It is impossible to prove the non existence of anything. If you're going to validate that argument then by that logic, dragons exist, fairies exist, and literally anything imaginable exists, cuz no one can prove it doesn't. The point is to prove that things do exist, and that's how we build a solid foundation for our shared reality.

A lot of religious people are now denying the narrative of hell, and claiming that it's a misinterpretation of the bible; because it's actually quite inconvenient to the religious agenda, to paint your all loving God as a maniacal dictator that will torture and burn you for all of eternity if you don't blindly follow and believe in him.

Faith literally is blind belief.. it's believing with lack of evidence.

It's almost like religious people don't even think before spouting their arguments, in order to spot the obvious fundamental flaws in the things they're saying.

Like, does anything actually go through your head in the day besides "god is everything, God is life, god God God God God God Jesus Jesus God God...." Like I said, you've gotta get outta your own echo chamber if you ever want to see reality for what it is.

Brian Dennert wrote;
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
In this post I want to explore some of other reasons that not only point to the existence of God, but show the evidence of God outweighs the evidence that He does not exist and also to remind us that both those who say God exists and those who say He does not exist but provide evidence to justify their claim and, ultimately, combine both reason and faith.

https://wearefaith.org/blog/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-exesent-of-god/

Robert Nelson wrote:
Recognizing that he could not reconcile his own scientific materialism with the existence of a nonphysical world of human consciousness, a leading atheist, Daniel Dennett, in 1991 took the radical step of denying that consciousness even exists.
Another leading philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote in 2012 that, given the scientifically inexplicable – the “intractable” – character of human consciousness, “we will have to leave [scientific] materialism behind” as a complete basis for understanding the world of human existence.
As an atheist, Nagel does not offer religious belief as an alternative, but I would argue that the supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness adds grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.

The lack of grounded logic in this just hurts my head. It's just twisting subjective philosophy into a god narrative. Even going out on a limb and saying the first person could be hypothetically correct (although it comes across more as a pitch for a sci-fi novel than anything), the second person is clearly just making **** up to fit their religious agenda.

He's basically saying "In the case that the first person is correct, God probably exists" but offers absolutely no explanation for such an extreme, and somewhat unrelated assumption.

I'm not usually opposed to doing a little research, especially when it comes to proving a point. But let's be real here, if a shred of tangible evidence for the existence of a god, were to come to light, the world would be in an uproar about it. It would be instantly viral, and not a person on the planet would be able to avoid seeing it.

So realistically, all it really takes to prove to anyone that real evidence doesn't exist, is the basic fact that I/they haven't already seen it.

People couldn't even crash planes into a building without the entire world knowing about it as it happened, and that was nearly a decade before the first smartphone, and long before mainstream social media.

The human’s mind and senses are limited. Not even medicine can tell you how and when you will die. Likewise, you cannot know what will happen after death. The man believes what he sees and touches easily, but it is difficult for him to believe the spiritual things. That is why God gave His prophets miracles, yet those who deny the prophets said that they are magicians.

The last recorded "miracles" to have been performed (assuming those entire writings were not pure fiction); were so long ago, that child-level magic would have been seen as divine. Pull a coin out of someone's ear, and you're a damn prophet.

Relative to now, people were idiots back then. The only people that knew anything were the people writing the books, since most people didn't know how to read. Even full grown adults were basically just grown children.

The only things they knew were the things told to them by those in power. The entire Bible is nothing more than a narrative written to keep suffering, and enslaved people, content.

Cuz it's easier to normalize slavery when you consider this, the only life you get, to be only a tiny blip within your infinite existence. Also easier to justify the evils of those doing the enslaving, when you're fed the narrative that they will get what's coming to them after they're dead (as I said, convenience based narratives).

And spirituality is only a psychological state. One may feel most spiritual during meditation. It's simply a matter of clearing your mind to allow easier access to your subconscious.

