Atheists: does God exist?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Hope without action is of very little use. Acting on hope takes both courage and caution. I really don't understand why you're finding this so difficult to accept. We don't need to "believe" anything. We aren't going to know what the outcome of every action we take will be before we take action. And that's the role of faith in our life. Faith is choosing to take action based on hope when we cannot know what the outcome will be.

Yes, there is always some danger involved. But life is not safe. And yet we have to keep living it. So we are going to have to keep doing so with faith. By acting on hope. That's just the way it is.

Here are two scenarios with two uses of hope:

1. I hope to lose 20 lbs so I am going to act like I will lose 20 lbs and see what happens.
2. I hope to lose 20 lbs by watching my calorie intake, exercising and eating healthy. (good evidence based hope)

1. I hope big foot exists so I am going to act like big foot exists and see what happens.
2. I hope big foot exists so I am going to look for good evidence that it exists. (good evidence based hope)

The two uses of hope here are very different. I think you are using it as in number 1 in both scenarios. I can get behind using it as in number 2 in each scenario. In number 2 you want or are hoping for a desired outcome based on a plan with good evidence. The other two you have no reason to believe the outcome is realistic or possible.

 

[F1fan]

The knowledge you referred to:

So you offer no knowledge that any God exists.

I can only speak for myself. God has manifest himself to me on many occasions and in several ways; that's how I know.

How do you discern it was real versus imagind? Explain your process.

Did you have these experiences you call a God after you heard others talk about experiences with a God?

The statement was overly broad. It was too sweeping. What I had most in mind when I wrote that was the gall of expressing to a person claiming knowledge of God that he has no such knowledge. To do so is the very definition of prejudice—to judge without knowledge.

Gods aren't known to exist. Few people claim to know a God exists. When some person does claim such a thing it is an extraordinary claim and we have questions. We also look at the other claims and beliefs of such claimants and if they include disinformation and show bias in one way or another it suggests a person who is easily suggestible and can adopt ideas that aren't true. That casts doubt on their religious claims. The more extraordinary the claim, like experiencing a God, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. Given that humans can believe in all sorts of untrue and illusory ideas it is easy to reject extraordinary claims of experiencing a God. It's more likely the claimant is mimicking other believers and their claims of experience with God.

Everyone has a religion, which is whatever system of beliefs the person goes to over and over to orient or calibrate his understanding and interactions. "Religion" comes from re- legere—to "read again." Meaning, to refer to again... to go back to... Whatever system of judgment and morality and conscience we appeal to from moment to moment—that's one's religion. Everyone is religious, not just "believers." Though everyone is a believer in something, too. We're all the same. This is one of the great blindnesses "nonbelievers" get lost in. They think they have no religion. They think that they don't "believe" in anything dogmatic or unseen or abstract. Sure they do. Everyone does.

This is a broad and irrelevant definition. What is the point of trying to drag in atheists as having a religion unless you as a believer have some understanding that religion (defined as some God belief) includes ideas that not only lack evidence, but also inconsistent with fact and knowledge?

What is the motive to make the word "religion" apply to all people? We aren't talking about the definition you wrote, we are talking about a framework of concepts that include supernatural elements. Explain why you are trying to blur the definition.

When facts are germane to the nature of truth, yes. Not all truth appeals to a fact, or collection of facts. For example:

"It is wrong for a person to rape another person."

That is true. I assert that it is true. I know that it is true. It is true always and it is never false. It is "truth." But I have no facts to offer on which to found that truth.

Yet this moral truth DOES appeal to fact, namely the fact that victims are harmed. So this example doesn't work.

I wrote this "And would you agree that the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts?"

I wasn't asking about rape. I was asking about a standard for truthful statements and the mind that judges them. Would you say the god Vishnu exists and is factual? How about the god Ashera, who was Yahweh's partner before the Hebrews became monotheistic? Do you accept that Biden won the 2020 election?

