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.
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 is not one who has a "lack of belief" in Gods/Deities...it one who "believes in a lack" of Gods/Deities.
If it was just "No belief", there would be nothing to say. And THAT sure isn't true...Atheists have plenty to say about it.
Since all you have to go on is "no evidence" (to satisfy YOU)...you cannot be sure. So all you can do is BELIEVE the lack of evidence (to satisfy YOU) indicates that there are no Gods/Deities.
But what if you do your research, and find that the entire idea of gods, any of them, just don't make sense? You are ssuiming that there is a religion that is correct, that a "right" choice can be made. What if the most factual choice is "None of the above"?
And it certainly isn't so much "waiting for evidence". I have done my homework, my investigations, and I find the ideas logically inconsistent enough that they are not at all compelling to me. The request for evidence comes when discussing it with folks like you, who are sure that all the available evidence leads to their god. I am pretty sure that I have not missed anything major, but the best way to test your understanding is to exercise it in some healthy debate. That is what I do here...
Like I said before, depending on what you mean by "god" I may not be able to be convinced that there is a god, because I am not sure that such a thing as a fully real god can exist. A "god" who is totally a part of the natural world around us doesn't seem to be much of a god, just a thing or a person, even if it is very big or very powerful. A god who is transcendent, somehow beyond reality itself, is in essence un-real. I tend to think that transcendence is a hall mark of the gods of human beings, which means that anything we are willing to think of as a god must not be real in the same sense that we are real.
You could certainly convince me that a powerful entity existed, just the same way that you would demonstrate that a rare elephant exists, or that the Sun exists. Show it to me, let me interact with it, let me measure it, let me observe it... But when asked for this believers fall back on the transcendence, the un-reality, of their god...
-NoCapo
Then yours is an altogether different story. God helps only those who wish to find him and then submit to him. Believing in God comes with responsibility that you don't seem to take if existence of God is proven to you in a scientific lab.
It's more like, when the white elephant is shown to you in a deep forest, you will be like, OK yeah I have seen it. Lets go home now.
Or you can say, you are looking for a lovely house but you really don't have any need or intention to buy it and live in it.
God comes into your life when you feel the need of God in your life.
If you think you don't have a purpose of your life, nor a reason of your existence and your body will just sit there and rot under piles of dust then that's your call.
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.
I'm writing in English. I actually understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'. You clearly do not.
No, people who think they have seen sasquatch do not have 'evidence' that sasquatches exist.
No, people who think they've been kidnapped by aliens do not have 'evidence' that abductive aliens exist.
No, Andrea Yates - who thinks God told her to drown her five children - does not have 'evidence' that God exists.
I'm sure you'll agree with that last one, of course, because that's how it is with people such as yourself - you selective dismiss only those personal revelations which do not comport with what you want to believe.
I have no idea what your babbling about a white rose entails, or why you think someone singing with a guitar is compelling evidence of a deity. But that sort of completely nonsensical disconnect is a perfect example of how evidence plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the thought processes of people such as yourself.
Except no, it does not. And you simply asserting it does will not magically make it so. Again what you describe is not a faith claim but an evaluation based on evidence. The evidence of experience with chairs. Of this chair in particular. Of past experiences good and bad.
This evaluation of evidence is the exact OPPOSTE of "faith" and your fetid but palpable desperation to assign faith to those who do not display it simply belies.... as I already said.... your desperate need to dilute the meaning of "faith" to make it look like everyone has it, so you no longer need to defend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And I can't present evidence until you define exactly what kind of evidence you will accept without question.
Then you might as well give up now. Because I accept nothing "without question". I critically and openly EVALUATE evidence presented to me. There is no evidence on ANY subject.... let alone the subject of religion and god.... I accept "Without question".
I am happy... and more than capable.... to openly and honestly evaluate any evidence you care to present. The problem I have is that you are NOT PRESENTING ANY. And I simply can not accept or reject something that has not even once been offered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Obviously, archaeology is out the door.
Not so. Archaeology can corroborate and support other evidence. Archaeology is fine if you can use it correctly. I have NO objection to that. I was simply pointing out how it was used INCORRECTLY here on this thread. The simple fact is.... now read this carefully because it is an important point...... using Archaeology to show that the PLACES in a given book exist in NO WAY supports the idea that the EVENTS in that book exist.
Now as I said read that carefully, then read it again and again until it sinks in. It is not a subtle point. It is a blatant and important one. A huge and significant body of fiction is set against real world people, places, events and backgrounds. If one wants to establish the contents of a book are fact therefore.... merely showing that the locations mentioned within it existed is only the first tiniest step you can make. There is so so so so much more to do. And you simply are not doing it. Or even trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Leaving the door open gives you the benefit of being able to reject anything I bring to the table. That's being disingenuous.
