God Exists, Therefore Leprechauns Exist.

a reply to: rottensociety

Do you know why aethistism is a recent thing? Let me help. Christians killed ya for being a heretic. It was all legal. The dark ages, whitch hunts, conquests, the evasion of Mexico n South America. God wanted them to do it and the sins were forgiven. When the Spanish invaded Mexico the Aztec religious rulers had a very well defined and established religion. They were asked to prove their god, and of course, no one can for obvious reasons. So they killed them, enslaved the people, tore down their temples and built churches to let everyone know who the new sheriff was.

Denny

Hi @BlackProject
I have friends who are both atheist and nontheist,
and one who is more antitheist because of a history of combatting
so much protheist and prochristian people in his own family who have been anti-atheist in excluding and attacking him.

I make a distinction between these three
* nontheist which is neutral and includes people who can work equally with theists and Christians without issue,
* atheist who are not neutral, but proactively don't believe in a personified God and actively promote that bias
* anti-theist who actively oppose and attack and want to change, reduce or remove theism or Christianity.

My approach is to find out what each person means by God, what they do believe in or not,
and then agreeing on terms to communicate what we believe or don't believe in.

I find God represents universal values, but people may refer to these by secular concepts
and not "deify" them as a personified figure. Similar to understanding the forces of God
as forces of Nature and Life, but not personifying these as "mother nature" "mother earth"
or any other "creator" or "author of life." Some call this the Source of life, or call the Creation the Universe
and secularize everything in plain terms instead of religious.

I treat religions as languages for laws, similar to math symbols or equations designed to
capture and explain "relationships between values"

So it doesn't matter if someone uses the term Justice, or someone calls it Jesus,
the issue is "what do we believe about the process of establishing justice and peace"

What are the qualities or process we focus on in order to establish "truth and justice"
which religions may symbolize "collectively" as "God's truth" and "God's divine Son Jesus"

The spirit of peace and comfort, of restoring harmony to humanity
can be represented in the Holy Spirit, where Forgiveness brings healing,
but this must be based on TRUTH in order to establish Justice and Peace that is real and lasting.

If it's not real, it won't last.

So what humanity seeks is Truth, Justice and Peace.
And that's the meaning I see in the symbols of the Holy Trinity.
On a secular local scale, humanity experience life through
Body Mind and Spirit,
individually or physically, psychologically in relations with others,
and collectively socially or "spiritually" in harmony with all humanity and history.

Those relations and process of achieving "justice and peace"
are why people use religions and the Bible to symbolize the story of humanity.

So if all this was translated into secular universal terms,
all people coudl be on the same page, even if they use different "religions" to symbolize the same story and process.

It's still faith based.
So you cannot prove or disprove God exists or doesn't exist,
but the most we can do is agree what we mean by these symbols.
Can we prove love is real or just a man made expression to get what we want from others.
That's faith based.
Can we prove justice exists or will ever be achieved, or isn't that faith based.

Since we can't prove these intangible concepts that exceed the ability of man,
the most we can do is agree on points that are practical to achieving
common goals in the here and now. And if we want to plan for the future,
we agree on how to express our future goals and agree how to proceed and build to that level.

That's what religions and laws are supposed to help us evolve to do.

We just need to agree what they stand for, and how to use them to communicate.

That's how I see things.
it's not a matter of proving things to change other people's beliefs.

It's about working with the beliefs we already have,
and agreeing how to use them to work together for mutual good
interests and benefits of ourselves and others equally so we
develop more effective, ethical and sustainable approaches
to relations, institutions and society.

I believe it will take nontheists and believers working together.
We need both the faith and the reason to check and balance each other to
reach our common goals in life.

I believe both approaches are important, by themselves
and especially in complementing and helping each other to be truly successful.

Thanks for your post which made me want to
look into this and join the forum to explore more.

Take care and I hope to share more intelligent
discourse and insights with you
on what can be improved so more people
can work together despite religious and political differences in belief.
I think that diversity is a gift and a strength in relationships
and should not be abused to divide and destroy instead.

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily Nghiem

a reply to: DaCook

Thank you for your "help", condescending as it is.

However, my argument is that atheism is able to exist now due to changed mentality whereas it wasn't able to exist before due to the mentality. If you read my post properly you would understand what I mean.

if God is used to represent
Life , Love, Nature, Universe, Truth Wisdom
Then even without proving if any of these intangible things exist,
we can still agree what principles concepts or theories we
do have an understanding of, and translate God into other terms
we agree have meaning and value (regardless if we can prove them)

If Leprechauns are used to represent
magical beings capable of mischief
these may be on the level of either angels or demons,
spirits that can affect the world but aren't of this world.
Again, we may not be able to prove the existence of these,
so that is similar to being unable to prove if God exists.

But between the two, God and Leprechauns,
I would say God is used to represent more universal concepts
than Leprechauns are.

