How is imagining a God different from imagining that there is no God! When no one can prove their cl

I have been thinking about this imaginary God. That Non believers claim that believers believe in.

I believe in God based on my feelings and my imagination. To tell the truth i don't really understand why a Non believer can't believe that there is no God. Maybe the same thing applies for a Non believer. A Non believer probably don't understand why i don't feel the same things as he/she does. He/she probably thinks: How can i or we believe in such a fairytale. And i think how can they not

A Non believer in God claims that believers in God have created a God from their imagination. I have to agree to this claim.
But what i don't get: Is there any difference in claiming that there is no God. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. So to claim that God does not exist must be based on. That you imagine that there is no God.

Believers support their believes and claims through the Bible and what they feel and imagine. Some can also see it through understanding science as well.

Non believers support their claim based on how they perceive and understand science. They form their feelings and imagination based on science.

Non of these claims can prove or disprove the existence of God. At least not in a manner that would satisfy either side.

So basically what every discussion about God boils down to. When believers and non believers discuss God. Is that they argue on behalf of their own imagination.

Believers in God imagine that there is a God. Non believers imagine that there is no God. Both have to be based on a imagination, because no side has any proof or facts to display.

So is it a fact when a Non believer in God tels us that. We must be believers in a fairy tail. When they actually can't prove that what we believe is a fairytale ?


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

There is really no difference, except others believe since they have subjective experience of it and others don't, because they haven't got that same experience, but quite an opposite.

It is ridiculous when they are debating about the issue with each others.

It is fine when one in his own mind silently believes or disbelieves - but when they start to press their biased views on others, it isn't fine anymore.

But of course, there has always been those who want other people to think same way they do. If they could decide, they would eventually eliminate the opposite view either by law or a gun.

-v

[edit on 30-10-2009 by v01i0]

Ya your right for all we know aliens is god and they created us or maybe we are just a natural process of a living planet like ours.

I am a christian and I would like to think thier is a heaven and something more after death but I am so unsure about the invisible man up thier.

If he is thier why not come and stop all these wars and everything unless going on and set the planet right for PEACE.

I mean if the Revalation was in deed by god what makes him so special to come and wipe out the planet out when it doesn't go the way he wants.

I think GOD is the universe and is just a force and the aliens planted evidence to make us think when they come back probally 2012 and they will say we made u and We are your gods. just what I am thinking I maybe wrong but we will never know until we die.

Then thier may be nothing after death.

The difference is that religious people's beliefs are based on faith and not much evidence which isn't subjective whereas athiests are based on science.

I know science can't prove of disprove but the assumed difference is that athiests beliefs are malleable whereas religious beliefs aren't.

This isn't entirely true and they're leaving out a large portion of non-athiests, but oh well.

The arguments are stupid and everyone's pretty tired of them.

reply to post by slipknotrules2009

---

I agree aliens are also based on our imagination. And we create scenarios to fit them into our perspective of reality.

reply to post by spy66

---

I think you're right. You said that well.

It's odd how the atheists cannot see God in the entire creation but I can see God in a blade of grass.

There's not much room for common ground. They don't understand my POV any more than I understand theirs.

I dont understand why one has to have the belief in "rational" science or the belief in the God that put it all together. They aren't mutually exclusive.

The way it works is you have to prove the positive. The negative doesn't have to be proven. So it is up to the believer to prove there is a god, the doubter has to prove nothing.

I wouldn't equate "non-believer" with atheist. I am an agnostic, for example. I am not a believer, but I am not an atheist, either.

And yes, from my perspective, anyone who feels that they know, or that they believe beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer to a metaphysical question is in the same boat. I don't think anybody knows. I don't think anybody can know here-and-now.

Some atheists are interested in science. Some believers are interested in science. Science has nothing to say about metaphysical questions. If it did, then the question wouldn't be metaphysical.

Individual scientists' opinions about religious questions are the same as individual scientists' opinions about the Superbowl or World Cup. Being a scientist has nothing to do with having an opinion on the subject, and what that opinion is has nothing to do with being a scientist.

Believers rightly resist being bullied about faith being "unscientific." They are probably harassed this way because a relatively few believers want to replace science instruction with religious instruction in tax-supported schools. I shed no tears for those believers.


