If there is no God. Then someone explain life.

[g2perk]

Really...then why doesn't it happen any more. Primates still exist. I never heard of a primate becoming human. Have you. Have you seen that happen?

Or is it the amount of neurons in the brain that make them diff.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[PopeyesPappy]

LoL!

If god created us from dust, why is there still dust?

[mauricio]

Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Because if we are to have rational discourse about ethics we have to accept some axioms like the fundamental laws of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_though) We have to also accept we must preserve all things necessary for the rational dialogue of ethics to even be possible, in my opinion this also includes individual self-determination and preserving the existence of the environment where this dialogues can occur. All those things preclude unjust killing of people. But unlike your inferior theory of divine command (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory) they allow for self-defense killing in extenuating circumstances and for properly tailored punishments depending on the nature of the ethical infringement which are not based on the authority of an ineffable entity and therefore can never be properly understood, debated, falsified or justified.

[mauricio]

Really...then why doesn't it happen any more. Primates still exist. I never heard of a primate becoming human. Have you. Have you seen that happen?

Or is it the amount of neurons in the brain that make them diff.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

humans are primates.

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Clade:    Synapsida
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Suborder:    Haplorhini
Superfamily:    Hominoidea
Family:    Hominidae

The Hominidae (/hÉ'ˈmɪnáµ»diː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human and near-human ancestors and relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal).

[GSOgymrat]

Lets start with something simple. Thy shall not kill. If it was not for the bible would it be okay to kill. If not how would you know?

That is a completely different topic and one don't have the energy to explain. I'll pass the "how can an atheist be moral without God" ball to one to someone else.

[g2perk]

I understand and somewhat agree with you. But Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality. At least that's what your resource said. Its not religion that Makes any person become closer with his creator its the relationship that one has with Him. Yes if your confused I understand but experience will teach you more than books ever will.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

That is a completely different topic and one don't have the energy to explain. I'll pass the "how can an atheist be moral without God" ball to one to someone else.

Oh, so now we're playing 'hot potato'? 

[g2perk]

humans are primates.

Kingdom:    Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Clade:    Synapsida
Class:    Mammalia
Order:    Primates
Suborder:    Haplorhini
Superfamily:    Hominoidea
Family:    Hominidae

The Hominidae (/hÉ'ˈmɪnáµ»diː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human and near-human ancestors and relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal).

I'm not disagreeing with you. But primates are not humans they may be related from a distance but that's it. Apples and oranges are both fruits but they come from two different trees.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[g2perk]

Just saying its easy not to believe in something that you can't see. But takes faith to believe in what you can't see.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Hijiri Byakuren]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[Unbeliever]

I don't disbelieve in God because I can't see Him, I disbelieve because the concept of 'God' is too ill-defined, too ambiguous a term to have any real meaning at all. If I can't even define something, there's no compelling reason to believe that something exists.

[mauricio]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But primates are not humans they may be related from a distance but that's it. Apples and oranges are both fruits but they come from two different trees.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

in the same way that oranges and apples are fruits so are gorillas and humans hominids. And hominids are primates. Primates cannot be related to humans because primate is a higher category than humans. What would be accurate to say is that humans are not gorillas, but they are related.

[g2perk]

Ok

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[g2perk]

Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[mauricio]

Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I'm a substance monist I do not believe in any being or thing which is made of some kind of supernatural substance. Be they ghost,gods,spirits,souls,magic,psychics,demons,angels, etc.