If you agree that the statement is true, and if you can offer a fact, or series of facts, that "make it true," then without qualification whatever I will agree with this: "the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts"

Your answers above can reveal what your standard of truth is, if it is factual or something else.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Objectivity and critical thinking are as much a part of my experience as are belief and faith (which are not synonymous).

So you think your religious beliefs, and your claim of experiening a God, are objective and use critical thinking? If so, explain.

If your religious beliefs can't be shown to be factual and rational then it suggests you don't understand what these words mean, or unable to acknowledge what the religious concepts you believe in are (being social and cultural ideas hat are not fact-based).

Do you think atheists have a good reason to reject supernatural claims?

 

[PureX]

So you offer no knowledge that any God exists.

How do you discern it was real versus imagind? Explain your process.

Did you have these experiences you call a God after you heard others talk about experiences with a God?

Gods aren't known to exist. Few people claim to know a God exists. When some person does claim such a thing it is an extraordinary claim and we have questions. We also look at the other claims and beliefs of such claimants and if they include disinformation and show bias in one way or another it suggests a person who is easily suggestible and can adopt ideas that aren't true. That casts doubt on their religious claims. The more extraordinary the claim, like experiencing a God, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. Given that humans can believe in all sorts of untrue and illusory ideas it is easy to reject extraordinary claims of experiencing a God. It's more likely the claimant is mimicking other believers and their claims of experience with God.

This is a broad and irrelevant definition. What is the point of trying to drag in atheists as having a religion unless you as a believer have some understanding that religion (defined as some God belief) includes ideas that not only lack evidence, but also inconsistent with fact and knowledge?

What is the motive to make the word "religion" apply to all people? We aren't talking about the definition you wrote, we are talking about a framework of concepts that include supernatural elements. Explain why you are trying to blur the definition.

Yet this moral truth DOES appeal to fact, namely the fact that victims are harmed. So this example doesn't work.

I wrote this "And would you agree that the standard of truth are facts, and reasoned conclusions that follow facts, and also rejecting claims that lack facts?"

I wasn't asking about rape. I was asking about a standard for truthful statements and the mind that judges them. Would you say the god Vishnu exists and is factual? How about the god Ashera, who was Yahweh's partner before the Hebrews became monotheistic? Do you accept that Biden won the 2020 election?


Your answers above can reveal what your standard of truth is, if it is factual or something else.

So you think your religious beliefs, and your claim of experiening a God, are objective and use critical thinking? If so, explain.

If your religious beliefs can't be shown to be factual and rational then it suggests you don't understand what these words mean, or unable to acknowledge what the religious concepts you believe in are (being social and cultural ideas hat are not fact-based).

Do you think atheists have a good reason to reject supernatural claims?

The problem for you is that you have no basis upon which to reject someone's claim of knowing God. And yet you are determined to do so. And until you face that determined desire to discredit the witness of others, your claims of "unbelief" and "critical thinking" are just phony bravado and misdirection.

We both know that there is no way a human can validate or invalidate someone else's experience of God. We couldn't even validate or invalidate our own, if it were to happen to us. All any of us can do is listen to the witness and let it stand as a possibility. Because anything else we do will just be serving a bias that we can't justify.

 

[F1fan]

The problem for you is that you have no basis upon which to reject someone's claim of knowing God.

It’s not a problem for me at all. Believers can keep their claims private. Since these claims are part of a discussion it’s open to scrutiny. Thus far no claimant of experience with a Gid can adequately explain how it is genuine. It’s an extraordinary claim and we demand extraordinary evidence.

And yet you are determined to do so. And until you face that determined desire to discredit the witness of others, your claims of "unbelief" and "critical thinking" are just phony bravado and misdirection.

That is the risk claimants have. I defer to what reason and facts allow us to conclude, and recognize that humans tend to believe in non-factual ideas.

We both know that there is no way a human can validate or invalidate someone else's experience of God.

Yet believers do it anyway as if their claim means something substantive to an open discussion.

We couldn't even validate or invalidate our own, if it were to happen to us. All any of us can do is listen to the witness and let it stand as a possibility. Because anything else we do will just be serving a bias that we can't justify.

