Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I



  • In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

    • Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater
    • Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist
    • Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't
    • Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

    Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?



  • I believe that Melvin Bragg and the whole 'In Our Time' posse did a whole half hour on St Anselm's Punt, and a podcast does exist, but @petrapark3r I'm unable to give you the link because I'm too cool and working class to use the BBC website.

    It's a fascinating bit of logic, though, and win-win. If it's true, then bingo bongo jobs a good un. But even if it's flawed (and there are a couple of flaws, as I remember, I refer you to Bragg and his gang of nerds), it suggests that post-human logic can still be lassoed by the hobbledehoy and used from afar --and this is a good thing, because, if today's technological world has taught us anything, it's that algorithms are an easy-to-use bit of kit, and they have a snowball effect. At the minute, we only use them for marketing data, and financial chicanery, but imagine if we had an algorithm running somewhere in the background that dealt with such large, conceptual matters as God? It would be COOL.

    I know it's something that Rainbow George Weiss is always farting on about, and as soon as he mentions it, he gets shut down. I'm less of a hippy than RG, though, and I reckon it's still something worth thinking about.



  • @Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    I believe that Melvin Bragg and the whole 'In Our Time' posse did a whole half hour on St Anselm's Punt, and a podcast does exist, but @petrapark3r I'm unable to give you the link because I'm too cool and working class to use the BBC website.

    Sound like interesting fellas. Ill check em out. But I actually do know why its not, so this is a riddle actually 😋

    It's a fascinating bit of logic, though, and win-win. If it's true, then bingo bongo jobs a good un. But even if it's flawed (and there are a couple of flaws, as I remember, I refer you to Bragg and his gang of nerds), it suggests that post-human logic can still be lassoed by the hobbledehoy and used from afar

    yeah the long version does have a few flaws. I should check out the podcast so I'm not forgetting anything. But my version should have only one, the main flaw.

    --and this is a good thing, because, if today's technological world has taught us anything, it's that algorithms are an easy-to-use bit of kit, and they have a snowball effect. At the minute, we only use them for marketing data, and financial chicanery, but imagine if we had an algorithm running somewhere in the background that dealt with such large, conceptual matters as God? It would be COOL.

    So you're saying that machines will one day prove that God exists? 😂

    I know it's something that Rainbow George Weiss is always farting on about, and as soon as he mentions it, he gets shut down. I'm less of a hippy than RG, though, and I reckon it's still something worth thinking about.

    Look IMHO if you personally haven't thought about something yet it might always be worth checking out properly, no matter who gets shut down for mentioning it. Especially in this day and age where quite reasonable fellas get shut down too.



  • @petrapark3r OK pal, I dun a whole 3 minutes homework and found it on Youtube. It seems to me to be, basically, just an infinitely-upgraded variation of the cosmological argument, and Anselm built a scaffold around it, and then Spinoza came along and started shaking it to make him fall off, even though Descartes was standing there trying to steady it. The moral? All a bit of a semantic swamp, fo sho.

    What I find interesting is that sometimes in the discussion, one of the rabble-rousers will say something like, "You could equally use this logic to prove that unicorns exist". This happens all the time in some of the religious debating websites I frequent. "Why is God any more likely to exist than unicorns, or the Easter Bunny, or Harry Potter?"

    Why do atheists always use such wanky examples? If they truly wanted their examples to be technically precise, they'd at least namedrop, say, some unlikely pantheistic gods, or an archetypal fictional character, or even the implicate world itself. That they always use such unnecessary, childish comparisons suggests, to me, that there really could be something profound in our (lack of a) collective, logical, semantic-bound discourse on god.

    But yeah.

    @petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    So you're saying that machines will one day prove that God exists?

    No. Yes. Maybe. What I was getting at, what with things like high-power computing, and virtual reality, robot labour, universal income, the suring-up of our natural resources ...it strikes me that a lot of the things we traditionally 'need' God for have been supplanted. We've now got the easy part. We've now just got to decide what kind of vibe we want ...just what kind of meaning we want to attribute to raw existence. Dunchya think?



  • @Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    The moral? All a bit of a semantic swamp, fo sho.

