sure didnt seem to bother Jesus @ the Roman Centurion nor the Good Samaritan huh

I agree, but I also agree when you state a negative 'fact' (example a higher power does not exist) you are indeed expected to show evidence as to why you have formulated that 'fact'.

@Kojaksmom I'm answering a question. I'm not trying to spread the word.The onus is on the believers to show evidence. I'm just saying I've seen ZERO evidence. I don't think there is a God. I don't have to show any evidence and I'm not formulating any facts.

@barjoe okay ,say for instance I was to say there is absolutely no life on other planets. I am indeed expected to show evidence as to why there cannot be life on other planets. The same thing can be said about a higher power.

@Kojaksmom If you were to say that there is no evidence for life on other planets. If I want to contradict you, I need to show evidence, not you. Let's leave it at that. I'm am Atheist. If you believe in God. Good for you. I don't.

@barjoe I'm an atheist too, But I am not the master of the universe who has all the answers. Maybe humans are just stupid and can't figure it out. I don't know for an absolute fact and nobody else does either.

@Kojaksmom I agree with you. I don't agree with the premise. I've been presented with this before. If I have seen no evidence of something, show me credible evidence and I will accept it. I don't have to prove my disbelief.

@Kojaksmom Totally agree. It is foolish to assert absolutes when there is no direct evidence. But I feel it is perfectly fine to take a stance and not believe based on current level of evidence

@Canndue absolutely, even Richard Dawkins often will describe himself as an agnostic because he cannot present evidence that god/something does not exist.

@Canndue, @Kojaksmom Am I allowed to be an Atheist without people telling me I have to be an Agnostic? I don't have to prove nonexistence. If people entertain the possibility of afterlife or a deity, good for them. I used to go though this endlessly with @DangerDave and it's as bad as arguing with Xtians.

@barjoe of course, I think you misunderstood me. I am totally an atheist. I feel it is fine to believe there is no god. Based on the root of the word, we are all agnostic ( including theists). But to stay agnostic is just perpetual fence-sitting....

@Kojaksmom Dawkins is free to call himself whatever he wants. I don’t base my life on him. I go on the premise that there is no god and behave accordingly. Certainly willing to change my position if evidence is provided, but I’m not holding my breath.

@Canndue I am not familiar with that definition of agnostic. I always thought an agnostic was someone who wasn't sure about the existence of God, or was a believer who had no affiliation. I am neither. Not trying to argue, just stating my disbelief. Actually didn't mean to tag you on this. Sorry.

@barjoe My experience is that some people just like to argue for the sake of argument, agnostics in particular, and that according to agnostics, "agnostic" means whatever that particular agnostic wants it to mean at that particular moment. Just look how hard it was for most of them to give an honest "no" to this question.

I like when you stand your ground, I can tell that your opinions are borne of experience.

@LovinLarge Agnostics are often believers without a religion. They don't want to hear godless denial of life after death any more than Xtians. I still remember arguing with @DangerDave. He called me a Gnostic Atheist like 50 times. I never heard of the term before. I'm an Atheist.

I think the implied meaning of "higher power" is a supernatural source that interacts in our lives, but your examples of natural and worldly sources of powers higher than ourselves are points well taken.

@Julie808
Thanks. I realize that's the way people think about it today, but I suspect that’s a fairly recent development.
The word, supernatural, for example, didn’t exist before the 16th century. Even the word, natural, only goes back to the 14th century. Those are modern concepts. So neither the word, supernatural, nor the phrase, higher power, appear anywhere in the Bible. In a pre-science world people thought and wrote commonly in metaphor. I strongly suspect their metaphors represented conjecture about natural phenomena. They could see that there were many forces more powerful than humans, and they thought it healthy to keep that in mind.

@skado Yes...thought it healthy to keep that in mind...but, virtually oblivious to pitfalls and ease of taking it too far.

@Rossy92
Unfortunately humans can be like that.