We can challenge anyone who offers their claims. The more extraordinary the claim the more scrutiny it will face.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem for you is that you have no basis upon which to reject someone's claim of knowing God.

Sure he does - the claimant's inability to support his claim.

We both know that there is no way a human can validate or invalidate someone else's experience of God.

Yes, so there is no reason for a critical thinker to accept such a claim.

We couldn't even validate or invalidate our own, if it were to happen to us.

And you see a problem with rejecting such claims? You're talking about somebody making a claim that you say even he can't know is correct.

And I know how much you lobby to stop people from expressing what they don't believe, but that's exactly what I'm doing here. I don't believe people who tell me they know a god or that they know that a god exists.

 

[idea]

Then my claims of knowledge are being prejudiced here. Which, of necessity, means that those who are prejudicing my claims are doing so in ignorance—and remaining in ignorance.

[/QUOTE]

Unless someone is omniscient, "all-knowing", I find life to be like one of those mystery movies with twists and surprise endings. That new clue, it can change everything.

Example, my great grandmother was quite a controlling woman. Grandfather hardly ever said anything, sat quietly nodding, agreeing to everything, always just a little smile. She controlled finances. She read the paper. I remember at a restaurant she ordered his food for him - he wasn't allowed to look at the menu, wasn't allowed to choose what to eat- she ordered for herself, and without pause, then ordered for grampa. He would just sit there, nodding, smile, agree to everything, never complain.... So ... new piece of info.... She ended up going blind... and that is when we learned he was illiterate... You think you know what is going on, and find you don't.

Example. Exemplary family. He serves in bishopric, she is relief society president, their children are praised, everyone sustains them in their callings, feels the spirit, raised hands to sustain - children are told aren't they so lucky to have parents like that, aren't they proud, so wonderful to have priesthood, they all learn the songs, sing during fathers day - we're so glad when daddy comes home... only now he's in jail, without probation under Jessica's law, he'll die in jail. 18 years of videos. Calling after calling after calling... they blamed his first wife of being uptight.. his second wife had been abused too... his mother had been abused... generation after generation, isn't genealogy great?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would amend that statement because it is possible to have a meaningful conversation without being willing to change one's beliefs when one's objective is to understand the other person, his perspective or experience.

[/QUOTE]

Listening with the internet to manipulate isn't really listening....

Beliefs, yes. Knowledge, no. As for receiving information from those not of my belief system, I do so when I discern truth in what is shared. I assume others do the same, though some don't, or won't. What we tend to see here on RF, however, is simply shut-downs and contradiction. If someone finds fault with me for not yielding to such, guilty as charged. I see a lot of contempt being mis-classed as "offering information" here, though, and a lot of just plain rudeness being passed off as "simply disagreeing," or "intellectual challenge."

Not of your beliefs...

A miracle they were cured (not that athiest doctor). So thankful for 'gods' #blessings, so #blessed. (Those other people in developing and war torn countries... I guess they earned their place in premortal life, guess they just needed more "refinement", need to be "prumed, cut down", for their own good... refined? PTSD? Completely brain dead is "refined"? It was good for them?)...

... they wouldn't volunteer with me, I should have seen it then. They would not testify in court, priest privilege... they rushed to visit him in prison, but did not help kids, no talking to me. Innocence - we are all trusting, we assume the best, cognitive dissonance is very real.

We're not omniscient. We don't know anything really.

Just FYI, many of the athiests I know have gone through hell. Abused animals, know how they act?

