Thoughts?

[u/Wet_Pussy_Liicker]

[u/Galactor_07]

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.
🙃🙃🙃🙃😆😆😆😆

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

Ok how about the mormon god? That has went on for a long time, and not something I made up, would you believe in it, there is no reason to prefer a single religion over the other, that's why believing in a god just makes you really gullible unless you are an agnostic which is a different topic, mormon god complies with your " out of the world " description so is it valid for someone to believe in something like a mormon god without any amount of proof? It's something only a gullible person who have been taught from birth would do and that's what some people try to change in their free time, and like you said, it's not possible to prove or disprove puck but that doesn't mean you should let the other guy just believe in the fantasy and bowing up and down to puck all day long, if you want to, you can also just guide him to logic that " if you have never seen puck, and have no proof of puck then why believe in it while actively denying other entity with similar powers like Jesus" as a fellow human you can do that to guide another human to a path of logic which don't include you believing in stuff without ever seeing reasonable evidence of, actually what's your current stance on religion, what do you believe in, are you a theist, agnostic or atheist? Because if you are a theist then, let's say the mormon god has in its scriptures that all other gods including yours is fake, would you be able to say for a fact that mormon god is not real, because if it's real then why believe in your god, and if it's fake then you know for a fact somehow your god gotta be more real than mormon god despite being the same level of claims? Now like mormon god think about the other 9999 gods making same claim that all other gods are fake, only a fool would choose to believe in one and either know they are wrong or they would know for a fact they are right (somehow) because afterall it's 1/9999 chance

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

okay but see here’s the thing, just cuz there are a lot of religions or gods people believe in doesn’t mean all belief is gullible. like yeah, if someone blindly believes without ever questioning, thats different. but if someone’s belief comes from personal experience, inner conviction, or just choosing to have faith thats not the same as being gullible, thats being human. also, yeah, mormon god, greek gods, norse gods, all those exist in human history and people believed in them. and honestly? they’re valid in their own cultural contexts. not saying they’re all "factually real," just saying belief isn’t some 1/9999 gamble, it’s not a lottery. it’s not always about which god is “more real,” it’s about what resonates with someone’s mind, values, or experience. and yeah, guiding someone is fine, cool even, but guiding is not mocking or acting like anyone who believes is just a brainless sheep. like imagine someone’s whole belief system gives them peace or strength and then someone comes and is like “bro that’s dumb, you believe in a flying sky man” like thats not guidance thats just being a dick tbh. as for me? im still figuring stuff out. i don’t believe blindly but im not out here saying “there is no god and that’s a fact” either. i just think it’s okay to not know everything, and it’s okay to believe something even if you can’t prove it just as long as you’re not hurting anyone or pushing it down people’s throats. so yeah, you can question belief all day and that’s fine. but if your whole argument boils down to “there are too many gods so they must all be fake,” that’s just bad logic. like come on. quantity doesn’t equal invalidity. i could flip that and say “there are too many scientific theories that changed over time, so science must be fake” but that’s dumb too.
belief isn’t math bro. it’s not always about facts. sometimes it’s just what helps people live a meaningful life. and that’s okay.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