    Don't be fooled by em philosophers aye? They make a semantic swamp of anything 😒

    @petrapark3r OK pal, I dun a whole 3 minutes homework and found it on Youtube. It seems to me to be, basically, just an infinitely-upgraded variation of the cosmological argument,

    It is fundamentally different from the cosmological argument. And this is exactly it's main flaw.

    and Anselm built a scaffold around it, and then Spinoza came along and started shaking it to make him fall off, even though Descartes was standing there trying to steady it.

    IMHO it's not the same argument. It's called the ontological argument, but those instances you heard are actually different ontological arguments.

    What I find interesting is that sometimes in the discussion, one of the rabble-rousers will say something like, "You could equally use this logic to prove that unicorns exist". This happens all the time in some of the religious debating websites I frequent. "Why is God any more likely to exist than unicorns, or the Easter Bunny, or Harry Potter?"

    Yeah, the first one to bring the unicorn up (in form of an island 😏) was this other monk, directly answer Anselm. I read his argument (translated of course) a few years back and just thought: man that guy didn't get it (hint he really didn't).

    Why do atheists always use such wanky examples? If they truly wanted their examples to be technically precise, they'd at least namedrop, say, some unlikely pantheistic gods, or an archetypal fictional character, or even the implicate world itself. That they always use such unnecessary, childish comparisons suggests, to me,

    Everybody loves unicorns 🤷 don't you? ❤

    that there really could be something profound in our (lack of a) collective, logical, semantic-bound discourse on god.

    We'll get to that 😄

    @petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    So you're saying that machines will one day prove that God exists?

    No. Yes. Maybe. What I was getting at, what with things like high-power computing, and virtual reality, robot labour, universal income, the suring-up of our natural resources ...it strikes me that a lot of the things we traditionally 'need' God for have been supplanted. We've now got the easy part. We've now just got to decide what kind of vibe we want ...just what kind of meaning we want to attribute to raw existence. Dunchya think?

    Indeed people have always used God as a stopgap. It is good that our time has finally put an end to that (sometimes though with something that doesn't quite fill the gap).

    Yeah, meaning. That's what it's all about. And remains about. Interesting times indeed.



  • @Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    @petrapark3r OK pal, I dun a whole 3 minutes homework and found it on Youtube. It seems to me to be, basically, just an infinitely-upgraded variation of the cosmological argument, and Anselm built a scaffold around it, and then Spinoza came along and started shaking it to make him fall off, even though Descartes was standing there trying to steady it. The moral? All a bit of a semantic swamp, fo sho.

    All right, here's my take.

    Anselm's argument operates purely in the realm of thought. This is what differentiates it from the cosmological arguments: they always start with experience, with the things in the world and conclude from them, back into the world.

    Anselms argument is the only sound one (IMHO) among the ontological arguments, because it does not actually define God! Instead it defines a limit (the limit of our thought: "above which nothing greater can be thought"). And then it concludes using this limit, that God must be thought with existence. And this limit is why the argument works, and why even mentioning unicorns shows but an utter lack of understanding.

    And here is the flaw: Anselm concludes from the pure world of thought into the real world. But those are two very different things. There is no basis on which you can assume that something which is true in your thoughts (and the argument is true in your thoughts once you have really understood it) must be true in reality.

    But I really like Anselms Argument. I found it quite refreshing when I first understood it. Isn't the fact, that he's right about the concept of god necessarily including existence quite astonishing? It is no proof, but I think you can definitely call it evidence.



  • @Indrid-Cold said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    @petrapark3r It's often said in parascientific books that there's always a divide between what we perceive and the true nature of the world, whether because of the delay in our senses picking up the data, our inability to perceive certain light and audio spectrums, etc.

    Hehe, the parascientists should stop copying Kant then, saying things as if they were grown in their own backyard 😋

    I've been thinking a lot recently about belief.

    I suppose I should talk a bit about real belief then. Because the real God couldn't care less about our philosophical discourses (even though I think he might chuckle over our jokes). For the God of the philosophers ain't quite Him and belief ain't quite what we think when we hear the word...

    Faith, as it has always been and as you can see especially clearly in the old testament, is not being convinced of certain ideas. Instead it is trust. Trust in the very fact, that this God will act, in your life, today, and tomorrow. The israelites believed in a God who acted in history, even created history, not in some fancy shmancy theology.

