I Know That God Does Not Exist

The churches I went to as a child (my mother was a Mennonite and my father was Pentecostal) had "baby dedications" which took the place of infant baptism and "believers' baptism" which you would choose voluntarily when you were about twelve. I think mthey had formal classes about what you were supposed to believe but I never took them.I never chose to be baptized (mostly through inertia). Some people really freak out when I tell them I have never been baptized. Then I tell them I don't have a soul. Yeah, that was what did it for me.

That "dusty old book" that doesn't limit you? I have more respect for the Bible than you do. That sounds exactly like you. You say that like it's a bad thing.It's funny how "liberal" and "progressive" have become swear words to you right-wing-nuts.
​

I was taught that the "soul" is the mind, will, and emotions.Mind=What I think
Will=What I want
Emotions-What I feel.The soul separates humans from other animals. They simply have instinct.

Wrong again.

Animals have all of that.

Well, the question then becomes which "god" we are talking about. It cannot be the god of the of the christians, because theirs is defined to have those three attributes. In fact, it then becomes much easier to defend the position because it would become "some or other god does not exist", which would garner a whole lot more supporters from among many religious people as well, as long as "some or other god" whose existence is denied isn't their particular deity.By the way, if the Judeo-Christian god existed, he could certainly not be omnibenevolent. After all, to quote Stephen Fry: "Bone cancer in children?! What's that about?"

Edited by Parasomnium, .

Perhaps not, but still, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Only after you die might you discover whether you're saved. If the muslims have it right, you're screwed. And so with just about any other denomination that isn't yours. That's why I put my money on the here and now, which is the only where and when I can do something about making my life, and that of others, worth living.

I understand you mean this in the context of your explanation - that the word 'proof' simply shouldn't be considered as a part of 'doing science.'
And I agree with you 100%.But my ramble isn't on that, it's going to jump off and go into the far left field of nuance (my favorite place for rambling!)
And, it does not have a target audience other than "anyone interested in a ramble about science and proof."Your chosen example... that surgery is not part of a driving a bus... is excellent for showing that they are disconnected.However... it is still clear that surgery is "a thing" and there are people (doctors) who would be good at doing surgey.
This aspect... if anyone else's mind is going there... does not align with "proof" and "science."That is, science doesn't prove anything... but it's not like "proof" is still a thing and there are others that actually can prove such things and science simply doesn't do it because it's not skilled in that area.
Well, in the sense of mathematics this is true... mathematicians prove things, in the context of mathematics that are made-up/developed by humans and using our imagination to create symbols/rules/axioms.If we're dealing with "describing reality" though, things that aren't created/imagined by us... the things science deals with... the word "proof" doesn't simply not exist for science... it doesn't exist for anyone at all.
There is no "other specialized group" that actually can "prove" things when describing reality.
Proof requires answers for comparison to know if you're right... and there are no answers to "describing reality." Only tests that can be confirmed or denied... but not "full answer" that is "100% correct."Science doesn't stay away from proving things because they don't know how to do it, or others do it better, or it's not within their scope, or they don't have time...
Science stays away from proving things because it's not possible to prove things about describing reality.
Or, at least, not a single human in the history of humanity has ever been able to describe a method that proves things about reality.Science stays away from proving things because it's currently impossible.
If it ever did become possible... science would be the first to adopt the strategy and begin proving anything and everything it could.In the context I'm describing, it would be closer to say something like this:Asking if Science proves anything is like asking if a bus driver can ride a unicorn.
-no they can't, it has no bearing, and it's not possible for anyoneOh yeah... that's a good ramble. Scratched that itch