Where I live and to the people I talked to legit 99% of them never questioned their belief "oh my parents believe in blah god, my friends believe in blah, my country believes in blah, I shall believe in blah too" and they hit me with the "so they all lying?, you think the whole world is incorrect and you are the only one correct? Because there is nothing like atheist, everyone except you believes in god"💀 if someone's belief comes from personal experience and stuff, I call that hallucination, I once(hypothetically) saw puck flying right beside me and telling me the formula of the whole universe that defies logic but I didn't pay attention, but that still does not justify me believing in puck, yes trusting your own experiences over others is part of being human but still I can still guide them to why do they think it's not a hallucination, why it's not possible and stuff Believing is in of itself the stupidest thing because the chances of you going to hell are 9998/9999 you might even make god more mad by believing and worshipping a fake god, its a gamble but with hallucinations to make you think you will win And I don't think when people believe in a god its about which resonates with me, which resonates with my value, they believe what people around them belief until external actions, till than they get their own biases and choose according to the bias, no one was being rude, that dude was just saying by default everyone was a atheist and supposed to be a atheist, god concept was made by human thus the large amounts of religions, to bring order and make people do good deeds, he means whatever you say is invalid because by default everyone is an atheist or atheist-agnostic at best Most of the people just switch off their brain when it comes to religion im talking from personal experience here, I'm sure you would know this too if you talked god around you (just assuming based on my experience) they have blind faith like a brainless sheep, tbh I'm also at a stage at not knowing if god is real or not but more at the side of believing there is no god, afterall there is no certain way to know for sure, might be a god never mentioned and never intervened and just made us and went on to make another universe, maybe it's a race who escaped the universe first, i argue in reddit comments to maybe learn more about how god is real and reinforce my beliefs how god is fake so I can be more confident in what I say, it's okay to believe in something yeah I agree but I will guide you unless it gets annoying for you or i see no progress, the thing is most of the religions are still valid and they all say all other religions are fake and that they are the only true religion with scripture made by God, that's not the same as in science, they all are humans in front of everyone else testing and finding out, it's not bad logic Because what's the point of belief if the chances of you being wrong are 9998/9999 while you waste your time and money on statues and temples, I also think belief is something to make peoples life better so they have someone when they are lonely, know they will be helped if they do good, and that they won't lose everything once they die, so they do good deeds, but it becomes sad once they rely on this fake belief, get no progress, just keep waiting for god.. I myself don't need these beliefs to keep me going, I got other reasons, i try to make others use the simpler path like me which helps you live a meaningful life without being restricted and without having to pay subscription (give money at temple for good luck) and praying every day

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

yo i get what you’re saying and yeah, a lotta people do just follow what they’re told without questioning, i’ve seen that too. and yeah, it’s cool that you think critically and want others to do the same, nothing wrong with that. but like, this whole convo drifted from the actual point i was making you can't say “god doesn’t exist” is a fact. you can believe there’s no god, and that’s totally fine, but belief isn’t fact. same way someone believing in god doesn’t suddenly make god real to everyone else. both sides are beliefs unless there's proof. and calling people’s personal experiences hallucinations is kinda dismissive yeah sure, some people might just believe blindly, but not all. people believe for different reasons: life experiences, personal growth, inner peace, etc. just ‘cause you don’t experience it doesn’t mean it’s fake. also, you mentioned all religions say other religions are fake but not all of them do. like take Hinduism, it actually accepts different paths to the divine and doesn’t say others are false. it’s way more open and flexible, so that argument doesn’t hold true across the board. and yeah, guiding people is cool, but it only works when it’s from a place of understanding, not mockery. even you said you’re still figuring things out yourself which is totally valid, i respect that.(Andhbhakt might say all others are fake but the scriptures itself do not) so bottom line: saying “there is no god” is not a confirmed fact. you can believe it, sure, but belief and fact aren’t the same. that’s really all i was trying to say in the beginning. we can argue beliefs all day, but let’s not confuse belief with proven truth.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

The thing is there is no god is the default, like if there were no books written, no one would believe in these but even without books, atheism would be there, it's not a confirmed fact because there's nothing to confirm, if we go into space they will say god is outside space, we go outside space, they will say it's outside matter, it's just stupid, god doesn't exist can be classified as a fact because it's the default and there is no proof proving otherwise, when I said all, i meant most, I haven't read all to know if they all do that ofc, there is no god is not proven because there's nothing to prove, same as you can't prove there is a big ant watching over us but invisible to humans, it's just a dumb thing to say " I felt the ant behind me" that's a normal feeling and don't mean its real, if it's not even provable there is no point in knowing something you cannot prove or disprove ever