Whoever makes any categorical claim bears the same burden. If by doubter, you mean someone who refrains from assertion and from denial, then I agree that there is no burden. However, if you mean someone who asserts that something is untrue, then they have the same burden as thier opponent.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by eight bits]

I do not believe in any biblical God.

I do not believe in Unicorns, Fairys, Elves, Giant Spagetti Monsters, Leprecauns, Dolls coming to life when nobody is around, Reptilian underlords in the center of the earth, Shapeshifters, Mighty Mice, Golden egg laying geese, Talking snakes, tooth fairys, Santa, etc...


Could any of the above be true? sure...but I so far see no evidence, be it objective or personal, to warrant belief in them. And just because someone can tell a story does not mean I will believe the person saying the story, else we would be believing all sorts of nonsense

It is also not my responsibility to justify my disbelief by investigating hard into such items (that are neverending)...we dont need proof on what doesnt exist, only what does exist...

once again, it doesnt mean that such things are not real...it simply means there is no actual evidence supporting their existance...maybe some leads, but thats about it...and leads mean nothing when no evidence turns up...bit like sentencing someone to prison because someone said they did something..no evidence beyond someones story.

Disclosure: I consider myself a religious person rather than an athiest.

Nevertheless, I find the argument that "athiesm is no different than religion" ior "athiesm is just another type of religion" to be logically incorrect. The only overlap is that both athiests and the Fathful are taking a stand on a philosophical issue (the existence/non-existence of a higher power), but this does not imply that athiests believe in a higher power.

It's a bit like saying "baldness is just another hair color." No, there is a fundamental difference between hair color and baldness. True, both bald people and people with hair have heads/scalps (just as both athiests and the faithful take a stand on a philosophical issue). But in order to have a hair color, you need, well...hair. Bald people don't have hair, ergo they cannot be said to have a hair color. Athiests do not have a faith; ergo, they cannot be said to be another form of religion. No, this anology is not perfect...no analogy is. Bend the analogy hard enough ("but bald people have hair stubble sometimes...") and it will break. Neverthless, the analogy points to the kind of basic seperation between athiests and the religious that I believe exists.

I believe that there is a Creator, a higher being, and I believe that everything that exists was created by this higher being, and that includes science.

Science does not rule out a Creator, because He created everything, including Science.

reply to post by v01i0

---

Exactly. As I tell people IRL, "Your beliefs stop at my front yard.". All this bickering gets on my nerves. No one can prove their cases.

reply to post by spy66

---

I think people are inspired to believe in God from being a part of life and observing existence, the complexity of life and the universe, and people are inspired to have no belief in a God for the very same reasons.

I think people believe in God because it answers questions that could be asked for the entire span of ones life time, and I think others accept that there is no God as a similar answer to the very same questions or they find other answers that are just as abstract and impossible to show or prove as God is.

I think both sides of the debate are the same. Both sides are arguing from positions of ignorance where no side can truly know. In the absence of total knowledge, no one can be certain about God.

Well, I advocate that atheism is a religious opinion. I see no logical flaw in that.

I do not use the formulation "atheism is just..." Like all religions, atheism will serve many social and psychological functions for its believers.

As is typical of religions, many of these functions will be peripheral to the dogma espoused. The believer himself or herself may "feel" some unifying connection. For example, many atheists see a peculiar consonance between science and atheism. Value integration is a bona fide psychological benefit of religious profession.

I also avoid "atheism is no different from religion." Every credal faith differs from all other credal faiths - in creed.

The analogy "baldness is not a haircolor" is, like all analogies, of limited validity. There may be more merit to the alternative analogy, that recognizing atheism for what it facially is, a religion, is like calling black a color. In some contexts, black is. In other contexts, black is not.

Any attempt to separate atheism from all other religions will falter on the diversity of religious devotional practice. For example, atheists who are determined to deny that they hold religious beliefs must also deny that Buddhism is a religion.

This will be news to the Dalai Lama, among millions of other people, but no matter. Magical thinking is to be expected from those who claim to have metaphysical knowledge of the sort which can only be acquired by extralogical and extrarational means.

That said, not all atheists claim any more for their opinions than that it is their opinion, and acknowledge that their opinion concerns religious subject matter. Such people seem to be underrepresented on web debate boards.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by eight bits]