A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[setarcos]

I don't know what that means, but I have little interest in proving or disproving the existence of gods.

It means, I think you misread the intent of the phrase.
I also believe that anyone who makes it clear that they are an atheist is fooling themselves if they think they're not interested in disproving the beliefs of those who think a creator God exists via a foundation of beliefs about the subject they hold themselves. I would think if you didn't have an interest in it you wouldn't engage in a discussion about it.
Eh, just my opinion.

I wrote, "The universe has no apparent purpose, nor need it have one." I don't see the statements as equivalent. Maybe a god exists and the universe has no purpose to it.

I said "...no better than..." not equivalent to.

That doesn't change my position that the universe has no apparent purpose, nor need it have one.

Its not arguable, unless your lying, or relevant that the universe has no purpose apparent to you. I would argue that it does to me though. Whether or not it actually "need" a purpose may be arguable - depending on how we nail down the term "purpose".

I didn't say that.

No, you sure didn't. You implied that. Its a short hop from having no apparent purpose to thinking it has no purpose. Seems to me from the quotes I've read of prominent scientists that you've got it backwards. The universe HAS "apparent" purpose, though it may not have designed/deliberate purpose.

Would it behoove the microorganisms living in us to know what our purpose is?

I don't know, would it? Your suggesting that it wouldn't based upon what you comparatively know about microorganisms in relation to their host. Having a purpose beyond the microorganisms concern does not mean that the host has no purpose in relation to the microorganism.
Supposing that those microorganisms became aware that our purpose is to give them an environment to live in and if the host dies so do they. Suppose also that those organisms became aware of their own potential to kill their host or keep that host healthy enough to thrive with it based upon their own actions.
If the question of purpose to the universe arises, you seem to be saying,
"So what, nothing meaningful can be gleaned from knowing its purpose if it has one so why pursue its answer?"
I don't think that is the most prudent attitude to have.

What's odd about that?

Just that Atheists generally claim to make no claims or have no beliefs concerning these things (God/purposeful creation) and yet thought cannot be advanced without belief and beliefs cannot be countered without relevant beliefs of ones own.
You said, "That's not our purpose." So you must believe we do have a purpose - that's just not it. So what is our purpose in your opinion?

Disagree. I find nature stirring even if was created naturalistically and for no purpose.

I think you're looking at "purpose" wrong. Purpose is induced by sentience. In this case you've given nature purpose limited to your stirred feelings. Christians would say God gives purpose to all of creation. A sentient creature that finds no purpose in a thing would not be stirred to action intellectually or emotionally by that thing.

I don't rebel at the idea that nature may be nobody's idea

As a doctor, you wouldn't be disturbed by a disease that has no cause?

Did you mean the description the individual theist's god?

I mean the reasonably derived pinnacle of possible beings. But....yes, here I am discussing the Abrahamic monotheistic conception of God.

the first of which is that I have no reason to believe any gods exist.

And no reason to believe a God doesn't exist since experience in nature is included in the God hypothesis.
Question is why pick one version over the other If both are equally adept at explaining existence? I mean the apparent design in nature is more easily and simply explained by a creative intelligence than the current theories we have. Which I might add are becoming closer and closer at base to being as supernatural as God ever was.

You don't have that, unless you define justice as whatever happens.

I define perfect justice as the perfect nullification of an injustice.
How are you defining justice?

" You might be right, but you seem to think I'm one of those people.

I think that the moment we think we aren't one of those people we become one.

I'm satisfied with my ability to make that judgment.

You must indeed be most intelligent and wise to be able to think on those cosmic scales.
Scripture tells us...
Proverbs 3:5
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;"
Contrary to what many think, that doesn't mean that you should stop thinking and believe whatever your told to.
I hope you weren't going to go there.
Or how about...
Proverbs 14:12
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."
I'm just saying that none of us should overestimate our abilities.

None of my opinions are based in the opinions of others about gods.

Okay? But I was responding to what you said...."People see what would be gratuitous suffering if this god existed as evidence that either it doesn't exist or isn't really a friend, and so reject the claims of those who say it exists and is good."
Those people are basing their rejections on ignorance or impotent anger.