You would be more likely to find common values,
that more people agree are good to believe in
that are meant by God, than whatever Leprechauns represent.

They are both used to symbolize things we can't prove exist,
but I'd say God is used to represent something universal to all humanity
and Leprechauns are not.

a reply to: whereislogic
Regarding my use of the phrase "by no means exhaustive"...

The conclusions that can be drawn from the fields of biology and informatica can also be compared with the evidence from the fields of geology, chemistry, psychology, history, mythology and physics for example (see last video). Using Newton's proposed methodology (the results of which have been historically referred to as "modern science", paying close attention to the lines I bolded and the possible argument of induction phrased as a conclusion I think at the end of the 1st video below).

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

I don't think you are really getting it. Your comparisons are not relevant.
Evidence of 'God' exists all around you, whether you believe God to be an all seeing all knowing creator, or even a creative process. Unless you believe everything you experience is a myth, then you have your evidence of creation. The same can not be said of vampires or other mythical creatures.

The same can indeed be said of vampires. Have you not ventured onto the forums of those who legitimately believe themselves or others to be vampires? Or forums that profess to have acquired evidence of leprechauns? They can be quite compelling, provided you open your mind and exercise a healthy dose of faith. It is no different. Perhaps you should invest in garlic and put out an offering for your Fae neighbors...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

Maybe god is a leprechaun. I invite you to prove otherwise.

Why would I want to engage in trying to prove that?

...to prove leprechauns don't exist?

It would up to you to prove that they do, not the other way around.

Oh, so now it is up to me to prove something mythical exists? Gods require no proof because it is obvious to you, but vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks have to be proven because it is not obvious to you. Even if it happens to be a god you dont subscribe to, the rules suddenly flex and tighten. Both the irony and the double standards abound...ahahahaha...and you don't see it! Priceless.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

But your missing the point. It's not just that God is a simple mythological creature. It's the meaning of life. The purpose of life. The creation of life and one's personal experiences in life. I don't know a single person that believes in little green men and has a more fulfilling peaceful life because of it, However I know millions who get that fulfilling peacfule, purposeful life from their beliefs in God.

Has it ever occurred to you that the purpose of life is to decide for yourself? Or is that too much to expect? If you must believe in a god to find meaning and purpose, then it is a shallow purpose indeed. Be good for goodness sake, or you are simply pretending for the sake of vanity and ego.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you must believe in a god to find meaning and purpose, then it is a shallow purpose indeed

Shallow is an interesting term to use as a descriptor of everyone that believes in God.

Because all these things:

Self sacrifice for the good of others.

The anger aroused by injustice

Honest heartfelt laughter

The loyalty of friends

The curiosity and wonder that drives men to explore and do science

The love a mother feels for her child

Become driven by nothing but chemicals, electrical impulses, and adaptions to propagate the race, when you admit of nothing in the universe but the material. You assign all of the above no more significance than taking a piss.

Yet if someone suggests that there is more to these things, a deeper significance, that we were created by God for a higher purpose, you call them shallow?

This is my position on faith & any possible proof of God. (As I've said elsewhere on ATS.)

In my opinion, faith is always a choice, not something that can be compelled by persuasive empirical proof. Perhaps ironically, it was actually my extreme skepticism and final acknowledgement of the impossibility (by my standards at least) of proof of a deity or spirit, that ended up making me finally comfortable with the proposition of faith. I came to faith in a very round about way that I have yet to meet anyone who can really relate with me about. For that reason, for me, science and faith are not mutually exclusive... so long as I delineate between faith and knowledge.

I believe in God because I choose to believe in God... I do not empirically know He exists. And I could be wrong. But I choose to believe I'm not, and to act in accordance with that belief. I do allow that there's the possibility of direct personal experience that can never be proven to anyone else, but for that individual is sufficient for them to say they "know" God exists. I haven't had such an experience personally, but I have had many anomalous experiences since coming to faith that I choose to interpret in that vein. Yet I would still never assert for a fact that God exists. If I could do that, and I could logically prove it beyond any shadow of rational doubt, then it would cease to be faith... it would be knowledge of a self-evident fact. And at least by my standards, I can't do that.

That's why there's a stark division between the scientific process, and theology. That's why you can have theologists who happen to also be physicists, but who refrain from making scientific assertions about theology, and theological assertions about science. It's why philosophy, theology, and science can all coexist.