 

[RamaRaksha]

To me, the question is all wrong
Frighteningly, we have moved forward in all aspects of our lives but with religion we remain stuck, blindly following primitive views of God
Ancient people living under Kings, Dictators used them as a template for God - hence all the - Get down on our knees, beg, obey, sing his praises etc
But that was the world back then and these simple people envisioned an afterlife similar to the one they had then - a King/Dictator like "God" sitting on his throne in the heavens, heaven is his Kingdom and only those who believe and support the King/Dictator will be allowed to live in his kingdom and prosper
In today's world that would be like living in Russia or North Korea
And it is from this mindset that we get questions like this
.
It is like a student asking which teacher is grading us?
A guy up for a promotion asking - who is going to decide who is going to be promoted?
In a fair world the quality of the paper will decide the grade and not the Teacher
In a fair world, the one who is promoted is the one that is best qualified
.
Belief should not matter - whether we believe God exists or not does not matter
Morals matter, values matter - what we did in life matters
Atheists, Rational people (I call myself a Rational Hindu - used to call myself an Atheist Hindu before I realize that not all Atheists were rational)
do not worry about such things
But it does matter to those who created Gods using their King, Dictator as a template
"Good works won't get you into Heaven" says morals, values, who we are as people does not matter
Our entire lives are a lie, they don't matter
All that matters is whether we believe or not
"These people believed in me, awww, I am going to reward them. While those who ignored me, I will make them suffer" - God is a simpleton that way

 

[RamaRaksha]

"she ordered for herself, and without pause, then ordered for grampa. He would just sit there, nodding, smile, agree to everything, never complain.... So ... new piece of info.... She ended up going blind... and that is when we learned he was illiterate..
[/QUOTE]
But even if he was illiterate, shouldn't she have asked his opinion? What he wanted to eat - read the menu for him? So, your first opinion was right?

 

[DNB]

How do you support these claims with good evidence?

I thinks somewhere in between, chance and natural processes created us seem the most likely from the available evidence.

I was a christian for 18 years, when I sincerely searched towards the end of my faith I did not find what I wanted to find and that is good evidence god exists. Losing my faith was painful and I lost a lot, I sincerely wanted god to exist. So I was not defiant or rationalize anything. I simply wanted good evidence that a good god should provide. I have not seen any evidence at all from you at all but you have made a lot of claims. Saying something is apparent or obvious is not good evidence.

Man is not a spiritual being?

 

[DNB]

You have no understanding of the atheist's inner life. You view it from the perspective of a believer who would be lost without his beliefs and who then projects that onto others. You're merely expressing that without your religious beliefs, like is worse than empty to you.

Atheism isn't for everybody. It's easier to believe in a god than not. One needs to be comfortable without a god belief or a religion, but for those up to it, it's a preferable way to live.

Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence. Could you do that?

To the theist I say, try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals. Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Yes, people are asking that. It seems like you'd like them to stop.

You're projecting. You're on the constant attack. And you are incorrect about atheists having no ideas about gods. Nor do they attack you. They reject your claims and tell you why.

No. You've just described somebody who doesn't like any kind of music.

You're projecting again. It's YOU with the angry emo disposition.

Nobody familiar with your posting expects you to be respectful to atheists.

You're projecting again.

Still annoyed? You're easily triggered. And that's the disrespect we're used to from you.

You asked, "Do you fear that if you were to dare to hope in a God that you would become one of these religious people that you think are bad?" Do you think theism and religion are appealing to people comfortable without it? Do you think they might like to trade places with you and experience life as you experience it?

Skepticism as in expecting claims to be sufficiently empirically justified before believing them is not negativity. Consider it mental hygiene - habits that keep the mind relatively free of false and unfalsifiable ideas, which can be thought of as a form of mind pollution.

We don't need a god belief for that.

No one's looking for a placebo, we are in search of the truth. You atheists, on the other hand, are not the noble, adventurous, and fearless ones; you are defiant, corrupt, and oblivious - you don't want to be accountable, or told what to do.
You all lack self-discipline and true morality - you think that you're good simply because you compare yourselves to the worst of humans, and never to a holy and righteous God; the Father and Author of all love, truth, and rectitude.

 

[DNB]

Only in your world that is the case.

That 'oblivion' you speak of? Well, it's that oblivion that enables us to be here, so it's quite comforting to know that the natural forces out here in nature are handling things rather spiffingly for Atheists without any help from the beings that dwell permanently within one's own mental realm.

There you have it: one who believes that the world is in spiffy order. That says it all - every time that one looks at the world and all its conventions and constructs, they should see the devil.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There you have it: one who believes that the world is in spiffy order. That says it all - every time that one looks at the world and all its conventions and constructs, they should see the devil.

