15 5

When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be asking a question as a reply , what's wrong with believing in God? . Then the discussion would be about whether it is good to have religion or not . I can't remember how many times i have fallen into the trap again and again.

SohnJose 4 Jan 8

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


never hurts to point out that the NT is a record of the implosion of a theocracy...


The key, which you atheists keep sneaking into EVERYTHING, is believing IN god. Wondering if a god (read IT) MIGHT exist is the right way to put it.
Stop trying to sound so smart; it shows

gnostics, huh? how hard is it really to decipher tree of knowledge anyway?

@bbyrd009 The important thing for ME is to tell the difference between what I think and what I know. I know water is wet, but not is there is intelligent life on other planets. It seems likely, but I won't know it until I see definitive proof.
It's not possible to believe IN water, it simply is. But it is possible to believe IN extraterrestials; a lot of people do. But I don't. Similarly, I don't believe in 'god,' because for one thing who knows what IT could be? To me it's the Explanation for existence itself. Is it possible we'll some day discover the answer, gain that knowledge? Maybe, but I doubt I will in this lifetime.
So is it the 'Tree of All Knowledge?' Or the Tree of Some Knowledge? Or just the Tree of What is Knowable?
Atheists pretend to know things they don't, by defining a 'god' as a certain absurd thing, then scoffing at the idea by equating it with other obviously absurd things. My feeling is we can't possibly know what, if anything, 'god' really is, just like we don't have an explanation for the existence of life.
By deriding discussion about it, we deride ourselves and make ourselves small and irrelevant, among many other negative things.
Just a few thoughts.

@Storm1752 to that i would say "welcome to Unknown God," but few are comfortable with an undefined Creator i guess

"So is it the 'Tree of All Knowledge?' Or the Tree of Some Knowledge? Or just the Tree of What is Knowable?"
just guessing myself, but i suspect the passage is meant to express how (especially western thinking) ppl become "know-it-alls," as you have already indicated, whichever kind of "believer" they are, atheist or "christian"


Their question is a red herring intended to deflect your question. Don't fall for it. Simply state, "Stick to the issue."


If they were to keep it in their homes, it is an imaginary friend. The problem is that many try to regulate our laws based on their religion. So they are forcing others to obey their religion, regardless if the other person consents to it. Also, it is their version of their religion, not just their religion at large. So there is lots of harm to society.

I don't see how it would be possible to keep something like that "in your home".

@JeffMurray It does feel like that.

@PadraicM No, I mean, how can you possibly not have a belief you hold, especially one that huge, not inform your actions in any way shape or form? I think that's likely an impossibility.

@JeffMurray I suspect that we are working with different ideas of "keep it in the home." My thought for that phrase is that they practice it, but they don't try to regulate laws/statutes/rules based on their belief. If they are in a private community (e.g. church or even parochial school that follows their flavor of belief), they sure, people who attend those communities are signing up for it of their own volition. My concern is where they try to force others to drink their flavor of Kool-Aid. Obviously, I intend this as a general statement as it doesn't get into the weeds about "what about their kids" and similar. And yes, it would be next to difficult for some sects as they believe they are supposed to spread the word of their faith and bring all people on earth to their "truth." For more cultural religions folks, it wouldn't be as hard to do.

@PadraicM I mean as soon as you vote, how can you possibly know if your religious beliefs have informed your decision or not?


It's okay to say I don't know when talking about a god existing. You should ask them for objective evidence that a god exist. That is evidence that is outside of their bible and mind.

Give ME objective evidence it doesn't

@Storm1752 []

I'm not the one making the claim.

@Storm1752 While we're at it, I would like to see the objective evidence you never fucked a goat. Thank you.

@Storm1752 Can YOU provide Objective and Subjective evidence that is BOTH Proven and Unfalsifiable that ANY God/s, Goddesses have EVER existed?

@Storm1752 we can never prove a negative


I would suggest you keep on the agnostic track as much as possible. Everyone has s skeptical corner somewhere. Once you have found their corner trap them in it and THEN and only then show them a way out using science - some research needed but it is available. Asking a question properly which is what science is, happens to be a very powerful weapon.

For goodness sake do not let them think that you know all the answers - which is how they are behaving . A good starter would be "why do you think ( remember your an agnostic) That god would allow two methods of "Knowing" ... His and Science.

And you DO know that science exists don't YOU?

Using Agnosticism as a rhetorical weapon is the height of cynical, manipulative, obnoxious dishonesty.
Either be genuinely agnostic or shut up

@Storm1752 Agnosticism is not a tool it is a position wrt belief. Neither is it cynical nor dishonest. How could it be dishonest when it is certainly about "NOT KNOWING"amongst other things. It would be good to hear the originator of the post to whom. I suggested that if I were doing it I would use the above tactic. If that person does not use it I will not be offended. I might try again so I will not shut up ,thank you.

Can't the same be done with atheism? Sam Harris eloquently explained that EVERYONE knows what it's like to be an atheist in regards to thousands of gods, many of which they outright reject without knowing the first thing about them. The only difference between you and them is that you don't believe in all of the same gods they don't, plus one.

@JeffMurray My only complaint about atheism is that it carries so little information about a useless belief. It is good that it is there but personally I play its use down a bit.. Agnosticism is a useful position with many linkages to follow to view a wide range of perception errors.

@Mcflewster That's fair. But you don't see trying to carry the same attitude about unicorns and leprechauns as you do about god a useful belief/strategy?

@JeffMurray Believe it or not leprechauns served a purpose. You may never have needed them but if they were not needed then the word would have died away centuries ago. Atheism is important and will remain important but I see it as [JUST?]a marker on an important journey that will see the end of religion.