@skado Yes, I agree with your perspective. My feeling is that taking myths and gods as metaphor, to be understood in a literary sense rather than literally, is the point. Some get lost believing in the metaphor itself. It's definitely good to be reminded that there are powers greater than ourselves and I'm okay being in awe of much of it and realizing what I can and can not affect with my actions.

Finally, some evidential support. How cool?

nice imo, but what about all the "dark" stuff? Dark energy, wth?
Or even like Skinwalker Ranch, studied to death?

@bbyrd009 dark matter and dark energy (2 similar yet vastly different concepts) are just placeholder terms until we learn what it is. Multiple theories suggest both could be particles we have yet to discover. Sorry but I'm a giant Astrophysics nerd.

@redhog sure, but imo the point for us right now is the "until we learn what it is" esp being as how i guess many scientists react to dark matter/energy with "None. Because there is none. Nothing. Period." too, see

@bbyrd009 wrong. Because we know it exists. We can see its effects on gravity in the case of dark matter and we can see the effects on expansion of the universe in the case if dark energy. Nice try buy utter failure on your part to try and use my own words against me.

@redhog well i guess i even agree with you, but the point remains that there are knowledgeable scientists who don't! The argument goes something like "you know what exists?"

I said, "you are elohim"

well for whatever reason they tolerate gnostics here, and personally i try to respect all believers, even those in "no God(s)

@bbyrd009 Thanks?

@KKGator lol

@KKGator let me just say that i am now suspicious of what i am most certain of

@bbyrd009 Okay. By all means, you do you.

@KKGator ha, thanks?

well said

i like it all except the diest crap of course

@HeAdAkE : I wasn't a deist for very long before I let go of the idea of any kind of god existing; but, if one must believe in a god, the god of deism is certainly preferable over gods that reveal themselves to humans, meddle in human affairs, and demand devotion and obedience--or else!

@Joanne

well said

i can appreciate that absolutely

people just don't understand how lucky we are to have life and be human

if u know about where we came from and evolution then in my opinion, theres no reason to credit anything other than sheer luck!

our best guess right now is that the universe came from a big bang that came from nothing, so i gotta wonder what evidence would suffice for many people? But the end of your post reminded me that it was the "atheist" of whom Jesus said Go, and do likewise

"...and demand devotion and obedience--or else!"
this would i guess actually be a Baal or "lord," even though the Bible interpreters have xlated most forms of God into that ("Lord" ) now...but its a terrible xlation imo, i mean what has Yah made you do today? lol

as to "existence," well, doesnt existence require "objective evidence?" imo you will never get to the point that way; Yah does not "exist"

@bbyrd009 : A universe from "nothing" is a bit misleading. It is reasonable to conclude that energy/latent energy has always existed an is responsible for the Big Bang...energy becoming matter.

I cannot say what evidence could be presented that would cause me to say that there is, or must be, a creator god. Science does not care one way or another, but it demands testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence; and I just don't see any such evidence as ever being presented.

What science does show us that there is no need to insert a god in order to explain the universe...so, why insert one?

As for the biblical god. A solid argument can be made that it does not exist. It is simply too contradictory. It starts out as a local god, one among many, that needs angels to inform it about what is going on in the world and ends up becoming THE all-knowing, all-powerful, one and only, God of the universe. Then it does that crazy thing of becoming its own son so it can sacrifice itself to itself and a holy spirit is thrown in making it a ridiculous triune god.

@Joanne ok well fwiw i suggest that that is strictly wisdom hidden from the wise, not meant to be taken literally

@bbyrd009 : Yes, problems arise because it is taken literally. I was raised to believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and to be taken literally. Most of my family members believe the stories told in the bible really happened .

@Joanne ya, mine too. I have a good website for that, but most xtians don't like it much i guess

Actually, "absence of evidence" is to a large degree "evidence of absence". If I told you that I put 10 million dollars in your bank account, however, when you checked there was no evidence, would you then start writing checks and spending like crazy?

Believers must prove their nonsense, no one else should have to be bothered by it or put up with it.