The Christian Bible teaches that unbelievers offend its god and are immoral. I consider that teaching immoral, and atheistic humanists to be mostly good people. You probably feel the opposite.

I think your wrong. Jesus said "...forgive them for they know not what they do." Those that know what they do but continue anyway are the offenders against God.
I'd say by definition it is immoral to offend God. Believers can offend God just as easily as unbelievers and presumably punished more harshly.
Hebrews 12:6
"do not take lightly the discipline of the Lord, and do not lose heart when He rebukes you. 6For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives.” 7Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?…”
I think according to this verse from Revelations its better that you be sincere about your search for truth rather than actually having a true opinion. It's those that ignore or deny truth when they recognize it for various reasons...pride, anger, jealousy, greed etc. - professing belief when you don't believe for your own gain or professing disbelief when you think something is true for instance - that are an offence against God and immoral.
Revelation 3:15
15I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! 16So because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!…
I'm pretty sure that scripture doesn't say that only "good" people are Christians or monotheists.

 

[setarcos]

These:

• 1) People are mad at having to suffer and/or see others suffer but they can't blame God since in order to do that one has to acknowledge its existence.
• 2) Because of 1) people are mad at those who believe in Gods existence and so they militantly attack those beliefs and condemn those who believe as fools or worse.
• 3) Some people just enjoy criticizing those who believe -regardless of ethics- which because of their finite abilities cannot perfectly transmit why they believe despite not having all the answers.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that people aren't mad at gods and don't care what others believe until it affects them.

Firstly, I pointed out in 1 that unbelievers can't be mad at gods otherwise they would have to acknowledge their existence.

Secondly, if your debating the subject it has already effected you.

Thirdly, once people are aware others believe something people ALWAYS care what others believe. Even if they say they don't. Especially if they say they don't. That's just my general rule of thumb.

These points were meant to be taken in relation to those unbelievers who have or are entering into a debate concerning the relationship between an existent good God and existent suffering. I believe that those who do fall into these debates tend to - as non believers- fall into these main categories as motivating factors.

If you enter into these debates concerning these issues and are aware that people have suffered, may have to suffer, or are suffering but aren't angry about that then your either a sociopath or fall into category 3 or both. If however you are angry about suffering, which would be normal, then you would be effected by 1 and consequently pushed into category 2. There's not a lot of other approaches here is there? I suppose you could approach these things from a purely academic perspective but not very many humans can avoid becoming emotionally involved in such things.

And there it is again - I make a dispassionate argument for a tri-omni deity not existing a la Epicurus and you frame it as the angry atheist.

Again? I never correlated your seeming to be angry with being an atheist. You did apparently.

I must have missed your dispassionate argument a la Epicurus.

Do you know why you think that way about me?

Yes, the way you phrase some things gives me the impression of being upset somewhat. That's not a hard set observation though. You could just say you're not angry at all and move on with the conversation.

I assume it's Abrahamic religion, which is responsible for most atheophobic and homophobic thinking in the West

How did we steer towards atheophobia or homophobia? I don't agree with atheism, but I'm not afraid of atheists. I'm not afraid of homosexuals either though the life style rubs me wrong. I suppose that's more instinctual than anything so not my fault.
I have both atheist and homosexual friends and I don't like their lifestyles though I tolerate their lifestyles. That doesn't make me phobic.

both groups marginalized and demonized by religions that teach that such people are abominations in the eyes of a good god.

I've often wondered if that was more instinctual than religious or religious because of the cultural and instinctual necessities of procreation way back when.

Other humanists never describe me like you did. Nor do the polytheists.

I missed it? How did I describe you? You mean, being angry? Geeze forget I mentioned it if that's a stumbling block for you.
I get it...you’re not nor have you ever been angry on here.

Have a nice evening good sir.

 

[F1fan]

It means, I think you misread the intent of the phrase.
I also believe that anyone who makes it clear that they are an atheist is fooling themselves if they think they're not interested in disproving the beliefs of those who think a creator God exists via a foundation of beliefs about the subject they hold themselves. I would think if you didn't have an interest in it you wouldn't engage in a discussion about it.
Eh, just my opinion.