I didn't say the world. I stated the natural forces out here in nature.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No one's looking for a placebo, we are in search of the truth.

Just a shame that the religious have provided so many different answers then - many being contradictory - so why did you choose your particular delusion? Perhaps the truth doesn't include a God - which you have excluded by default it seems.

You atheists, on the other hand, are not the noble, adventurous, and fearless ones; you are defiant, corrupt, and oblivious - you don't want to be accountable, or told what to do.

Oh so hurtful - not! We actually are the courageous ones - to dismiss the nonsense so often seen in religious texts, whilst so many of the religious are hobbling their own intelligence by believing that which no reasonable person would believe when presented with enough evidence that they could recognise and understand. YEC nonsense, for example.

Corrupt? What a laugh that is - given it is just based on living in an age when little was known rather than understanding that progress occurs and understanding too. But then perhaps you just want to stand still and let the world move on around you. No sympathy from me, chum, since this attitude will be as extinct as the dinosaurs eventually - if we actually survive the human condition.

Of course we don't want to be told what to do - when it might depend upon which country we might be in at any one time, and hence having to obey the religious laws of that country. We do tend to take our worked out morality around with us at all times on the other hand - being rather more consistent as to rationality. And if one does actually believe in one's moral values, such is generally a better option for not misbehaving than believing in rules that one might bend to suit oneself.

You all lack self-discipline and true morality - you think that you're good simply because you compare yourselves to the worst of humans, and never to a holy and righteous God; the Father and Author of all love, truth, and rectitude.

Rubbish! The morals you seem to think came from God were undoubtedly borrowed from prior times, and being as natural as much of physical existence being so too. Just as religions seem to have borrowed from each other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Try telling that to the children who have religions imposed upon them. And you are being a little ingenuous here with the evidence. People are hardly blind when they are open to and seek evidence - all evidence - and as to which the materialists have made better progress than most others.

Let's not get carried away. I doubt any such atheists are blaming religions for everything - just the more intractable problems that have occurred since they first originated, and which tends to come from so many of the doctrines. I think the major issue with most who criticise religions will be as to the authorities not being so dogmatic as to 'this religion is the truth', and which then tends to cause the conflicts, slows progress, as well as much dogma affecting modern humans rather the what the religions were built around.

Well, when religions tend to have the most control of so many - wherever it happens to be - where would we look? Even in the USA, supposedly the most advanced and richest country in the world, we have about a third of adults who believe an utter load of nonsense (usually coming from a literal interpretation of the Bible) - and coming from religions alone. Perhaps there is a need for more control in this country.

All children have families imposed on them. Pretty much all families try to pass their values onto their children, regardless of whether those values are based on religious belief, or something else. The religious values my parents passed on to me could be summed up as love and tolerance for others. Should I resent that imposition, do you think?

 

[Mock Turtle]

All children have families imposed on them. Pretty much all families try to pass their values onto their children, regardless of whether those values are based on religious belief, or something else. The religious values my parents passed on to me could be summed up as love and tolerance for others. Should I resent that imposition, do you think?

No more than my parents, especially my mother, but who apparently didn't see it worthwhile to impose anything upon me - given her example seemed to be enough. And for which I am truly grateful. As for those who have religions imposed upon them because of where they are born - I sympathise with them - so as hopefully being able to find any truths that might satisfy them - rather than any imposed upon them when they were unable to question such. Why not allow children the courtesy of teaching them things that are actually not indoctrinations?

 

[PureX]

It’s not a problem for me at all. Believers can keep their claims private. Since these claims are part of a discussion it’s open to scrutiny. Thus far no claimant of experience with a Gid can adequately explain how it is genuine. It’s an extraordinary claim and we demand extraordinary evidence.