@nogod4me Well yes that is true to a degree, but to continue the anology. If I checked a couple of hours later, but it took your cheque three days to clear.

@Fernapple And if you still found no evidence would you then go on a spending spree?

@nogod4me No, but then repeatability is evidence.

@Fernapple "Imagine for a moment that the concept of god never existed, that no one had ever heard of such an ..."/

Why don't you have the same level of interest talking about Bigfoot or leprechauns? Because these myths are widely accepted as myths. We don't have words like a-Bigfoot-ists or a-leprechaun-ists, but we do have words like atheists. The god concept simply has had more acceptance than other stories.

There are people who have never even heard of a god, they are inadvertently atheists. Do you waste your time on gods or myths that you haven't heard of? Of course not, because you haven't heard their stories.

You cannot have knowledge of a god that hasn't been proven to exist, you may have knowledge of an unsubstantiated story about a god. Do you waste your time on these stories?

An atheist does not state a god or gods don't exist, they don't care because it is irrelevant, there is no evidence to deal with.

@nogod4me Yes but remember, the original post was not talking about the Biblical god, but only a higher power. Is there a higher power ? I don't think so ? But then if you had asked a nineteenth century scientist are there such things as radio waves. Ergo, I could be wrong.

@Fernapple And god stories are irrelevant, radio waves have significance and substance.

If a higher power can't be bothered with us, neither should we bother with it. Without it giving us evidence for its existence we would just screw up the details and maybe piss it off.

@nogod4me My thought exactly.

I sometimes think that if there is a higher power, it may like atheists the best, because we don't, tell it what it should be doing, or set up false claimants in its place, but then I think that's probably too gnostic, best just stick to don't know.

@Fernapple Everyone is agnostic, that is why it is irrelevant. If a person doesn't have belief in gods or higher powers that makes them an atheist.

@nogod4me We are all agnostic to some degree, except for theists, who are atheists about every other god but theirs.

@Fernapple Everyone is agnostic, including theists. They, like everyone else, DO NOT KNOW definitively if a god exists, this is why agnostisim is irrelevant.

Theists simply BELIEVE that a god exists. Theists are NOT atheists because theists are believing in a god or gods.

Theist: theist = belief in god
Agnostic: a = without; gnostic = knowledge
Atheist: a = without; theist = belief in god

In order to know, you must have knowledge, in order to have knowledge, you must have evidence. Believers simply believe without evidence producing knowledge. An atheist accepts knowledge that evidence produces. Theists have not produced any evidence for gods.

This is why atheists demand proof in order to obtain knowledge and theists demand belief in order to sustain their faith.

@nogod4me Ah yes but theists think they know that no other gods but their exist, therefore they are atheist about all but one in twenty thousand or so gods.

@Fernapple Yes, I've used that argument on believers who hate or despise atheists, that they also are atheistic.

However, they are still theists believing in their god. Trying to use the argument to prove they are atheists would be illogical and wrong.

@nogod4me Off course, you must have realized by now I am just being silly. But silly with a point.

Let's see your evidence that "spirituality is important to the human animal".

Let's see your evidence that the absence of spiritualty means "a life devoid of feeling , compassion and emotion".

I do not need spirituality. This makes it sound like I ascribe something supernatural to my experiences.

I stand in awe underneath the night sky. I am overtaken by emotion at some times at the sheer beauty of the universe and our world that is full of so much life. But, I do not have any kind of "spiritual" experience.

To me, knowing that energy has taken so many forms and that one of them is us, a life form that is able to ponder the universe, ourselves, and life itself is mind-boggling, astounding, awe-inspiring--but it is not spiritual.

@LovinLarge a sense of awe, wonder and questions have been a part of the human animals experience throughout our entire evolutionary process.

@LovinLarge, @Joanne " stand in awe underneath the night sky. I am overtaken by emotion at some times at the sheer beauty of the universe and our world that is full of so much life." That's precisely my definition of a spirituality.