Not a very sound opinion since there is nothing to disprove of the belief that a creator exists. There are over 200 creator gods in human lore and there is no substantive evidence for any of them. About all we have is a set of religious and cultural traditions, and some folks believe in the tradition, and not due to evidence. I'm curious, in your opinion what creator god has been proven that anyone can try to disprove?

What atheists do is challenge and critique religious claims, and it is quite easy to do. Like your example here you overstate your position and it was easy to spot as an error.

 

[Audie]

Absolutely not, because the evidence is either valid of it is not valid.
Whether or not I can 'show you' that it is valid has no bearing upon whether it is valid or not.

You can tell me but you cannot show me. I would have to believe what you told me or do my own research.
I would have to look at the objective evidence and demonstrate to myself that the evidence is valid.

I make no claims because I have nothing to claim. I only have beliefs based upon what the Messenger of God has claimed.

Evidence is ( absolutely) valid or not valid.
Really? No partial applicability, no shades of gray
between night and day?
Just literal or lie, true or false?

Why do you suppose so many Chrisrians have such
an unrealistic way of thinking?

 

[CG Didymus]

Evidence is ( absolutely) valid or not valid.
Really? No partial applicability, no shades of gray
between night and day?
Just literal or lie, true or false?

Why do you suppose so many Chrisrians have such
an unrealistic way of thinking?

It sure seems that when most people that truly believe in their religion say, "I believe this is the truth." They are claiming it is true. That they know for sure that it is true. But... if Baha'is aren't sure, that's okay. I'm not sure about the truth of the Baha'i Faith either.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence is ( absolutely) valid or not valid.
Really? No partial applicability, no shades of gray
between night and day?
Just literal or lie, true or false?

Why do you suppose so many Chrisrians have such
an unrealistic way of thinking?

Of course there are shades of gray.
My point was that whether or not I can 'show people' that it is valid has no bearing upon whether it is valid or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the contrary .. your beliefs about religion form part of YOUR reality too.

My beliefs about religion aren't relevant either when it comes to the evidence of reality. Especially not when the topic concerns the natural sciences.

What matters to these questions about the universe, is the evidence.
Mere beliefs are irrelevant. Regardless what the beliefs are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that a crime, being born in the UK?

Off course not.

I just think it's rather mention worthy to see you bicker about how "immoral" and "self-destructive" and "bad" western secular democracies are, coupled with the implication that islamic theocracy would be a much much better place to live, while also noting that you likely aren't planning at all to move to such a country (for obvious reasons, I might add).

It's kind of like biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is that supposed to mean?

Not sure what is tripping you up... I thought I was quite clear. What part don't you understand?

A man entering a woman SHOULD be a long-term commitment.

A spiritual one, yes. I wouldn't advice having sex on the first date.
With long-term commitments, I meant commitments that become complex / a hassle / financially difficult to leave.

Like marriage (requires divorce procedure)
Like buying a house together (requires selling it again, moving, finding a new place to live... a costly hassle).

Merely being in a committed romantic relationship doesn't have such hassles. You just break up. It's emotionally exhausting, but at least you don't have to deal with lawyers and banks and stuff, all of which costs a small fortune.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Arrogance and contempt are
among the religious values.
Along with ignorance.

Said with all the arrogance and contempt a few short words can muster

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is only due to contraception, that one might think otherwise.

I disagree.

I wasn't even thinking about contraceptives. In fact, I consider it a given that contraceptives are used until a couple consciously decides it's time for children. Even during marriage.

You seem stuck in the 60s-70s.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I prefer to live in a less violent society, where crimes of passion are not so numerous.

???

He was talking about casual sex between consenting adults.
He wasn't talking about crimes of passion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely not, because the evidence is either valid of it is not valid.

And whether it is or not, is dependent on the nature of the evidence. Not on the opinion of the one evaluating it.

Whether or not I can 'show you' that it is valid has no bearing upon whether it is valid or not.

Except that it has.

You can tell me but you cannot show me.

I can.

I can show you, demonstrate to you, that a GPS only works if we calibrate the internal atomic clocks to accommodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed of the satellite orbiting the earth.