    You will not recognize this God in one teaching or another. You will recognize Him through His actions in your life. And once you have seen how He acts, you will realize that He has always been there, always working tirelessly to guide you closer to Him, to open doors for you, so you could see Him. You will understand that He is the most tender Father, the one who created you in His Heart, in the place that will one day be Your Heaven, if you dare so as to take His Hand.

    And you shall recognize His voice.

    And ...in my roundabout way, I've started to equate this with the thinking of Carlos Castaneda. I'd never quote anything from his 'Don Juan' meetings (because, let's face it, they're bunkum), but if you chase down his logic behind these transcendental experiences, he talks mainly about playing with his own expectations, manipulating them to achieve a different reality.

    What would it be like to believe in something god-like 100 percent, with no margin for doubt? I'm not convinced we'd get an answer even if we could somehow go inside the mind of the most delusional, straight-jacketed religious schizophrenic. By observing his (OR HER) inner life, a duality would occur, which in turn would require a shared responsibility for this god-like thing, which de facto we'd be unable to get. Yet it is worth thinking about just because...

    I'm a big lucid dreamer, me, and a profound thing I've noticed is this: lack of processing power on the part of my mind does not seem to be a consideration. I can come into consciousness in non-reality surrounded by the densest, most sophisticated details. And it's a hell of a thing for a human to be willing to take responsibility for everything. Every weird, quantum-age idea. Like, for instance, a certain amount of consciousness coming from the future, and, the

    And when our minds get,

    When the, (trips up, head falls in campfire, burns to death like drunken cowboy in Red Dead Redemption)

    always making me smile 😄



  • @petrapark3r You're quite right to remind me about the purely thoughts-based nature of Anselm's idea. And it might even give the whole thing a practical application. I've been thinking a lot recently about belief. It's often said in parascientific books that there's always a divide between what we perceive and the true nature of the world, whether because of the delay in our senses picking up the data, our inability to perceive certain light and audio spectrums, etc.

    And ...in my roundabout way, I've started to equate this with the thinking of Carlos Castaneda. I'd never quote anything from his 'Don Juan' meetings (because, let's face it, they're bunkum), but if you chase down his logic behind these transcendental experiences, he talks mainly about playing with his own expectations, manipulating them to achieve a different reality.

    What would it be like to believe in something god-like 100 percent, with no margin for doubt? I'm not convinced we'd get an answer even if we could somehow go inside the mind of the most delusional, straight-jacketed religious schizophrenic. By observing his (OR HER) inner life, a duality would occur, which in turn would require a shared responsibility for this god-like thing, which de facto we'd be unable to get. Yet it is worth thinking about just because...

    I'm a big lucid dreamer, me, and a profound thing I've noticed is this: lack of processing power on the part of my mind does not seem to be a consideration. I can come into consciousness in non-reality surrounded by the densest, most sophisticated details. And it's a hell of a thing for a human to be willing to take responsibility for everything. Every weird, quantum-age idea. Like, for instance, a certain amount of consciousness coming from the future, and, the

    And when our minds get,

    When the, (trips up, head falls in campfire, burns to death like drunken cowboy in Red Dead Redemption)



  • @Mr-Ghost said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    frankly, I could not ensure the existence of God, on the other hand,

    Yeah, well, no, this "proof" I summarized, does not prove (ensure) the existence of god, no.

    I would say that this being does not really exist

    Why would you say God does not exist? Do you have a good reason?


  • Soul Searchers

    Okay....I want to break this down a little more. Not to prove/disprove an overall force that drives our reality, but ask...."can you prove I (@sabo-goes-thud) exist?" Or anyone else here.

    Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?



  • @Vex-Man What I wanted to say is that the existence of God depends on the person.
    Believing that he exists without proof is called faith.

    No Science can prove its existence. If there is then, this question has long been answered!

    Obviously, we cannot determine his existence if you are asking for a real being? We cannot compare whats real and whats imaginary in the first place. Can you add an imaginary number to a real number? Of course not! At least you need a physical representation of the imaginary number to add them!.


  • Hella Assassins Watch Anime Eyes Music Lovers Gamers

    @petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

    • Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater
    • Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist
    • Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't
    • Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

    Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

    frankly, I could not ensure the existence of God, on the other hand, I would say that this being does not really exist


  • Hella Assassins Watch Anime Eyes Music Lovers Gamers

    @petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet': Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    Why would you say God does not exist? Do you have a good reason?