To me, it's not saying, "Well, there's no proof God doesn't exist, therefore God exists." It's more about saying:

"There's no proof God exists... but there's also no proof our lives have any meaning whatsoever, and on the contrary, cold, hard, empirical data and theory all strongly suggest our existences are utterly devoid of meaning beyond that which we contrive for it, and simple survival and complex psychosocial mechanisms we think 'matter' but are really just behaviors, and that we will all go extinct and leave no trace of our existence behind, at the very latest, when the universe grows cold and dark due to expansion. Therefore... what difference can it possibly make if I choose to believe in God? You have your coping mechanisms, and this is the one I have chosen for myself. I'm not telling you how to cope with the existential conundrum of existing in a physical universe while also being the one species on our planet capable of being aware of its predicament and all the implications thereof, so kindly leave me be. Oh, and God bless you and His peace be with you." :p

But no, I don't believe there will ever be a logical proof of the existence of God that is sufficient to rationally deter all doubt. I don't think it's possible from a logical standpoint, and from a personal, spiritual standpoint, I don't believe it's meant to exist, either. That's why faith "is the proof of things unseen." (You may choose to place the word 'proof' in rhetorical quotes if you so desire.)

In that spirit, I respect all faiths, as well as atheism, and desire only civil, peaceful, mutually respectful coexistence with all people. Ideally, I'd prefer love and fellowship too, but... you can't force that on anyone.

So that's where I stand when it comes to all matters theological. Which leaves me in the dog house with both many atheists, and many theists, I know. So be it. I will let God judge me. (Or you can just go ahead and do so yourself, and I'll politely disagree and ignore it. :p) I just wish everyone well and continue the struggle that is life with hope that my faith will be seen by my creator, and sure knowledge that if there's nothing after this, then it won't matter anyway.

Peace.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
There are two types of atheists.

Regardless of how many types there are, there seem to be a lot of people simply sticking their heads in the sand regarding the evidence, ignoring the herd of elephants in the room and often eagerly going along with the appeals to blind faith (which they then conflate with "faith", believing something to be the case based on the evidence) as a reason for believing in the existence of God (cause that's oh so convenient for the dismissal routine these types like to use regarding this subject when you can point to other people applying blind faith, belief/faith without logical reasonable evidence or when you just want to use it yourself while ignoring that it's figuratively blind, you are believing something for which there is no logical reasonable evidence and you don't really want to acknowledge this either to yourself or others, choosing the terminology, "I have faith that..." or "I believe such and such to be the case or the most plausible model or scenario"; when actually referring to blind belief/faith, sometimes expressed as if to suggest that someone has a certain level of spirituality and enlightenment, or deeper insight that apparently doesn't require logical reasons and evidence). Or avoiding admitting to believing anything (as if the word "belief" or "faith" is taboo to have as an attribute or ability because it's supposedly always 'blind' and based on personal ego in a negative or bad way).

For example, the 2nd sentence of the comment above this comment would be a good description of blind faith, which is the exact opposite of genuine* faith, that only comes from* reasoning on the evidence. 1st * = synonyms: real/actual. 2nd * = "is a result of or from"

All this will make much more sense when one studies the biblical definition of "faith" starting at 6:30 in the video below:

For those who are going to watch the video above all the way to at least 16:15, I feel I should share this video (since it's related to the question asked there, as well as evidence from the fields of psychology and mythology concerning the subject of God's existence and the origin of the universe):

And here are some visual representations of what to think about for those who will watch till at least 25 minutes of that video further above.

Or this one for example which is also related to what happens above:

a reply to: DaCook

I usually don't like to argue about this but I will reply because you included my post in your reply.
I have no idea how they tested prayer but the idea itself seems laughable. The prayer is meant to work on the one who perform it first and foremost. If the assumption is that god is ever present and is us who don't perceive it due to some fault then prayer is a tool meant to fix that. More like meditation, which the same scientists so love to test and to find working. Most people presume that prayer is a phone line to some customer service where we can present our complaints, make a new deal or even ask for a refund. Of course is not working like that.

But this is taken mainly from Christianity, and I can understand people's frustration with it. The point is that Christianity is a religion and like any other religion it was transformed to serve people's need. And just like any other religion it came and will go away at some point. The books will change, the instruction will differ but the idea of god is as old as humanity, etched in our consciousness since forever.

And to be honest for most people, unless they had a direct experience of it, god is only an idea in their head. I noticed that even for the fierce of believers who will fight tooth and nail for it the god is still an idea in their head. And there are as many ideas as people who think about it.
So if we are to argue about who's idea of god is better let us at least agree about what god is.
So when you say god does not exists, how exactly you define god?

If you talk about the christian god exclusively and your reference is only the bible then I have no argue with you or with nobody else. I've talked the talk and walked the walk how they say but I didn't find yet a way to put together this puzzle that is the bible in a coherent way.
If your idea of god is more expanded than that, let's talk about it, why not?

a reply to: emilynghiem

My approach exactly, you just expressed it beautifully.

a reply to: BlackProject

Awesome. Kindly prove to me that God doesn't exist. I do not mean circumstantial evidence that you believe is the answer for all because it is more likely there are connections we can't grasp in the world around us. I mean, 100% undeniable, without a shadow of a doubt, no question left unanswered-proof.
You can start with how human beings came into existence. Following the aforementioned rules, I don't mean theory that is taught as fact, I mean, TRUTH in its purest form.

a reply to: BlackProject

It seems to me that all of the atheist here are arguing against Christianity. However i haven't seen anyone arguing in favor of it. Most people that have posted in favor of a God, are not arguing Christianity is whats correct. We all agree that it is created by humans and on its face is silly.