No. It is not. It is being open and receptive. What is disingenuous is how you theists try to stack the deck. If we remain open and ready to evaluate any evidence you present, you are not happy. If we too critically and narrowly define the evidence we will accept, you are not happy. You simply stack the deck.... calling us either too open minded or too close minded. But all the while what you are ACTUALLY doing is simply deflecting the conversation so you do not have to present ANY evidence at all. You just have to moan and whine and whinge about how you imagine the evidence will be received.
Get this: and learn it: The onus of presenting evidence lies ENTIRELY on the person making the positive claim. (Such as the claim there is a god). The onus to define what that evidence is lies ONLY with that person. Not me.
You want to know what evidence I will consider openly and honestly? I will consider and discuss ANYTHING that fits the following format:
1) State clearly what your claim actually is.
2) List clearly what things you think support that claim.
3) Explain clearly how you think the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Simple huh? Yet you can not do it. But do not feel bad, most theists can not do it. In my experience they do "2" a lot. A hell of a lot. They do "1" only in the vaguest and underhanded way without tying themselves down to actually making a real claim. And generally when I inquire about "3" they either run away instantly or.... like you.... dodge, deflect, or get irate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You know that archaeological finds also makes the ancient texts more likely to be fact, don't you?
Not so. See above. Already explained this. No point repeating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Was it prevalent for writers in the ancient world to create massive works of fiction for entertainment? How do you distinguish history from fiction?
Corroboration from various sources of information and evidence. Simply showing using archaeology that the places in a book exist alone is not enough to evidence the events described in that book ever happened or the people existed. You need much more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Still waiting on a single example where you can show that you have agreed with one point that a Christian made in a debate.
Read any thread about abortion that I have posted on and you will find many examples. And that is just one SET of many examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I'm only trying to show why atheists can't accept evidence.
Then keep trying because so far you have failed utterly. And until you actually present some evidence, your declarations and assertions on how atheists will respond to it are simple fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
You've obviously wasted your time. I'm done wasting mine. Reasonable lurkers can see your point.
I disagree. Keeping people like the guy above talking is NEVER a waste of time. Their position is so weak, full of so many dodges and deflections and vitriol and bile, and so poorly presented, that merely keeping them talking does more damage to their position than anything I could write about them. He thinks he is serving his own purposes by debating against me. So far he has done little but fall into the trap of supporting mine.
As I said, give them a rope and they will hang themselves. Keeping people like that talking is NEVER a waste of time. In fact my core mantra in life is that DISCOURSE is never a waste of time. Ever.
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 is "perposterous" about claiming an empty box - is empty?
The only things that are perposterous are the claims made by people such as yourself - that the universe itself is conscious or that the human ego surives the death of the brain.
If you will not evidence your claims then people will keep pointing this out. You getting "tired" of it is not likely to change this. If you are tired - go sleep - or start presenting the evidence requested of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Most have dodged and weaved and engaged in the typical atheist terpsichory.
The only dodging and weaving comes from you. Nowhere have you defined exactly what "god" is - why you think the universe is conscious - and what evidence you have for this. When pressed hard enough on evidencing the idea the universe is conscious for example you simply lament that your evidence is hidden in dark matter or dark energy - and since we have not quantified or observed that yet - your evidence is not currently available today.
Except no, it does not. And you simply asserting it does will not magically make it so. Again what you describe is not a faith claim but an evaluation based on evidence. The evidence of experience with chairs. Of this chair in particular. Of past experiences good and bad.
This evaluation of evidence is the exact OPPOSTE of "faith" and your fetid but palpable desperation to assign faith to those who do not display it simply belies.... as I already said.... your desperate need to dilute the meaning of "faith" to make it look like everyone has it, so you no longer need to defend it.
Then you might as well give up now. Because I accept nothing "without question". I critically and openly EVALUATE evidence presented to me. There is no evidence on ANY subject.... let alone the subject of religion and god.... I accept "Without question".
I am happy... and more than capable.... to openly and honestly evaluate any evidence you care to present. The problem I have is that you are NOT PRESENTING ANY. And I simply can not accept or reject something that has not even once been offered.
Not so. Archaeology can corroborate and support other evidence. Archaeology is fine if you can use it correctly. I have NO objection to that. I was simply pointing out how it was used INCORRECTLY here on this thread. The simple fact is.... now read this carefully because it is an important point...... using Archaeology to show that the PLACES in a given book exist in NO WAY supports the idea that the EVENTS in that book exist.