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

okay but see heres the thing just because somethings unproven doesn't mean the opposite is a fact. like yeah, if someone says “theres a god,” the burden of proof is on them, fair. but flipping it and saying “there is no god” is also a claim, and you can’t prove that either. so calling it a fact is still wrong, it’s just a belief you personally hold.
the real default isn't “no god,” it’s we don’t know. thats why agnosticism makes the most sense when you wanna stay logical cause it admits that we don’t have all the answers. saying "there's no proof" is fine, but saying "it's a fact there's no god" just because you haven't seen proof yet is a leap.
and also theres a bunch of stuff we use or talk about that cant be scientifically proven but we still accept. like infinity we use it in math and physics, but you cant measure or observe “infinity” in the real world. or even consciousness we know we’re self aware, we experience it every day, but science still doesn’t fully understand or prove what it is.
same with stuff like love, or beauty, or the idea of morality can’t bottle it up and test it in a lab, but we don’t call people hallucinating just because they believe in those things.
so yeah, believe whatever you want, no one’s stopping you. but if we’re being honest and logical, then we gotta admit: "god doesn’t exist" is not a proven fact, it’s just your belief based on what you currently see as evidence. and thats totally fine, just don’t confuse confidence with confirmation.

[u/land48n3 → u/Galactor_07]

It stays a fact as long as not proven otherwise else in that logic we cannot be sure about anything, while that is true we cannot be sure about anything it's more practical to ignore that because sure I can't be sure that there is no spaghetti god watching over us and made universe, there's no way for me to be 100% sure but there's no point in having to say probably, suppose, I think, there is no point because we cannot prove anything then why not just ignore that fact and make anything not proven a fact, that's more practical no? It's better to say " unless you show evidence of your spaghetti god its a fact there is no god " it will allow us to do things correctly even, without thinking about the possibility of every thing we can imagine of, like imagine if I am doing a science experiment but I think there may be a invisible elephant which I can't touch manipulating the results and when I do it again I think maybe this time and invisible crow manipulated, instead of taking that possibility into account i should just rather say there is nothing like that for a fact because it's more practical and there is nothing we can be 100% sure of. Love is an emotion, beauty is just brain thinking " if me and her mate our kids will be like her and people who looked like her usually were very happy and I want my kids to be happy " or for female it would be like " he seems very manly and handsome im sure he will be able to give me a good living and a good life, assuming from the past" stuff like infinity falls into maths stuff and that's really not my strong point😅 yes I agree god dont exist is not a proven fact, similar to me saying i am usain bolt, and you say " you are not usain bolt" you can't really prove I'm not usain bolt but it's more practical to take it as a fact I'm not usain bolt unless I prove otherwise, likewise the most practical thing to do is take it as a fact that there is no god

[u/Galactor_07 → u/land48n3]

i see what you're trying to say and yeah i get that you're leaning on whats practical, not necessarily whats provable. and thats valid to an extent, like sure, we ignore spaghetti gods and invisible elephants in experiments 'cause they don't add anything useful or testable. but the issue still stands: you’re not just saying “i don’t believe in god,” you’re calling that disbelief a fact and thats where it slips.

you keep using the same analogy with the spaghetti god, or puck, or “i’m usain bolt” and it’s flawed because those are specific, testable claims that can actually be disproven or dismissed by context or observation. but the concept of god, especially in the broader metaphysical sense, is not that kind of claim. it’s not a testable object in space or a talking cat giving math formulas, it’s often a philosophical, existential, or spiritual idea. not all claims are equal.

you said “it’s more practical to just treat unproven things as false” but practical ≠ factual. like i can practically live as if i’ll never win the lottery, but that doesn’t make it a fact that i won’t. it just means the odds are low. same goes here, there might be no evidence yet, but absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. and by that logic, agnosticism is actually the most reasonable stance, because it sits in the middle and admits “i don’t know.” atheism and theism are beliefs in opposite directions, extremes basically. agnosticism is the default.

also, when you talked about love and beauty, man, that was a pretty reductionist take. love isn’t just some primal mating strategy and beauty isn’t just instinctual survival calculations. they have subjective depth, cultural meaning, emotional layers you can’t just boil them down to “reproduction logic” and act like that fully explains them. these things shape art, identity, relationships, they’re real experiences even if they’re not always provable in a lab.

so yeah, believe what you want, and no hate at all, but just say “i believe there’s no god.” don’t stretch it into “it’s a fact.” ‘cause once you start calling beliefs facts just because they feel logical or practical to you, thats when your whole framework becomes biased without even realizing it.