What precisely is Spiritual/Spirituality, it has far more definitions/ meanings, imo, than a stray dog has fleas.
Emotions do NOT come from anything remotely 'spiritual' they are generated responses caused by the release of certain chemicals from the endocrine systems in the body, nothing more, nothing less.
IT all depends upon how the body as whole reacts to these chemicals when they are released.

@Kojaksmom Nope, you saying stuff doesn't constitute evidence.

Now in addition to your first two unproven factual claims, let's see your evidence that "a sense of awe, wonder and questions have been a part of the human animals (sic) experience throughout our entire evolutionary process".

Surely you understand the significance of supporting your factual claims with evidence.

@Kojaksmom : But, why use the word "spirituality?" It has nothing to do with spirits or the supernatural. It is a natural, chemical, response.

@Joanne perhaps Spirit has nothing to do with God. What word would you suggest?

@Kojaksmom : I wouldn't say it has been a part of our entire evolutionary process. This ability is part of our higher brain function. At some point brains reached a level of complexity that allowed our ancient ancestors to look into the night sky and feel a sense of awe and wonder; and, eventually, start to make up stories about what they were seeing, but did not understand.

We can now look into the night sky and know exactly what we are looking at, but we can still feel a sense of awe at the sheer magnificence of it all.

@Joanne we haven't even scratched the surface of what's out there. We lack the technology to answer definitively many questions about the entire Cosmos.The unknown is the foundation of all science.

@Triphid gland you mentioned that and speaking of acronyms where can I get a DOSE.

nice imo

of course The virgin will be with child would have meant something completely diff then than now, too

i recently watched a thing by an italian scientist type, that suggested (fairly convincingly) that entropy is mostly why we suffer? We pick some arbitrary idyllic date in the past as "perfect" or "normal" and then i guess judge the rest of our lives by that?

reply two--how does order come from chaos though, huh?

"Intelligent Design" via "entropy" you've got to be joking here.
There is NO "Intelligent Design" obvious in either this planet and its myriad of lifeforms NOR the Entire Cosmos, it is all very much a case of "Hit and Miss" evolutionary-wise where NOTHING is certain, NOTHING is Guaranteed, etc, etc.
Even we mere mortal Humans are faulty to the maximum, Stars come and go, Comets, Asteroids and the like have, can and do bombard planets all over the Cosmos, Galaxies are known to crash into each other or swallow each other up, Stars (Solar Bodies) have a limited amount of materials to convert into heat, light , etc, then they either collapse and die or expand and swallow up the planets that orbit them before going Super Nova.
For example, OUR Solar Body, the Sun, has an estimated 4.5 - 5 Billion years of 'life' left in it BEFORE it swells up and swallows Mercury, Venus, the Earth and possibly Mars as well TERMINATING what ever life is left on Earth permanently.

realistically speaking the far and away best strategy to employ against an opposer would be cannibalism, wouldnt it?

@bbyrd009 I don't know. I am a vegetarian.

Let's see your evidence that "our existence and the universe around us and the rules (that) govern it" prove the existence of a higher power.

@LovinLarge Ah, that'll Rene Descartes department!

@Sofabeast That's what I figured.

whats worse is ppl who call themselves 'spiritual'

like wtf is that eh

If it can be said that god can exist without having been created, surely it can also be said that we can exist without having a creator.

@Joanne sti9ll lazy stuff

our brains do a lot of things

believing things without good evidence is absurd

@HeAdAkE test everything, and keep what's good

@Happycanuck On the size scale of our Milky Way galaxy our entire planet and it's life is about as significant as a colony of Tardigrades on a batch of moss in a lawn.

No, an advanced life form is not a higher power in a discussion where the context is biblical gods and agnosticism. However, your observations are too accurate to not enjoy coming down to earth.

Michael Jordan is a great athlete. He's not a higher power. I remember Wilt Chamberlain when he played, he could jump higher than Michael by a foot. He's dead. Just a great human athlete.

To answer your question , yes! That time I felt a tickle on my ankle, looked down and saw it was a huge spider!