This is not a matter of "opinion" or "belief". It is a matter of demonstrable data, matching the verifiable predictions of the theory of relativity.
That's explanatory, demonstrability.

The validity of this evidence is not dependent on you, or anyone else, "believing it".

 

[Audie]

Said with all the arrogance and contempt a few short words can muster

Awww...a cute lil' tu quoque

 

[Audie]

And whether it is or not, is dependent on the nature of the evidence. Not on the opinion of the one evaluating it.





Except that it has.




I can.

I can show you, demonstrate to you, that a GPS only works if we calibrate the internal atomic clocks to accommodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed of the satellite orbiting the earth.

This is not a matter of "opinion" or "belief". It is a matter of demonstrable data, matching the verifiable predictions of the theory of relativity.
That's explanatory, demonstrability.

The validity of this evidence is not dependent on you, or anyone else, "believing it".

They say you can show a creationist, but,
you can't show them much.

 

[ChristineM]

And whether it is or not, is dependent on the nature of the evidence. Not on the opinion of the one evaluating it.





Except that it has.




I can.

I can show you, demonstrate to you, that a GPS only works if we calibrate the internal atomic clocks to accommodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed of the satellite orbiting the earth.

This is not a matter of "opinion" or "belief". It is a matter of demonstrable data, matching the verifiable predictions of the theory of relativity.
That's explanatory, demonstrability.

The validity of this evidence is not dependent on you, or anyone else, "believing it".

There is a story that the US military brass didn't believe that GPS is effected by relative speed so originally GPS receivers specification required a switch that disabled the relativity function.

It was not long before they caved in, because units wound up far from their required destination, and munitions accuracy was abysmal without the relativity calculation.

The switch is no longer fitted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't say "aware". I said "conscious".

Apparently, you make a distinction there. I use the words synonymously.

Darwin was wrong because his assumptions were wrong. Neither experiment nor logic supports his beliefs.

Let's discuss verificationism, or the correspondence theory of truth: a statement is correct if it is demonstrably, empirically correct. That means that there is some finding that makes A the case that would not be found were it not. For the claim that Darwin (or anybody) was wrong to be meaningful, there must be some observation that contradicts him, that falsifies his hypothesis. Perhaps you think you have that, but to convince critical thinkers, you need to present that evidence and your argument, and the argument needs to be sound.

Think of the refutation of the claims that rotten meat and old straw could spontaneously generate animal life. An experiment was devised in which distinct outcomes could be observed if the hypothesis were correct versus if it were not, and the issue settled.

What you do when you merely declare somebody or something wrong is nothing like that. And there are good reasons to take pains not to hold such beliefs without empirical support. Look at how much attention such ideas get from you, and to what personal or public benefit?

I also believe that anyone who makes it clear that they are an atheist is fooling themselves if they think they're not interested in disproving the beliefs of those who think a creator God exists via a foundation of beliefs about the subject they hold themselves.

I like critical thought. I like dialectic. I like looking at a spectrum of thinkers both skilled and otherwise and generalizing from that. If you mean disproving gods to believers, I have no interest in doing that even if it weren't nearly impossible. If it were the case and in my power to force you to see that the universe was godless, unless you're a young man like I was when I rejected faith, theism, and religion, there's nothing in it for you but disorientation and unhappiness. Older Abrahamic believers have little to gain for their efforts the way I did decades ago.

I frequently post this: "I don't mind what you or any other theist believes about gods. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn't insane, isn't sacrificing animals to his god or gods, and keeps the noise down. Why would I care?"

Spoiler: search for hits

I guess you don't believe I mean that, but the issue is resolved for me pending new relevant evidence. There's nothing there for me. I'm no longer seeking answers where I long ago concluded that none would be forthcoming, another valuable contribution of critical thought to be able to recognize when a question is undecidable and redirect attention elsewhere when it is. I don't consider the unfalsifiable claims of theists or anybody else to be answers.

To be able to say "I don't know, I can't know, that has to be OK, and it is" is a great liberation from the dithering and looping the mind can get caught up in - you know, the "eternal search for truth," the search for which is considered a virtue by many and described as a spiritual journey revealing great truths, but for me is closer to somebody looking for his keys by wandering around a lamppost in circles for forty years. Not really a journey, and no truths (keys) will forthcoming.