@Mcflewster 'Needed' is a strong word. Can you support that claim?

@JeffMurray You may not have needed leprechauns because fortunately you can explain weird happenings without them. We can only educate those without those skills . Is this the claim you meant?

@Mcflewster The water is getting muddy.
I was asking why you don't think the same attitude toward mythological creatures would be equally viable for god. (i.e. there is the exact same amount of empirical evidence for god as there is for leprechauns, thus I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in leprechauns.)

I believe the word 'need' threw me off. No one has ever needed leprechauns.

@JeffMurray I think we had better just agree to disagree on this one . Obviously it depends on the degree of need for anything but if there are zero degrees of need in the world over something, they would not have invented the word and they would not exist. This applies to the word and concept of God. Yes I do prefer to swim in clear water.

@Mcflewster Just because something exists or was imagined and was subsequently named does not provide proof of need for said thing. Just my two cents.

@JeffMurray Religion will not have disappeared until the word god has never been used for one year after its full explanation by science. Banning it will be counterproductive.

We are really NOT Disagreeing with each other. Our differences are in the degree of involvement to establish a NEED. Start a separate post???

@Mcflewster I don't know if anyone else is interested in this, but we can try... What defines death as one year of no use?? For a second, imagine there was no current belief in any god, but we still used the word when discussing greek mythology, wouldn't that invalidate that arbitrary cutoff point?

@JeffMurray Once again could we have a separate post ?because it is now getting complicated but I am very interested in it


Just say as an answer: Everything. For starters, all gods and religions are false because they were all created by ignorant humans. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero evidence of their existence and it is totally wrong to brainwash people coercing them to believe in made up bs.


Why ask? Do you know?


Counter with this question: "What purpose is served by the belief?"


Welcome to the site, they do that because they don't have an answer for something that doesn't exist. AKA they can't prove s***


Don't get them off onto slavery. The "indentured servitude" that follows has nothing to do with slavery in our modern world and they know it. Still, you hear about how this was all good for the black man, etc. I do not have people like this as my friend.


Hello and welcome. It is in fact true that god and religion are two quite different things. It is therefore possible, that there is a god but no true religion, because god does not choose to communicate, and it is also possible to have religion without there being a god, which is what most people here believe.

It is not really a trap therefore. Because if there is a god, but he/she/it does not communicate, then no one would have more reason to be upset about people setting up false gods in its place, which is what all religions would be doing, than that god.

The really important thing is religion and belief, because a god who does not communicate, is effectively the same as a god who does not exist, and he/she/ it does not effect anything. You should therefore 'WELCOME' changing the discussion from god to religion. Because while you can not prove that god does not exist, the falsehood of religion and its claims are easy to disprove, and its evils easy to point out.

If therefore you do want to, or can not avoid, talking to believers it is best to learn something about religion, its history, and its failings. And then take them on at that game, and especially ask them how they know that their religion is the true word of god and not one of the others. Remember that there are ten thousand or more religions and sects in the world, all of whom claim that all the others are false, and at most only one of them therefore can be right.

Too wordy.
Care to clarify, simplify your reply?
Keep it brief. Nobody wants to wade through a doctoral thesis

Ignore him. If someone isn't willing to read 4 small paragraphs of what you have to say, they likely are, and will forever remain, ignorant fools.

@JeffMurray My thought exactly. The questioner may well be really interested in the subject, and therefore deserves a good reply if possible.


Counter question with "what's wrong with stating that green fairies with purple ears live under the stairs & give you an orgasmic gobble job each night". If they claim no stairs too often, substitute the toilet bowl.
When they get round to saying it's delusionery & you should be institutionalised: return to the god argument

The problem with that rerjoiner is it's laughably, transparently bogus. Portraying any possible 'god' that way is not only ridiculous, it's insulting. It signals to your fellow conversant you're not interested in a serious discussion and, worse, are an unstable demogogue with delusions of genius with no evidence, all horse and no cattle.

@Storm1752 Strange. I thought Michael that Neo-deists do not fawn upon their god? I therefore have problems with your "it's insulting". From my perspective it is not possible to insult something that does not and never has existed!
Of course my analogy is intendedly ridiculous - as ridiculous as the proposition that a god is real and for xtians s/he has a son & biggest laughter of all a holy ghost.
It signals to the conversant that I do not consider that they have presented a serious topic for discussion - they have insulted my intelligence but provoked my sense of humour.
Thank you for provoking 5 minutes interest on this beautifully sunny Saturday morning that thanks to the C19 virus is delightfully unpolluted by the sound of traffic. A topic that we possibly have concurrence on.


I see it a lot on here, these illogical atheist giving sarcasm worship to their non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God making fun of them Christian's that doesn't know Jesus is Angelic lord of host Lucifer the devil.

Word Level 8 Jan 8, 2021

You were doing great then blew it.


I discovered here in TN lots of believers so if we talk a about religion and ask which god of the 3k they get all flustered and i say "Don't worry if it comforts you to believe in a sky king it's not fatal unless you hear voices from god--then you really need an MRI to check for the little grey cells."

Clever but like so many atheists smugly ideologic. Agnostics don't believe in anything, which makes us superior.
You are a prisoner of your beliefs.

@Storm1752 Sometimes it is required to take a decision . It is always easy to say maybe ... Perhaps..I don't know.... There is no need to be doubtful about believe in God unless there is any proof that God exist. Other wise we would be doubtful about whether a fairy tale exist or not.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:567015
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.