God or Nature?
by Grant Bartley
What our natural history was is a different issue from the purpose of it – the implication being that the answer to the God question will not be found through evolutionary debate. I would argue that science ultimately cannot deal with questions of purpose, that is, of teleology, of the need to justify existence, because on the contrary, science’s field of study is the detail of the mechanism and material of the physical world.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/God_or_Nature

Albert Einstein Quotes on Spirituality
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
God does not play dice with the universe.
God is subtle but he is not malicious.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

Actually science covers any areas that are observable via our senses, or via advanced technology like the Hadron collider.

If there was a method to observe this alleged spiritual realm, then science would also have a part in hashing that out. Science also includes psychology, which can get us a lot further in life than religion. There's also philosophy, which is a good real life alternative to religion.

Cuz idk about you, but I'm not some child-minded imbecile that doesn't understand how books are made. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science.

Yes, relatively speaking, we are children, but a large part of the fault for that, like I already said, lies with religion. We're at least well over a thousand years behind on our technological and social progression because of religion. And because of religion, the vast majority of us are still stuck being raised with oppressive gender roles.

That's what the feminists don't get, is that it's not the fault of men and the thousands year patriarchy, that had them stuck in pre-defined roles for so long. It's the fault of thousands years religion.

If we had been left to grow and evolve as we should, instead of re-reading the same fukin book for over 2000 years, we'd be living star trek life by now.

So many oppressive practices that exist even into the modern day, stemmed from religion, and from the centuries of devout followers.

Lazarus
You accuse religion of everything negative because you took your thoughts from the books of atheists. The real thing is that governments are responsible for the negatives and problems of the world, not religions. Atheists took advantage of the mistakes of the church and wrote books that deceived some people. Governments encouraged atheism and supported associations and groups to work against religions.
So you evaded the answer to my question: Can you or medicine determine when, how and where you will die? And I add another question for you: Suppose that God really exists by 1% and He command angels to throw you into the fire of hell, what will you say?

I haven't read a lot of books in my life, mostly documentaries, and online articles, mixed with real life experience. And you're gonna tell me that you haven't been reading/watching material that's largely bias to your narrative? Most devoutly religious people were indoctrinated into it as young children. And that's why I was Christian until age 27(42 now).

And that brings me to your last question, yes, that's the reason it took me until 27 to ditch religion. I've found far too much evidence towards of lack of existence, to simply ignore it.

As for unanswered questions, you've avoided far more of mine, and I wasn't avoiding that question so much as just not answering it as it seems to be lacking in relevance.

Yea, there's a lot of things we don't know, I don't know the exact color of the material in the direct center of the earth, but that doesn't mean god exists.

That type of question just seems like a typical flymsy religious trap. You ask if science can explain something or know something that it clearly can't, then when the person responds with the only applicable answer, you return with that being some form of validation that God exists.

Oh, but to fully answer your final question, I'm covered. Even given that 0.00001% that he exists; I do my best to be a good person, not just talk about it once a week during Sunday mass where I earn my virtue signaling merit badge at the gathering of vanity obsessed narcissists.

And if that ain't good enough for the man above (god has a penis, lulz), then fukit. But I'm fairly certain he'd respect my path over that of the typical religious pusher that just repeat the word 'god', or 'jesus' 500 times in every conversation, and think they're going to heaven for it.

The famous English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon made an intriguing assertion about atheism. Here are three versions:
(1) A little philosophy makes men atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheism.
(2) A little knowledge drives man away from God, but deeper knowledge brings him back.
(3) A little knowledge may take us away from God, but further knowledge will bring us back to him.


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/08/25/philosophy/

1) that's because philosophy, much like many things, is good in moderation, but go too far with it and it starts to become less relevant. Because philosophy at it's core, is just reality mixed with imagination. But religion on the other hand, is 90% imagination, with a dash of reality mixed in to keep it semi believable.

2) No, that only applies if the only knowledge you take in is religion biased. And frankly, that's 100% debunked via the first religious story most people hear; the one of Adam and Eve.

3) Again, no.. that's just repeating what was said in number 2 with slightly altered wording.

Expand your knowledge outside of religious context, and you may begin to see the flaws in your logic. Remaining religious isn't being strong, any more than remaining an abused housewife makes you empowered.