I was raised Catholic, and I had a Confirmation. Here's what I remember about my (very generic/average/Canadian) way through it, 30-ish years ago:Canada has two types of government-funded schools: Public and Catholic.
-and interesting side bit, if you have questions...
-for now, let's basically say that the two are pretty much the same thing (provide the same basic education/opportunities) but the Catholic one includes "Religion" courses every year as well that are not included in the Public curriculum.
-as well, you need to be Catholic to go to the Catholic school... basically go to a Catholic church and pay... funds... I forget what they call it (not tithing...)While attending a Catholic school, everyone around "that age" (Grade 8, I think?) goes through Confirmation. It's basically a part of the school curriculum (although not a legal requirement for completion.) I remember the entire class getting ready to go through Confirmation...1. We made these over-the-shoulder felt sashes with our "confirmed" name on them.
-my chosen name was Daniel (yes, chosen by me... pretty much "whatever name you wanted from the patron saints or already existing in the Bible."
-so my "new name" was: FirstName, MiddleName, Daniel, LastName (although I don't remember seeing this written anywhere official... but it certainly was a thing we were taught.)2. We were all given Bibles to read/study (ours to keep forever.)
-the Bibles we were given were these small, red versions. I don't remember what version specifically... but I'm pretty sure they were New Testament only, not the entire Bible.
-there were times provided in class where we would spend them reading this provided Bible3. I don't remember any lessons on how to critically think and choose about joining the religion or not.
-I do remember that Confirmation is when we decide "as adults" (we were 12/13 years old...) that we personally wanted to "choose" and "continue" in the Catholic religion
-what was I to do? I had grown up going to church every Sunday - not a choice, but a mandate from my parents
-I believed in God at this point, I was even a devout Alter Boy (gave me something to do during Mass instead of just sitting, kneeling, standing with everyone else - I would make sure the proper wine/water was brought to the alter at the proper times... light candles at proper times... things like that.)
-everyone in class (all my friends) were excited about choosing a new name (I don't remember any critical-thought discussion on if we should be following or not... we were 12/13 years old.)4. I had to find a "Sponsor" (and it can't be a parent/guardian) within the Catholic Church to guide me
-I was friends in the neighbourhood with a boy who was 1 grade older than me... we played together often; I asked his father, who I knew fairly well5. There was a planned Mass one Sunday where everyone in my grade who attended the same Catholic school I went to (there were more churches than schools at that time...) would be Confirmed.
-Mass occurred as normal
-at one point we all went to the front with our Sponsor behind us with their hand on our shoulder
-Priest came by one-by-one and said something and I'm sure we responded positively
-all happened fairly quick because Mass was still only 1 hour long (families without anyone being Confirmed would still attend this Mass and expect to go home 1 hour later.....)So, yeah... pretty much like that.A lot of "built-in" peer pressure:
-entire class doing it
-Sponsor is likely a family friend who also expects you to go through with it
-family has likely been going to Mass every Sunday with an expectation that this will continue (or else!) for the fore-seeable future
-in front of entire congregationI don't remember any sort of actual, direct peer-pressure.
But I don't really remember thinking on it any more than "I believe in God? Yeah... Catholic Confirmation!"

I was taught that God is Omnipotent-All powerful, Creator, of all seen and unseen stc..
Omniscient- All-knowing, capable of relating to all humans simultaneously, perhaps...knowing the end from the beginning sort of thing.And Omnipresent- Present everywhere simultaneously.Present in all places at the same time; ubiquitous.Being everywhere simultaneouslyWhere this omnibenevolent thing came from I have no clue. Perhaps that what Stephen Frye was ranting about.Humans have enough of an ego that they attempt to define what God *should* do and be in order to qualify for the position. As if we had any say!

Edited by Phat, : added sentence

No, no they don't. Animals have no awareness of who I is, (am) who we are, or who they are that makes them unique from the rest of their species.

quote:

---

There are a number of things that make us human and separate us from animals. One is our ability to self-analyze and engage in mental time travel. We can also imagine different scenarios and reason abstractly. Additionally, we have established cultures with rules and moral codes. Finally, our brain functions allow us to learn rapidly and make decisions based on more than just survival instincts

---

Edited by Phat, : added quote

So science can't even prove that I'm taller than an ant. Wow ... science is so dumb!

Dredge...that last post is in fact an example of trollish behavior. You know darn well what they are trying to teach you about word definitions. Why can't you acknowledge it and move the conversation along rather than insist that your narrow view is correct?Just sayin

Precisely!You're finally catching on to him/it. His goal and purpose is completely contrary to any kind of discussion, but rather it is to stop any kind of discussion.Unfortunately, that is the same goal and purpose of creationists. The only difference here is one of degree where Dredge takes his trolling further than most other creationists.

How about backing this with some sort of evidence?