Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why I can accept an agonistic position, but not an atheist. An agonist is open to the possibility that God exists, but feels that there is no convincing evidence. But an atheist will boldly say that there is no God or life after death. You don't know that for sure. That's your claim so the onus is on you to back it up. The whole "can't prove a negative" response is a copout because simply changing the wording turns it into a positive statement.
Prove God does not exist - can't prove a negative!
Prove that God is a myth - same thing, but not a negative now.
Let's say a foreigner from Alaska traveled and discovered a lost tribe in the Amazon. He tells them about snow. They've never seen snow. He says many people can testify that this white substance really exists. They do not believe him. It sounds too fantastical to them. Therefore, is 100% fact that snow does not exist then even though in reality, it is not true. The default position shouldn't be that it is 100% fact until proven otherwise.
Yet that is the exact same position which atheists take in regards to Christianity.
That's not what the dictionary says.
It says an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. It says nothing about an absolute. It is a denial of belief.
Excuse me jumping into this conversation, but your posts seem to show that you are trying to convince somebody (yourself?) that atheists don't really exist by pushing your own ideas onto them and forcing them to fit into your mold.
I don't see why you think that snow, a tangible object is equivalent to God, an intangible.
Based on your prior posts, I'll assume you'll either ignore this post or try to twist it into something far different from what it is.
It says an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. It says nothing about an absolute. It is a denial of belief.
Excuse me jumping into this conversation, but your posts seem to show that you are trying to convince somebody (yourself?) that atheists don't really exist by pushing your own ideas onto them and forcing them to fit into your mold.
I don't see why you think that snow, a tangible object is equivalent to God, an intangible.
Based on your prior posts, I'll assume you'll either ignore this post or try to twist it into something far different from what it is.
If it is simply denying or disbelieving then why do I constantly see atheists including people on this board make bold claims like there is no life after death, don't give false hope, God is myth?
I'm only trying to show why atheists can't accept evidence.
That's why I can accept an agonistic position, but not an atheist. An agonist is open to the possibility that God exists, but feels that there is no convincing evidence. But an atheist will boldly say that there is no God or life after death. You don't know that for sure. That's your claim so the onus is on you to back it up. The whole "can't prove a negative" response is a copout because simply changing the wording turns it into a positive statement.
Prove God does not exist - can't prove a negative!
Prove that God is a myth - same thing, but not a negative now.
Let's say a foreigner from Alaska traveled and discovered a lost tribe in the Amazon. He tells them about snow. They've never seen snow. He says many people can testify that this white substance really exists. They do not believe him. It sounds too fantastical to them. Therefore, is 100% fact that snow does not exist then even though in reality, it is not true. The default position shouldn't be that it is 100% fact until proven otherwise.
Yet that is the exact same position which atheists take in regards to Christianity.
Nonsense. For one thing, it is you Christians who say it is 100% fact that god exists. It isn't the atheists who make such an absolutist claim. Nearly every atheist I know says that they could accept evidence for the existence of god if there actually were some. Secondly, we don't take the position you say that we do with regard to Christianity because we don't deny that that religion exists. It is their god that we don't believe exists. And we don't believe in your god for the exact same reasons we don't believe in Zeus, Apollo or even Aphrodite or any other supernatural entity.
If it is simply denying or disbelieving then why do I constantly see atheists including people on this board make bold claims like there is no life after death, don't give false hope, God is myth?
I'm only trying to show why atheists can't accept evidence.
Obviously, I can't speak for any of the atheists that post here. That is a widely varied bunch of individuals. They have exactly ONE thing in common. The believe exactly zero God(s) exist. Other than that, no generalities apply. That's why statements like "atheists can't accept evidence" are no good. You can't possibly know which atheists to apply such a general statement to. What may apply to Sharina (for example) may not apply to Grandstander (for another example).
I'm only trying to show why atheists can't accept evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Obviously, I can't speak for any of the atheists that post here. That is a widely varied bunch of individuals. They have exactly ONE thing in common. The believe exactly zero God(s) exist. Other than that, no generalities apply. That's why statements like "atheists can't accept evidence" are no good. You can't possibly know which atheists to apply such a general statement to. What may apply to Sharina (for example) may not apply to Grandstander (for another example).
