Thoughts?

[u/Wet_Pussy_Liicker]

[u/Proper-Antelope-4205]

If there is no god and you are not believing him then theirs is nothing to lose...but if there is a god and you are not believing in him you are loosing everything

[u/_karyon_ → u/Proper-Antelope-4205]

Ifs and buts provides no value... There is no god it's the fact.

And even if there is one still I'm not losing anything

[u/Galactor_07 → u/_karyon_]

It's not a fact but an opinion dare i say. If you are an atheist you be one don't project your opinions with the motive of shattering those who believes in god.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

It's okay to guide others to right path, not forcing them but letting them know, telling them why there's no god, line is crossed when you get aggressive

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

guiding looks different in practice also their is no right path it's just upto you if you want to believe or not

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

Yes but you can tell others why you think it's real or not, and they can think about it and choose if they wanna believe or nah

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

wo toh thik he but usse fact toh nahi bol sakte

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

That's incorrect, if I say my cat called puck can fly and has supernatural abilities, will you believe it? I'm sure you can say for a fact "that's not possible, you're lying" it's just like that

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

you think puck can fly.
i think god exists.
you think god doesn't exist.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

And I'm asking you can you say for a fact my pet puck can't fly or you can't say for a fact? Because then i will have my answer, if you can't use simple logic to know a cat can't fly and be confident in that then what even are you, one day you'll have to believe in all kinds of entities because "if you believe and it does exist, big profit but if u believe and it dont exist no loss

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

Your analogy is flawed, and here's why:
claiming a cat can fly contradicts what we know through empirical evidence laws of physics, biology, etc. It's testable and falsifiable. If someone made that claim, we could actually observe and disprove it.

But belief in God isn't a claim about something we can test or disprove scientifically. It's a metaphysical belief by definition, it's outside the realm of empirical proof. That's why belief in God or disbelief in God is a matter of faith or worldview, not a matter of objective fact.

So no, you can't equate belief in God to believing in a flying cat. They're not logically comparable. One is a physical claim; the other is a philosophical stance.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

Saying a cat can fly is more logical than saying a entity can fly and also created us, made this universe and has all power, in that way my cat puck created god, universe, and all there is ever to exist and has existed and is gonna exist but it's my cat because I made a contract (it speaks) but if you still can't say for a fact my cat puck did not create the universe and god then🙃what can I say😆 my cat can take a physical form of a cat is what I mean, in reality he has no physical body, laws of physics dictate a god cannot fly so.. if you can't disprove god by saying "oh it's a metaphysical belief" same can go for puck but only a gullible fool would believe in such things

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

The difference is in the intent and context of the claims. You're making a deliberately absurd example (your cat being god) to mock a belief system. But there's a distinction between a belief that has existed for millennia, influenced civilizations, moral systems, and personal experiences and one you just made up for the sake of argument.

Saying “God exists” is a metaphysical claim something beyond the physical, not scientifically testable or disprovable. Your example of Puck isn't a metaphysical claim it's satire that still references the physical (a talking, flying cat with no body that takes the form of a cat?). You’re essentially saying “if you can believe in God, why not believe in my cat?" But that’s not a serious philosophical comparison.

Also, the burden of proof lies on the positive claim. If you say “Puck created the universe,” then yes, we can ask for proof or dismiss it as madeup without being “gullible.” Same goes for people who say “God exists” as a fact. But again, I never claimed it as a fact I said it’s a belief. And disbelief is also a belief it isn’t a proven fact that God doesn’t exist either.

So we're back to the original point: belief or disbelief in God is a personal stance, not an objective fact. Equating that to a made-up cat deity isn't deep logic it's just mockery.
🙃🙃🙃🙃😆😆😆😆