You can keep insisting on that til the cows fly but it's never going to be a logical or reasonable demand. But when the bias must be served, logic and reason are the first to be sacrificed. It's all just this 'kangaroo court' nonsense. Where you want to decide what is and isn't evidence (based on your preconcieved bias) and you want to decide what reaches the level of proof (also based on yourpredetermination that there is none) and when you don't get what you were determined not to get you want to decide what conclusion that supports, which was of course the conclusion you held all along.

It's this silly kangaroo court fantasy that drives this idiotic demand for "extraordinary" proof. Extraordinary, of course, because you have already decided it doesn't exist.

That is the risk claimants have. I defer to what reason and facts allow us to conclude, and recognize that humans tend to believe in non-factual ideas.

Yes, ideas like no gods can exist without leaving sufficient recognizable proof of their existence to convince the atheists that already have decided that there isn't any.

Yet believers do it anyway as if their claim means something substantive to an open discussion.

It does mean something substantive to them. And this is a site intended for them to express this.

So why are you hear?

We can challenge anyone who offers their claims. The more extraordinary the claim the more scrutiny it will face.

The more biased you are, the more "extraordinary" you think the theists claim is. And yet it's actually more logically sound that the atheist counter claim.

 

[idea]

"she ordered for herself, and without pause, then ordered for grampa. He would just sit there, nodding, smile, agree to everything, never complain.... So ... new piece of info.... She ended up going blind... and that is when we learned he was illiterate..

But even if he was illiterate, shouldn't she have asked his opinion? What he wanted to eat - read the menu for him? So, your first opinion was right?
[/QUOTE]

She preferred for us to think she was controlling than for us to know he was illiterate. She sacrificed her own reputation to save his.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we are in search of the truth.

You're going about it incorrectly. Knowledge only comes from experience (empiricism). Faith is not a path to truth. It is the quickest way to accumulate false and unfalsifiable beliefs.

You atheists, on the other hand, are not the noble, adventurous, and fearless ones

That's a strange depiction of what atheists believe about themselves. Most of us are atheistic humanists, meaning we seek truth through the application of reason to evidence and moral excellence by applying reason to the dictates of the conscience, which for most is that which promotes the greatest well-being of the greatest number as they define it (utilitarianism, Golden Rule).

you are defiant, corrupt, and oblivious

What an ugly form of your religion it is that teaches you to think that way. It's really disgusting that it would scapegoats the ones who reject it and can say why to promote itself on their backs. Where would Christianity be without its defamations, its lies to children and to as many of their parents that it can keep in that juvenile state (look at your words here), and the swords of the Roman Empire, the crusaders, and the conquistadores?

We reject your religion and its standards. Of course you frame it that way. That's what your Bible teaches in multiple defamatory statements about unbelievers. Look at how ugly this is:

[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

[6] "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." - Ephesians 4:18-24

Altogether, your book depicts unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of which does any good, all greedy to practice every kind of impurity, to be shunned, fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

And you call this a religion of love. No thanks. I can do better.

you don't want to be accountable, or told what to do.

Your version of accountability and mine aren't alike, and you are correct that I will not be told what to do by an ancient book written by people who had no problem with slavery or autocracy and who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night. What do such people have to teach a self-actualized, autonomous humanist who is comfortable without gods and religions about anything?

you think that you're good simply because you compare yourselves to the worst of humans, and never to a holy and righteous God; the Father and Author of all love, truth, and rectitude.

The god you worship is a moral and intellectual failure as your book describes it. I have a better understanding of love, truth, and rectitude than that book offers or its rendition as the church in contemporary life. This religion has nothing to offer me. You have nothing to offer me.

every time that one looks at the world and all its conventions and constructs, they should see the devil.

I leave that gloomy worldview to people willing to believe it. How about you and they worry about sin and hell and the devil for me? How about you live in a world that you have been convinced is lost and getting worse while I live in a world free of all of that. My world is actually a very good one, but maybe that's because I've avoided the extremely negative indoctrination of your religion.

Recently, I was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The visit began by assuming as you do that the world was a terrible place, getting worse. They seemed to assume that I agreed with that. I did not.