No, you sure didn't. You implied that. Its a short hop from having no apparent purpose to thinking it has no purpose.

What I do is similar but logically distinct. I take an agnostic position. It isn't possible or necessary for me to say that there was no intelligent universe designer with a purpose in mind.

Seems to me from the quotes I've read of prominent scientists that you've got it backwards. The universe HAS "apparent" purpose, though it may not have designed/deliberate purpose.

I don't know what that means. Purpose is a manifestation of consciousness, and only conscious agents act with purpose.

Supposing that those microorganisms became aware that our purpose is to give them an environment to live in and if the host dies so do they. Suppose also that those organisms became aware of their own potential to kill their host or keep that host healthy enough to thrive with it based upon their own actions.

That doesn't change the fact that if the microorganism were sentient creatures with intent and volition, their purpose would not be mine, and if you could ask them for what purpose I put them there - maybe some organism swallowed for some perceived health benefit - they might say, "I don't know if I'm there to serve somebody' agenda" and if you asked them what their purpose was, they might answer "Don't know, can't know, don't need to know, and probably couldn't benefit by an answer anyway because whatever it is isn't my purpose, which is to swim over to that bubble and absorb it." That's also my position when asked what the purpose of the universe or me being in it is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the question of purpose to the universe arises, you seem to be saying, "So what, nothing meaningful can be gleaned from knowing its purpose if it has one so why pursue its answer?" I don't think that is the most prudent attitude to have.

Hopefully, you have a good reason for that opinion. Perhaps you've seen somebody who took that attitude and later lived to regret it, but I doubt it. My guess is that you have been convinced by others that what I call sterile lines of pursuit are fruitful. I say by others rather than by experience be, because I presume that you have nothing to show in support of that belief, but am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

You said, "That's not our purpose." So you must believe we do have a purpose - that's just not it. So what is our purpose in your opinion?

We don't all have the same purpose unless we want to be overly-broad and say that it's the pursuit of happiness as we understand that, but whatever it is, it's ours, it's not an alleged creator's purpose for creating us, even were that to enjoy seeing us pursue pleasure.

As a doctor, you wouldn't be disturbed by a disease that has no cause?

Disturbed? No. Many diseases have no known etiology, although they presumably all have causes and mechanisms. It's just another example of acceptance of the limits of knowledge. I hope to live long enough to see some of the mysteries of my time practicing medicine solved, but I understand that most of those questions will remain unanswered when I die.

Question is why pick one version over the other If both are equally adept at explaining existence? I mean the apparent design in nature is more easily and simply explained by a creative intelligence than the current theories we have.

The god hypothesis adds nothing to understanding, so why hold one? I realize that that belief is comforting to many, but I'm not one of them.

You must indeed be most intelligent and wise to be able to think on those cosmic scales.

This is an example of the theist trying to restrict thought that contradicts his beliefs. It often manifests as the skeptic being unqualified to contradict the believer regarding scripture or admonishing him not to bring his puny mind to any task regarding the intelligence and moral fiber of his god. In this case, you wish to disqualify my calling suffering gratuitous because I don't know everything. I repeat: I'm satisfied with my ability to make such judgments and to treat what appears to be gratuitous suffering as such.

Scripture tells us...

You probably should reserve your scriptures for those who consider them authoritative. I don't want to be rude to you, but how do I say nicely that what is sacred to you is meaningless to me?

I think your wrong. Jesus said "...forgive them for they know not what they do."

That's not a rebuttal. That scripture doesn't falsify my claim about Christian scripture containing atheophobic hate speech. The Christian Bible has multiple scriptures that define unbelievers as fools and morally corrupt, which many believers imbibe uncritically. It's bigotry. Those scriptures are hate speech:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8
[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

Altogether, these scriptures call unbelievers corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Is it any wonder people that read those words or hear sermons from others that do are filled with hatred for atheists? Imagine the furor if the same things were said about blacks, Jews or gays - "there is no one who does good." When I was born, atheists were considered too immoral to teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries, or give expert testimony. And if you don't think that that still affects atheists adversely today, notice that there is virtually no objection to such words appearing in the Bible.