Actually I believe this thread exists because the OP is tired of hearing "there is not one shred of evidence" and other such preposterous claims by atheists. What doesn't exist is evidence THEY consider evidence of God . . . based on "who knows what." For believers there are many things that constitute evidence of God, especially personal experiences . . . but they are all dismissed by atheists as "not evidence of God." The predominant recipient of all the evidence that is NOT attributed to God is "Nature" or "natural." But Nature has no more standing than God. It is merely a label for our ignorance of what it is . . . as is God. As long as atheists can arbitrarily determine what is and what is not evidence of God (and assign it to their Catch-all category "Nature") . . . there will never be a "shred of evidence." Hence this thread and the OP's legitimate question. Some have made honest attempts to answer and it is appreciated. Most have dodged and weaved and engaged in the typical atheist terpsichory.
That's why I can accept an agonistic position, but not an atheist. An agonist is open to the possibility that God exists, but feels that there is no convincing evidence. But an atheist will boldly say that there is no God or life after death. You don't know that for sure. That's your claim so the onus is on you to back it up. The whole "can't prove a negative" response is a copout because simply changing the wording turns it into a positive statement.
Prove God does not exist - can't prove a negative!
Prove that God is a myth - same thing, but not a negative now.
Let's say a foreigner from Alaska traveled and discovered a lost tribe in the Amazon. He tells them about snow. They've never seen snow. He says many people can testify that this white substance really exists. They do not believe him. It sounds too fantastical to them. Therefore, is 100% fact that snow does not exist then even though in reality, it is not true. The default position shouldn't be that it is 100% fact until proven otherwise.
Yet that is the exact same position which atheists take in regards to Christianity.
Actually I believe this thread exists because the OP is tired of hearing "there is not one shred of evidence" and other such preposterous claims by atheists. What doesn't exist is evidence THEY consider evidence of God . . . based on "who knows what." For believers there are many things that constitute evidence of God, especially personal experiences . . . but they are all dismissed by atheists as "not evidence of God." The predominant recipient of all the evidence that is NOT attributed to God is "Nature" or "natural." But Nature has no more standing than God. It is merely a label for our ignorance of what it is . . . as is God. As long as atheists can arbitrarily determine what is and what is not evidence of God (and assign it to their Catch-all category "Nature") . . . there will never be a "shred of evidence." Hence this thread and the OP's legitimate question. Some have made honest attempts to answer and it is appreciated. Most have dodged and weaved and engaged in the typical atheist terpsichory.
Personal experiences are only evidence to the individual who experience them, and then only when they have either failed to justify them naturally, refused to try to justify them, or have done so but concluded they have a supernatural source. The second person has no obligation to accept them as fact or evidence of anything.
To an atheist, nature has a much higher standing than a God claim. Nature is demonstrable, whereas a supreme being who rules over all creation is not.
Hence this thread and the OP's legitimate question.
Interesting that you would single out atheists for chastisement with regard to answering or not answering that question, as I've been around religious folk for all of my 55+ years, and I have seen not a single one who could answer it either. What is YOUR proof in the existence of god? Here is a bonus question. If you had proof, what would knowing it do to your "faith" in said god?
Personal revelation? That's no more evidence than someone else's 'personal revelation' of seeing a sasquatch or being abducted by aliens.
Argument from personal incredulity? No again. Your inability to believe this or that is irrelevant to whether or not this or that is true.
God of the Gaps? No, the lack of an explanation at present for this or that does not equate to evidence for your preferred version of a deity.
The problem is that there simply is no evidence. There is no more evidence for God than there is for Zeus or or the Force or the existence of pixies.
Some evidence - any evidence at all - would at least be a start.
Absent evidence, belief is either wishful thinking or not bothering to think at all.
Wishful thinking? If you have personal experiences then there is quite a good bedrock of evidence available to you personally. Check out the white rose story. There is no logical explanation how this come happen beyond a supernatural experience. At least for Doyle Dykes, this is solid evidence that God is real and answers prayers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
