Since you claim that believers, whether they be christian, pagan, muslim, etc., can't produce hard physical evidence that either a soul and/or a god/goddess exists, what hard physical evidence, not logic, do you have to prove that these things don't exist?
2007-02-20 17:48:18 · 14 answers · asked by Cat's Eye Angie 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If you get the idea, disproving god and disproving flying unicorns that breathe fire and play poker is the same... So the only difference is your belief and your attitude that you get hurt when someone makes a comment... It's more pschology than physics or religion....
2007-02-20 17:55:37 · answer #1 · answered by e077168 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The hard, physical evidence I have is that through remote viewing, I have examined every single particle in the universe at the sub-atomic level, and have not found a single soul or a god.
This is my claim. Prove I am lying.
2007-02-21 01:56:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The proof lies on the claimant, not the questioner. If it exists, prove it. As humans we assume things are as we see them until we are proven wrong with solid evidence, of which religion is severely lacking. They call it "faith" because it requires you to let go of all natural instinct and logic and believe some long drawn out story that someone once wrote down. To deny our instincts is to deny the very thing that makes us human.
2007-02-21 01:55:42 · answer #3 · answered by Tucson Hooligan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems to me that neither side can produce hard physical evidence for either position. Could it be that both sides are wrong? Maybe the answer is nothing definitive.
2007-02-21 01:54:14 · answer #4 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof/evidence is on the ones who make positive claims.
For example, that there's a god.
You're atheist to unicorns (I assume). Do you have evidence that unicorns DON'T exist?
2007-02-21 01:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None. But none is necessary. Since it is imposslble to prove that they don't exist, it is provable that to suppose that they do can tell us nothing: no such supposition can have any consequences in the real world, and all such are useless. And I do not care to engage in useless activity -- life is too short.
2007-02-21 01:53:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
a child is saved from death upon birth and people say god is responsible.
i child dies in birth.
"god works in mysterious ways"
just because we cannot prove something doesnt exist does not mean we can assume it does and spend our days praising an omnipitent finger wagging bieng that sends you to hell for having sex before marrige.
religion is based on fear
2007-02-21 02:03:41 · answer #7 · answered by tdbndtb 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do I hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster coming?
2007-02-21 01:55:27 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
as you wrote this question, yahoo showed you similar questions that have been asked so that you can read those instead of spamming the people that are regulars here.
please read the existing questions before posting ones that are repeated a million times.
2007-02-21 01:53:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
we can't persay. But we can disprove of the human interpretations of them and we have found non-god needed ways that could have very possibly happened.
2007-02-21 01:55:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