Most science is also based on "theory" and "faith". There is so much that scientist cannot explain. For example, dark matter. It was theorized to make up for the fact that there isn't enough matter in the galaxy to explain why it stays together. You might say, we know it is there because though we cannot see it, we can see the affects it has on other things that we CAN see. Well, cant this exact same argument be made in favor of a creative spirit or "God"? We cannot see it, but we can see the affects it has on people.

Here are 5 things science cannot prove.

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

None of this is meant to criticize science! There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. There are more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

I don't think you are really getting it. Your comparisons are not relevant.
Evidence of 'God' exists all around you, whether you believe God to be an all seeing all knowing creator, or even a creative process. Unless you believe everything you experience is a myth, then you have your evidence of creation. The same can not be said of vampires or other mythical creatures.

The same can indeed be said of vampires. Have you not ventured onto the forums of those who legitimately believe themselves or others to be vampires? Or forums that profess to have acquired evidence of leprechauns? They can be quite compelling, provided you open your mind and exercise a healthy dose of faith. It is no different. Perhaps you should invest in garlic and put out an offering for your Fae neighbors...

I believe in evidence. There is no evidence of vampires. People who believe they are vampires are just people. They might drink blood, but they are not undead and sunlight, silver and garlic do not kill them.

Evidence of creation exists all around you, like I said.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Very good post that.
The really good scientists understand how and when to use the scientific method, the poor ones (or people who fall back on science but actually have little clue about it) misuse it and apply it incorrectly.

originally posted by: BlackProject
God Exists, Therefore Leprechauns Exist. [/pic]

Lepers....just sayin'

Elf in the German language means nightmare.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: BlackProject

It seems to me that all of the atheist here are arguing against Christianity. However i haven't seen anyone arguing in favor of it. Most people that have posted in favor of a God, are not arguing Christianity is whats correct. We all agree that it is created by humans and on its face is silly.

I don't agree that (true) Christianity (the following of Jesus Christ, obeying the teachings of Christ and the bible that he used frequently in his teachings, the Hebrew Scriptures since in Jesus' time the Greek Scriptures hadn't been completed yet) "is created by humans and on its face is silly". I also try not to conflate Christianity with Christendom (those religions claiming to be Christian, "but do not do the things I [Jesus] say", quoting from the bible). I guess you must have missed my comments to say that most people are not arguing in favor of Christianity or the Christian God whose name is Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus Christ (of course I understand I'm not "most people", but it almost sounds like you didn't even see my comments, you were talking about those who are arguing in favor of a God, not those simply claiming they believe that a God exists, and are rather vague about the rest making no arguments and providing no evidence or logical justifications for the things they say about God, I can't really count that as arguing in favor of a God so that only leaves a few posters that could be considered arguing in favor of a God; just me alone might make up a large percentage in the group that's left that you refer to as "most people that have posted in favor of a God" and "arguing in favor of...").

John 20:17:

Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”

Luke 6:3a, 46:

3 But in reply Jesus said to them:...

46 “Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say?

Matthew 7:21:

21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.

James 1:22:

22 However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning.

Luke 4:8:

In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

He was talking about the Hebrew Scriptures in which Jehovah's name can be found thousands of times in the oldest manuscripts when saying "It is written". He would not misquote the Hebrew Scriptures because of a Jewish superstition regarding the use of the name of his God, as most bible translators would have you believe when translating Luke 4:8.

a reply to: imwilliam

atheist are atheist because certain traumatic events happened in their youth to condition them to believe that there could be a power out there that could have stopped these events and didn't,this turns them against the idea of God, my friend was an atheist, because his father died when he was young, in every instance i know, every person that doesn't believe in God that is within a society that there is a belief in God, has had a traumatic experience in their youth, i believe in God but i dont have a clue of what God is, it could be a mass of consciousness or whatever, of course iam aware that death could mean nothingness but was the point in thinking that way when it is not possible to experience nothingness, its not possible to prove. its a joke of a way of thinking, and does nothing for no-one, when someone tells me they are atheist i always feel sorry that something bad happened to them and wonder what it was, that made them lose hope..
just googled to see if i could find any proof to back up my claim and i found loads.

"The most striking finding was that when Exline looked only at subjects who reported a drop in religious belief, their faith was least likely to recover if anger toward God was the cause of their loss of belief. In other words, anger toward God may not only lead people to atheism but give them a reason to cling to their disbelief."
winteryknight.com...