to hell (for me) are those who do truly bad things such as murder.

So your saying that god values the free will of murderers and rapists more than the victims? Also I dont think anybody deserves eternal torture, no matter their deeds.

[Liriena]

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

He values humanities free will, no matter what the person

[Washington Resistance Army]

He values humanities free will, no matter what the person

Then said god is a shit parent, no one will let their kids murder each other because they value free will. You stop it and punish the person attempting said killing, this shouldn't be hard for an all powerful god.

[Rostogovia]

He values humanities free will, no matter what the person

So your basically saying god is a radical libertarian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jv_XR6RMAI

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

He values humanities free will, no matter what the person

So god is a radical libertarian?

Basically!

[Neutraligon]

He values humanities free will, no matter what the person

Then said god is a shit parent, no one will let their kids murder each other because they value free will. You stop it and punish the person attempting said killing, this shouldn't be hard for an all powerful god.

Considering how willing said god was to step in during the old testament, this idea of free will makes no sense.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Most Christians don't recognise the Old Testament as literal.

[Rostogovia]

Giving free will to humanity is like running a dog fighting ring. world, when they have the power to just forgive everybody anyway? Also how can god damn us for not accepting his son? How does he expect us to know which of the worlds thousands of religions is right.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Then said god is a shit parent, no one will let their kids murder each other because they value free will. You stop it and punish the person attempting said killing, this shouldn't be hard for an all powerful god.

Considering how willing said god was to step in during the old testament, this idea of free will makes no sense.

Not to mention Omniscience cancels out free will.

[Fanosolia]

Sooooooooo glad this topic became another all powerful deities vs flame war starting atheist