Rebuttal is more than expressing dissent with or without other language such as what one believes instead. It's falsification.

once people are aware others believe something people ALWAYS care what others believe

I refer you back to the chicken claw guy. My interest would be limited to what I said - that he wasn't dangerous, wasn't sacrificing animal, and wasn't noisy. It's like those stories that the Mormons and Scientologists tell about angels and other planets. I don't really care what they say beyond shaking my head.

If you enter into these debates concerning these issues and are aware that people have suffered, may have to suffer, or are suffering but aren't angry about that then your either a sociopath or fall into category 3 or both. If however you are angry about suffering, which would be normal, then you would be effected by 1 and consequently pushed into category 2. There's not a lot of other approaches here is there? I suppose you could approach these things from a purely academic perspective but not very many humans can avoid becoming emotionally involved in such things.

One can learn to think dispassionately.

Also, one can learn the art of acceptance, the fifth and final stage in the healthy evolution of grief according to Kubler-Ross. We work to reduce the suffering we can and accept that there will be suffering anyway. One never becomes indifferent to it, just buffeted from severe, prolonged empathetic pain. I saw this in hospice, where the family members who could accept the inevitability of a loved one's demise suffered much less that those who held out with false hope, and whose experience was an emotional roller coaster in which every new loss of function was experienced the way the initial news of a life-threatening illness was. Over and again, they're dashed against the rocks emotionally.

atheophobia or homophobia? I don't agree with atheism, but I'm not afraid of atheists. I'm not afraid of homosexuals either though the life style rubs me wrong.

The suffix -phobia means aversion to, which is a more broad category than fear of. The avoidance of light during a migraine is photophobia and the aversion to water in a rabid animal is called hydrophobia.

I suppose that's more instinctual than anything so not my fault.

Neither homophobia not atheophobia are instinctual. They are taught and learned.

I have both atheist and homosexual friends and I don't like their lifestyles though I tolerate their lifestyles. That doesn't make me phobic.

I say it does, but by my definition, not yours. You have an aversion to atheism and homosexuality. What you call tolerance is the absence of oppression, and that's a good start, but isn't acceptance. I don't have many Christian acquaintances. I assume that they are likely to hold ideas like yours, and why should I willingly spend time with people that accept me begrudgingly but consider me morally flawed? My bridge partner is a Christian active in his church. I assume that he considers me negatively and in terms like faithless, but he likes playing bridge with me, and we limit our relationship to that, so it doesn't matter if he also thinks I'm an abomination in the eyes of a good god who intends to damn me.

 

[Audie]

Of course there are shades of gray.
My point was that whether or not I can 'show people' that it is valid has no bearing upon whether it is valid or not.

Go9d

 

[Trailblazer]

And whether it is or not, is dependent on the nature of the evidence. Not on the opinion of the one evaluating it.

No, it is not dependent upon the opinion of the one evaluating it. This is a key point. So when atheists say "that's not evidence" to the evidence I present, that is only their opinion but that does not mean the evidence is not valid, for what it is trying to prove.

I can.

I can show you, demonstrate to you, that a GPS only works if we calibrate the internal atomic clocks to accommodate for the relativistic effects caused by the speed of the satellite orbiting the earth.

Yes, you can show me some things. If you say you have a brand new red car, you can show me the car, and that is the 'evidence' that you have a car.
Sorry, but that kind of evidence dos not exist for religious truth, for OBVIOUS logical reasons.
If you thought about it you would understand why.

However, the LACK of demonstrable evidence does not mean a religion is not true. It is either true or not, and evidence is not what MAKES any religion true. Verifiable evidence is only WHAT SOME PEOPLE WANT, but we don't always get what we want, so we have to settle for another kind of evidence or forget about believing in the religion.

This is not a matter of "opinion" or "belief". It is a matter of demonstrable data, matching the verifiable predictions of the theory of relativity.
That's explanatory, demonstrability.

Sorry, as I just said, there is no such demonstrable data for religions.

The validity of this evidence is not dependent on you, or anyone else, "believing it".

Of course not, so the fact that you and other atheists don't "believe" the evidence I present has no bearing on whether it is evidence for what I am trying to prove.