I explained that although many live difficult lives, the world is also a wonderful place for many, and that I was happy being in it. That was literally the end of the discussion. They said thank you and moved along, which surprised me. Why did they give up so quickly and easily? Were they unprepared for and stymied by my answer? That didn't seem possible, but what else could it be? My point is that if I didn't see the world as going to hell in a bucket, it seems that they thought they had nothing to say to me. And they were correct.

How gloomy is their world and yours? How many believers have stated that their beliefs are what gives their life meaning. They see the atheist's life as hopeless and empty, because that's what they think their lives would be if they lost their faith. What kind of existence is that? Who did that to them?

Here's a verse from Dylan's Desolation Row which I believe captures that emptiness and poverty of spirit:

Ophelia, she's 'neath the window; for her I feel so afraid
On her twenty-second birthday she already is an old maid
To her, death is quite romantic; she wears an iron vest
Her profession's her religion, her sin is her lifelessness
And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow
She spends her time peeking into Desolation Row

That's right on the money. Poor Ophelia, already a shell of a person at 22, a professional, lifeless religious zealot, whose gaze is fixed on Noah's great rainbow (the hope for salvation) and experiencing her world around her as desolation.

 

[Kfox]

Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.

So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?

I see theism as akin to a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat, that isn't there...... and finding it!

 

[F1fan]

You can keep insisting on that til the cows fly but it's never going to be a logical or reasonable demand.

I don't have to prove that those who claim an experience with God didn't actually have one. All I have to do is ask for evidence, and point out that there are more plausible explanations for these extraordinary claims. It's notable that no one claims an experience with a God without first hearing others talk about an eperience. No one has a "close and personal relationship with Jesus" unless they were indoctrinated into believing this is a thing.

But when the bias must be served, logic and reason are the first to be sacrificed.

You are the champion of this bias being used. And you love to project it on those who follow facts and use reason.

It's all just this 'kangaroo court' nonsense. Where you want to decide what is and isn't evidence (based on your preconcieved bias) and you want to decide what reaches the level of proof (also based on yourpredetermination that there is none) and when you don't get what you were determined not to get you want to decide what conclusion that supports, which was of course the conclusion you held all along.

Theists make extraordinary claims, and critical thinkers challenge these claims and ask for support. The claims are not supported. You protest this critical analysis. And you offer no logical reason.

It's this silly kangaroo court fantasy that drives this idiotic demand for "extraordinary" proof. Extraordinary, of course, because you have already decided it doesn't exist.

Sorry, you are accusing criical thinkers of some conspiracy since none of us are presented with adequate evidence that ordinary humans somehow interact with a God. There is no reason to accept these claims at face value. Do you?

The 9-11 hijackers claimed that they were instructed by God to attack America, so do you accept their claim? Or do you side with skeptics and have doubt?

Yes, ideas like no gods can exist without leaving sufficient recognizable proof of their existence to convince the atheists that already have decided that there isn't any.

What gods DO exist that atheists have somehow rejected? State the fact that they exist, and there's a flaw in the thinking of atheists.

It does mean something substantive to them. And this is a site intended for them to express this.

Sure, humans believe all sorts of things, and value ideas to varying degress and intensity. Most humans are indocrinated into some religious belief and these ideas get drilled into their minds, and they end up adopting the values and meanings subconsciously. This indocrination varies depending upon the person, from die hard creationists to atheists who have rejected this influence and thought through the ideas using cognitive tools.

Internet forums offer members chances to share beliefs and debate ideas. If a person can't cope well with challenges to their beliefs then there are other options. There's no one size fits all to anything social. Theists who want to state their claims in open debate do so at their own risk to ego, and some do not cope well, while others show a remarkable stubbornness and resilience to critique. It's all theater and entertainment, but also illuminating of how others live and think.

So why are you hear?

To listen. HAHAHA.

The more biased you are, the more "extraordinary" you think the theists claim is. And yet it's actually more logically sound that the atheist counter claim.

You suffer from murky thinking and poor analysis where it comes to religious belief. You are quite astute when it comes to creationism and right wing political claims. You don't miss a chance to accuse atheists of anything, which indicates a strong and consumed bias.