Now as I said read that carefully, then read it again and again until it sinks in. It is not a subtle point. It is a blatant and important one. A huge and significant body of fiction is set against real world people, places, events and backgrounds. If one wants to establish the contents of a book are fact therefore.... merely showing that the locations mentioned within it existed is only the first tiniest step you can make. There is so so so so much more to do. And you simply are not doing it. Or even trying.
No. It is not. It is being open and receptive. What is disingenuous is how you theists try to stack the deck. If we remain open and ready to evaluate any evidence you present, you are not happy. If we too critically and narrowly define the evidence we will accept, you are not happy. You simply stack the deck.... calling us either too open minded or too close minded. But all the while what you are ACTUALLY doing is simply deflecting the conversation so you do not have to present ANY evidence at all. You just have to moan and whine and whinge about how you imagine the evidence will be received.
Get this: and learn it: The onus of presenting evidence lies ENTIRELY on the person making the positive claim. (Such as the claim there is a god). The onus to define what that evidence is lies ONLY with that person. Not me.
You want to know what evidence I will consider openly and honestly? I will consider and discuss ANYTHING that fits the following format:
1) State clearly what your claim actually is.
2) List clearly what things you think support that claim.
3) Explain clearly how you think the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Simple huh? Yet you can not do it. But do not feel bad, most theists can not do it. In my experience they do "2" a lot. A hell of a lot. They do "1" only in the vaguest and underhanded way without tying themselves down to actually making a real claim. And generally when I inquire about "3" they either run away instantly or.... like you.... dodge, deflect, or get irate.
Not so. See above. Already explained this. No point repeating.
Corroboration from various sources of information and evidence. Simply showing using archaeology that the places in a book exist alone is not enough to evidence the events described in that book ever happened or the people existed. You need much more than that.
Read any thread about abortion that I have posted on and you will find many examples. And that is just one SET of many examples.
Then keep trying because so far you have failed utterly. And until you actually present some evidence, your declarations and assertions on how atheists will respond to it are simple fantasy.
I disagree. Keeping people like the guy above talking is NEVER a waste of time. Their position is so weak, full of so many dodges and deflections and vitriol and bile, and so poorly presented, that merely keeping them talking does more damage to their position than anything I could write about them. He thinks he is serving his own purposes by debating against me. So far he has done little but fall into the trap of supporting mine.
As I said, give them a rope and they will hang themselves. Keeping people like that talking is NEVER a waste of time. In fact my core mantra in life is that DISCOURSE is never a waste of time. Ever.
Do you see how many times you have repeated yourself? And, you'll continue to repeat yourself because some people just "don't get it", and never will. I agree that INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE is never a waste of time, but this exchange has not met this criterion, at least from the one side. Good luck. I'll continue to skim your response, as the conversation is humorous, but I fail to see the benefit in getting your opponent to "hang himself". Doing so will not discourage others like him, i.e. Eusebius, Visio, and the rest of us are already convinced, but its your call of course.
If your doctor told you that you needed your gall bladder removed based on a reading of tea leaves, you wouldn't let him remove it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you expect me to believe your friends' alleged paranormal experience based on your say so?
Yeah, another good example of why religions and gods seem to need special treatment compared to normal reality.
Another version of your point : millions of Muslims have personal experience that Christianity is wrong. When the Christians here supporting the idea that personal revelation is evidence accept this "evidence" from their Islamic brothers that Christianity is wrong, I'll start to take their claims about the truth value of revelation more seriously. Until then, their actions tell us what they really think about the claim, no matter how much they pretend otherwise.
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."
They're also dismissed by believers - which is why Christians stay Christian despite the personal experience of believers in other religions. So everyone dismisses subjective feelings as evidence, the atheists you're referring to are just being more consistent.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
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.
::Sigh:: this is what I am talking about. In the simplest terms . . . "Nature" IS the Supreme Being that rules over all creation . . . and it has ever been so. Atheists prefer not to acknowledge its status and power relative to us and accept our ignorance of it as "It Just is." It is a personality preference only . . . because "We don't know" what it is. And if we are truthful . . . we have only scratched the surface of what it does and how. We have absolutely no idea about why. Atheists are good with that . . . and that is fine . . . but it in no way whatsoever justifies the "not one shred of evidence" nonsense. It is a preference based on our ignorance (phrased as "Gaps for God" by annoying atheists) . . . NOT a scientific conclusion. We each choose our own preferred explanations for the Gaps . . . and preferences are not scientific. What we DO know is sufficient for many of us to qualify as God. That atheists disagree does not in any way make their preference right . . . or more scientific.
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.