Seek not only the subjective truths, but the objective truths. And stop denying all the countless evils committed by religion. Not to mention the countless contradictions in religious logic, and in the bible itself. As I said, you have failed to answer to many of my questions and statements, merely dismissing them as athiest rhetoric. Whereas I can counter everything you say with logic, facts, and explanations for the many one size fits all formulas of religious apologists.

After death
Clinical death is medically defined as a state in which the heart and lungs stop working, but the other body systems remain alive, especially the brain, and the dead person remains heard and can be revived, but when the brain die, after a lack of oxygen, death is final.
Researchers previously thought that nearly all brain activity stopped one minute after death. But later they found that brain activity can continue for more than 10 minutes after the death of the body. Canadian doctors in the intensive care unit noticed that the brain of a person continued to function even after he was declared dead, the pulse stopped, and the pupils did not react. The patient's brain shows the same type of brain waves that appear during deep sleep. The doctors did not know what the purpose of this activity was. What happens to the body and mind after death remains completely a mystery to scientists. Two studies have shown that genes seem to continue working - and even work more dynamically - in the days following a person's death.
This means that, persons might hear their death decision announced by doctors, said Dr. Sam Parnia, director of critical care and resuscitation research at New York College of Medicine. He also said that they studied people who had died of cardiac arrest, but were later revived. It appeared that they were aware of the full conversations and vision of the things that were around them, even after they were declared dead. These matters were then verified by the medical staff who were present at the time. "There is evidence that there is an explosion of brain energy when a person dies," he added.

My note: angels know every person by his DNA and God can retains the spirit of dead body in a type of body to live after death in Hell or Paradise according to his deeds in this life.

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die. NDEs have been reported by children, adults, scientists, physicians, priests, ministers, among the religious and atheists, and from countries throughout the world.
While no two NDEs are the same, there are characteristic features that are commonly observed in NDEs. These characteristics include a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body, passing into or through a tunnel, encountering a mystical light, intense and generally positive emotions, a review of part or all of their prior life experiences, encountering deceased loved ones, and a choice to return to their earthly life.

The God Gene Hypothesis proposes that humanity's spiritual affiliation is hereditary and that a specific gene, called (VMAT2), prepares humans for spiritual affiliation or mysticism. The idea was proposed by geneticist Dean Hamer in his book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired in Our Genes. That is, how faith is built into our genes. The hypothesis is based on behavioral, neurobiological, and psychological genetic studies. He found that the genetic VMAT2 plays an important role in regulating brain activities associated with mystical beliefs.
Rowthorn concluded that nearly all people have a genetic predisposition toward religion, and although some will lean toward secularism, they will carry the religiosity gene with them.
The Quran says;
Certainly We have created human in distress. Have We not given him a pair of eyes? And a tongue and two lips. And We have shown him the two ways ˹of right and wrong˺.
Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful.

Well, that's just going back to the formula I described previously, in which things that cannot be explained immediately, this second, by science, must be proof of a god (#InsertFictionHere).

That explosion of activity, is probably the person's brain experiencing a mass jolt of anxiety upon realizing that the body attached to it is dead. Or just a final jolt before the lights go out; the proverbial life flashing before one's eyes.

I knew this one was coming. Many NDEs are from people who's brains have been deprived of oxygen for a longer than ideal portion of time.

So, in other words, people that are most prone to experiencing hallucinations, and/or waking dreams.

I myself have had waking dreams that felt stupidly real, and that's just from waking up, no NDE ,or the physical trauma leading up to an NDE to accompany that.

One time I thought I seen a huge centipede arched up like a cobra on my night stand. I kept rubbing my eyes, but it didn't go away for about 15 seconds. It felt so real, that I actually got up and nervously checked around my room to make sure it wasn't. But I live in Canada, too cold here for the giant insects.

But yea, probably every person on the planet knows about the christian/Catholic God; whether they want to or not. So we've all got that thought buried in our brains.

The NDE God experiences would be a bit more plausible if people didn't already have that story buried in their subconscious.

But yea, long story short, people experiencing NDE's are the last people that should be trusted, even by themselves. As they really aren't in their right minds. And trusting their God experiences is like trusting a blind person to drive a school bus (not recommended).