My gf is refusing to speak with me. After an entire day of silence and crying she handed me this note...thoughts?

She wrote the following:

The whole store about the dragon in the garage could theoretically disprove anything that could not be proved, like human relationships. Whit if I were to say something like, "My parents love me?" You might ask for evidence: have they told me so? Have they taken care of me? Have they been to my sports games, plays, graduations? You then could present concepts like the biological impulse to breed, societal pressure to partner and breed, birth control failure, sense of duty and reciprocation - the idea that if they care for you now, build up a bond now, you will be in the physical and mental condition to care for them later.

Or what about your friends, or romantic relationships? Do they really think you're interesting, or are they afraid of being alone? Remember, humans are social creatures. Does your partner really love you, can that be said objectively, or is the relationship based upon their decision that you are a decent option to provide for them and any possible children?

It could be said that because it cannot be proven with logic, love as we think of it cannot exist. Emotional bonds serve the purpose of social order, and any ascribed meaning beyond that is all in our heads. When we die, the concepts of love and caring die. Aesthetics and philosophy are also the product of human minds and nothing more. None of these things existed before us, like gravity or mitosis, and they will not exist after us, which means that we have made it up. We have imagined these wonderful ideas that someone on this earth "loves" us and that the art we view offers insights into humanity, but they do not exist in reality. They are not real, no matter how much we beg and plead and pretend they have lasting significance.

Do you see how your argument plays out in reality? According to this line of logic, something cannot have significance - nothing can have significance - just because we have deemed it so. If it does not exist before we are borne/can formulate thoughts, and dies when we do, and cannot be proven by science or logic, then it is not viable, but useless.

Views: 1017

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's just an emotional smoke screen from a child who is afraid to face the truth: there is NO evidence for the existence of God, or of gods, devils, angels, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, poltergeists, or anything else that falls under the label of supernatural. The religious have had thousands of years to come up with the goods, and they have never done so. All we have is hearsay, myths, fables, rumors, tales told and re-told a million times over and growing with each reincarnation, impossible fairy stories of miracles and magic that somehow never seem to happen anywhere except in the pages of books written long ago.


In those books, we can read of how a wonder-working genie poofed the world into existence, parted the Red Sea, made the sun and moon stand still, and did many other fantastic feats. Why does he never do them now? And then later on, a guy came along whom people claim could raise the dead to life, heal the sick, the blind, and the lame, walk on water, change water into wine...ugh, such a list of stupid, crazy nonsense we are expected to believe without question or doubt! When I read that Hanuman, the Hindu monkey-god, carried a mountain on his shoulders, I don't believe it for one moment. Why then should I believe any other claim made by any other religion? Where is the evidence of God? There is none. If anyone had it, they would have presented it by now instead of making silly appeals to emotion and feelings.

Well said Lois -- couldn't of said it better myself.

Lois wrote

“...there is NO evidence for the existence of God, or of gods...”


Well, of course there isn’t.


But, by the same token, there is no compelling evidence that God does not exist.


This is the problem with many who populate atheist/nexus.  They assume that they can/should  argue against the “existence of God, or of gods...”  with those who possess faith in the existence of “God, or of gods...”

It is always a losing encounter.  It always presents the potential of being perceived as an assault, a challenge, a personal attack on the values of of the faithful if not on the meaning/purpose of their very existence.  

And that’s because of the nature of “faith”.

It has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

The entire conversation is really about the "faith" they possess, and the fact that you do not share that faith.

If you allow the conversation to be sidetracked into whether there is a god or not, you’ve been sucked into the impossible position of having to prove a negative, and that CANNOT be done.

“There is no god” is among the more thoughtless things any atheist can say. (especially if to a loved one or a relative)

Instead, we should be directing the discussion toward an examination of the nature of faith, not toward an argument about the existence or non existence of the object of that faith.

It is amazing where conversations can go when  deflection is achieved by simply responding:  

“Well, I guess I don’t share your personal faith”.

In this manner, you have not introduced the element of confrontation, since you haven’t confronted them with anything in opposition to their faith, and there even sometimes seems to be a moment of introspection that tempers their evangelical impulses.

Once in a while, there is a refocusing toward the theist’s own faith, and because “faith” is real, it can reasonably be discussed.  

It takes a bit of self discipline, but I recommend this approach first.

"But, by the same token, there is no compelling evidence that God does not exist."

See, you've already accepted the modern religious concept of capital-G God, as if everyone was agreed on what it means. We're not talking about "God", we're talking about gods. Each god disproves all others.

Soooo, you are going to nit pick about capitalization?

Or pluralization?

Simply, I was just following through with the nature of Lois’ quote.

And your insistence upon using the word “disproves” is apparently your acceptance of the idea that something can prove or disprove the existence of an object of faith.

Please reconsider the idea that anything or anybody can “disprove” the existence of (G)god(s).

Sheer folly.

there again, you are talking about one god. there are hundreds of gods. for any particular religion's pantheon to be real, all others must by definition be unreal. they mutually require each other to not exist.

No they don't.

I know of at least one religion that has several (G)gods.

Not only do you seem bent on arguing that god does not exist,

but on also arguing whether or not there is more than one god that doesn't exist !!??

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"  

kinda implies that GOD HIMSELF recognized the existence, potential or otherwise, of "other gods".

The existence of one god does not preclude the existence of a million others.

Besides, you are ignoring the point of my original reply.


your point is based on a false premise, one created by the religious, that there is a universal idea of "God" that either does or does not exist. only 2 possible outcomes. that's not the case at all. the possible outcomes are that the greek pantheon exist and no other gods do, the norse pantheon exist and no other gods do, the hindu pantheon exist and no other gods do, the abrahamic god exists and no other god do, the aztec pantheon exists and no other gods do, a thousand other such possibilities, that some other gods exist that no religion was stumbled upon, and that none of them exist at all. all gods are mutually disproved by the others.

"all gods are mutually disproved by the others."

disapproval is different from non existence.

you seem to believe that because different people exhibit faith in the existence of different god(s) is "proof" that god(s) does/do not exist.

There are different theories about the nature of gravity, different ideas, different interpretations, different perceptions, but that doesn't prove the non existence of gravity.

The idea  that gravity does not exist because there are different ideas about what it is, ain't going to cut it with any scientist, or anybody else for that matter.

The idea that god(s) does/do not exist because there is more than one idea about what god(s) is/are ain't going to cut it with any theist,  nor does it constitute "proof" of anything.

My point is that you cannot "prove" that god(s) doesn't/don't exist, and that atheists who run around saying "there is no god" have no more proof of that statement than does a theist who sternly maintains: "there is a god".

To argue about the existence or non existence of an object of faith is folly.

That's what my premise is, and it is certainly not "created by the religious".

you have totally been taken in by religious arguments. they do not believe in "different interpretations" of the same thing. they straight up believe all the others are wrong.
Really? Everything that can't be disproven is by default real and we have the burden of proof of proving its nonexistence?
i just say i don't believe in gods. lower case, plural. i don't believe in the concept.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service