    .....i just say it....


  • Soul Searchers

    I can prove God exists, but it's a long story, and even still an individual can choose to not believe me, even with evidence. I'll use the signs of my life that are easy to research. First of all my middle name is Steel, because my dads middle name is Flint, and he did this to symbolize a father son connection. I was born on 4/27/88. Well the funny thing about that is that 427 engines were made in Flint Michigan. There's also a game called the Stanley Parable based off of Half Life where the main character starts in room 427, and its the players objective to do as the narrator says, or go any other direction just to see Stanleys fate out of morbid curiosity. Also I was born in Indiana in the poorest city in America by record at the time of my birth, and my moms name is Deanna. So I was being conceived literally in Deanna my mother

    Many of us adults know of a cheep high gravity beer called 211 Steel Reserve. My friends were calling me Steel Reserve before I knew the of the beer, but strange things happened regarding that number. I found out there's an album by Rush called 2112 about a man who suffers a terrible fate. On 2/11/13 the previous pope stated his resignation, and on that same day lightening struck the Vatican not once, but twice, and many of us have heard the expression that lightening does not strike the same place twice. The first woman I fell in love with was born 2/08/80 and there's a 3 day gap between her birthday the number 211, and valentines day.

    My dad was born 8/08 and whats very odd about this is that long after I took a serious interest in Ukulele over all instruments I found out that Hawaii's area code is 808. I could go on and on about the strange signs of my life to be honest, but as I said no one has to believe me, even if they took the time to research, and find evidence of the things I share, and even then there is the question if I am telling the truth about names, origins and birth dates etc. As for me I have had all the evidence I need god exists, and moreover I have even seen demons flee from the name of Jesus, but again no one will likely even believe it.


  • Soul Searchers

    it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.



  • I believe that God exists as a manifestation of our own intellectual evolution. To put it simply, God is the default placeholder for most people for everything unknown because that is simpler than not knowing. So to answer your question there is no way, yet, of knowing either way 😊



  • @petrapark3r Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response. 🙂 I am glad I found this site now!

    I find the biggest issue with us trying to understand or even discover the existence of a God, is our somewhat ignorance of the fact that we may not even have the capability/means to do so. I mean that is like us expecting a programmed character in a computer game to develop awareness of their programmer's (God) world, something that doesn't even exist or have any measurable connection within their own environment/programming.

    My strongest hypothesis (and secretly hoping) 🙂 would be that we are some form of advanced symbiosis between our human lives and another form of life, similar I guess to a kind of virtual reality system. What else could it be right 😝


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    @pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    In history – that is in a history when still anybody believed that there was a God or were gods – people already wanted to know. The idea of proving God seemed to be especially popular at the beginning of the last millenium. The first one to come up with such a "proof" was the monk Anselm of Canterbury. This is a short summary of his argument:

    I see how many times you try to prove god. But of course all of your attempts are ridiculous. Try to differ between argument and proof, there is a lots of difference between both terms. I bet this argument is not free from flaws which ill prove for you. https://wikidiff.com/argument/proof
    Note- You won't repeat god of gaps or argument from ignorance, divine fallacy, straw-man arguments, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to logic, existential fallacy, argumentum ad populam, appeal to probability or any other logical fallacy as per as you did in previous topic. You should accept this guideline.

    • Everybody can agree on the following definition: God is that above which you can think nothing greater

    This is not a correct definition of God. It is given by a Christian Anselm. Check definition with google. https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/god

    • Now think God like this, but think that he does not exist

    Devil/satan is that above which you can think nothing more evil. Now think satan like this, but think that he does not exist

    • Woops, you can think of something higher can't you? Because a God who does exist, is definitely greater than one who doesn't

    You can something more evil cant you ? Because a satan does exist, is definitely more evil than one who doesn't

    • Ergo: Our mind is not capable of thinking God without also thinking that he exists

    Our mind is not capable of thinking Satan without also thinking that he exists

    Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that god exists?

    Now for the million ₫ question (currency: vietnamese dong) : Why does this argument not prove that satan exists

    Haha funny. There is no theist till the date who will accept both devil and god exist simultaneously. Try to differ both terms 'conceive' and 'real'. Devil, satan, angel, god are just concepts, it does not matter they come in our mind or not rather then they must really exist in physical world.

    1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
    2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and the (b) ability of its creator.
    3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4. The most formidable handicap for a creator.
    5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6. An existing god therefore wouldn't be a being greater than which a greater cant be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist
    7. Ergo, god doesn't exist.

    @steelfirehawk said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    it's simply easier to allow oneself to believe

    Believe is a faith without evidence. I refer you to differentiate some terms. Science is based on empirical evidences and theories. It is not based on imagination or faith.

    we evolved from monkeys to enable ourselves to be compulsive in the flesh like animals. People don't want to believe in God so they can do what they want without any regard to a higher power that judges purely, and righteously.

    Morality does not stem from god. We were evolved and we had jealous genes yet we were altruistic. I give you an evidence of animals, they still save one-another and somehow they kill each-other too. Do animals obey any dogmatic religion ? No. I bet you became a religious man after the terror and fear of your God. Fear of transgression, fear of calling racist, fear of calling kafir, fear of punishment, fear of death, fear of gays, fear of calling fool etc. Please visit a middle-eastern country, for your own sake. I hope you will change your assertions about how atheists are being treated there.

    @Sabo-go-thud said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    Are you sure your talking to a human or a line of code or a lizard of the Illumina?

    I can visit you anytime, I cannot visit him anytime. You type on a keyboard, is not a miracle. Thus, analogy you to god is basically absurd



  • @pe7erpark3r Ideas exist. God exists, at the very least as an idea. Whether God is this supreme omnipotent being is debatable, but just someone having an idea of God causes his/hers/its existence. Or is the result of. Whichever.


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    You have a better definiton of God? I think this one is perfect I mean of course there are other ideas of other God's like roman Gods or hinduistic Gods,

    There are many definitions available on the internet. They are universal definitions of God/s

    but this is the perfect definition of the one absolute being,

    Absolute being is one who is combination of present, past and future. Devil can be absolute one as well.

    that fits also the christian God, the origin of all.

    Allah says he is the origin of all things, Brahma says he is the ultimate creator. Who is true ?

    You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.

    The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.

    Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.

    ‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.

    This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.

    This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’. Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
    By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.

    But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".

    Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.

    There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.

    This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
    You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.

    The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.

    Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*. Hinduism and Islam are agree with ‘absence of god is devil and absence of devil is God. And perhaps, OT of bible was also agree with it (the source where the argument was derived).

    This is like with light (this comparison is an anecdote from Albert Einstein btw.), you can measure light, because it is something, it is real. You cannot measure darkness. Darkness is simply the absence of light.

    Subjective vs objective, science is objective and is not subjective like people thoughts about devil-god. For atheist philosophers, human is the god/(s).

    It is also based on axioms, improvable assumptions based on... well nothing but the fact,

    Non-empirical assumptions are based on empirical knowledge. Anselm's argument was flawed with circular logic. However, you've chosen less flawed version.

    I think above things do not matter because I just noticed someone else has answered better than mine on this same thread.

    But immorality requires you to either think that God does not care, to make up an unjustified concept of God that allows you to be immoral, or – the easiest – to think that God does not exist.

    You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.

    It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.

    I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
    History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
    Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.

    Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion. Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christianism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx. Christian communism is also a branch of marxist communism. Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion. In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.” This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation. The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.

    But you are right, even many christians fear God. But that is just a result of not trusting Him. Of course God is just and against sin, because without justice there would not be mercy, only tolerance. And God is all merciful, for He loves us more than you could ever imagine. He will forgive you all the evil you do, and bring you back to Him if you just let Him. Therefore it is wrong to fear Him, for He only wants happiness and peace for you for all eternity. If you really trusted Him you would see, that He's ever so gentle, lovingly intervening, when you stray. The problem is just, that many people do not wake up, if they are not shocked. So sometimes He can put things rather strongly. But that too is just to bring people back to Him, who is only Love

    Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8), and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
    Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)

    So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)

    An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.

    @Sha-WARM-a said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:

    @pe7erpark3r GOD will exist if you want him/her to exist. This is the essence of faith.

    I couldn't understand what you were trying to say but here is a quote. Did you mean it is your will for wanting him to exist ?

    alt text






By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.