Atheists: does God exist?

[Mock Turtle]

You take way too much for granted - having any sense of morality is a spiritual derivation - no spirit came from stardust and protoplasm.
You atheists are blind as bats - staring right a creature fashioned in the image of God, and you detect no evidence for His existence, whatsoever???
Unbelievable.

What is unbelievable is that you don't seem to be bothered as to the evidence inevitably coming from our explorations and investigations as to life, the universe, and everything. So that we learn from this - as evidenced by our progress as a species. Why don't you at least try to learn - for example, as to what we are beginning to understand with regards animal behaviour and what makes up each of the more intelligent and/or social species. If you did so perhaps you might not have this reliance on descriptions and dogma coming from some old religious text - that had none of this knowledge.

And one can do all this without necessarily compromising one's position as to God beliefs.

PS And if you did more searching - as to the extent of human behaviour and how peoples live in more primitive societies (Tribes in South America or South-East Asia, for example), you will understand as to how morality is just as much relative and subjective - because the circumstances and environments within which people live is (and has been) varied and often tends to produce differences in morality because of such. Even now there is no objective morality other than those projected by various religious beliefs, which of course are not necessarily the same.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One can tell the extent of one's intellect and depth of perception, based on how they feel about the world and mankind - maybe that's why the JW's split so abruptly ...that's why I would.
Mankind is wicked, and always has been. And as much as it is only a fool who would say in his heart that God does not exist, equally, only a fool would regard the world as anything less than corrupt and subversive.

BTW, I prefer the Rolling Stones to Dylan

I don't know where you have gotten such a sad outlook on life from but I'm certainly glad not to have such.

As to Dylan and the Stones - I like both, but Dylan had the greatest affect on those later I suspect - but his voice no doubt is a matter of taste.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No other creature on earth concerns themselves with the victim's plight, because no one of the animal kingdom has enacted a law that prohibits killing, abuse, anger, fighting and so on. No monkey protests the fact that a lion just came and ate its baby alive. When an antelope losses it offspring, they do not hold funerals or give eulogies.

This recently, and where the video can be found on the internet, such that if some creatures seem so upset as to basic things like food, why would they not feel equally as to much more important things, like life and death?

The Science of Reducing Prejudice in Kids

Even some animals have a sense of what is wrong, as ethologist Frans de Waal of Emory University and others have demonstrated. In an experiment de Waal conducted with Sarah F. Brosnan, now at Georgia State University, a capuchin monkey became furious when she got a piece of cucumber as a reward for handing the experimenter a rock while another monkey instead got a real treat: a grape.

 

[McBell]

When an antelope losses it offspring, they do not hold funerals or give eulogies.

Elephants do"

Asian elephants seen burying their dead for the first time

Five elephant calves have been found buried in drainage ditches on tea-growing estates in India in a rare example of burial behaviour in non-human animals

www.newscientist.com

'They are very well aware of their agency': Elephant calf burial ritual discovered in India

Elephant burial rituals have been discovered in India, with herd members placing calves upside down in irrigation pits then covering the bodies with soil.

www.livescience.com

Tragic And Mysterious Elephant Burial Ritual Witnessed by Scientists

Asian elephants loudly mourn and bury their dead calves, according to a study by Indian scientists that details animal behaviour reminiscent of human funeral rites.

www.sciencealert.com

Rare Video Shows Elephants 'Mourning' Matriarch's Death

A poignant scene from Africa sheds new light on animal behavior.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One can tell the extent of one's intellect and depth of perception, based on how they feel about the world and mankind

Agreed. I found it remarkable that these Witnesses were going door-to-door telling people like me how bad the world is when I know that their world is good. It was a beautiful Sunday morning, the weather was good as is usually the case where I live, they and I were doing exactly what we wanted to be doing, we were both safe, comfortable, clothed, well-fed, and had homes and lived with loved ones. The had freedom in paradise yet were living in a fog of doom and gloom.

I would have asked them about that, but as I noted, they quickly lost interest in me - somebody who didn't slam the door in their face and was willing to engage in friendly, constructive conversation with them - and were gone within about 2-3 minutes.

maybe that's why the JW's split so abruptly

I was simply too happy for them, and they were apparently either unprepared to deal with that or considered it a dead end. If the latter, they were correct. It's pretty hard to sell the cure for a disease that somebody doesn't suffer from. The JWs offer the illusion of sanctuary in a horrible world. What do they have to offer a person who finds the world a pleasant place and life a pleasant experience? Apparently, they thought that they had nothing to say to such a person.

Mankind is wicked, and always has been.

I see they've reached you as well. Yes, some people are malevolent, but I for one don't have to interact with such people much, nor do the people I socialize with.

only a fool would regard the world as anything less than corrupt and subversive.

I'm guessing that you go door-to-door for your church? You sound just like the people who came to my door. Ever done any of that?

Incidentally, the Witnesses have come by twice more since that encounter, but now I just say thank you and goodbye to them if I answer the door at all. We have a ring camera and can see who's there before making the trip to the front gate, and the Witnesses are pretty easy to identify on sight. I think that our last encounter was disorienting and frustrating to them, and they have no chance of anything with me but a pleasant conversation if they were so inclined, which apparently they're not, so there's no point in doing more than speak to them on speaker and say no thanks.

If you have any sense of right and wrong it could only come from a moral entity.

Yes, and that entity is the conscience. My conscience assesses situations and identifies them as good or bad according to a utilitarian and Golden Rule intuition. I can't tell you why I gravitate to that, which is why I call it an intuition; it just feels right. But I can tell you that it has helped me navigate life in a way that I have had and still now have love, friends, and the respect of others, and little reason for guilt, shame, or remorse.

You referred to foolishness in atheism, but this is where that path has taken me, which meets my definition of wisdom. If intelligence is the lower-level knowledge of how the world works, wisdom is the higher-level knowledge of how to live in order to be happy and satisfied. Trump is a good example. He figured out how to achieve his immediate goals of power, wealth, and adulation, but has never been happy and is now in a state of shame and misery that will never end for him until he dies. That meets my definition of foolishness.

And why did that happen to him? No conscience to inhibit a bilious, insatiable, and vengeful personality.

You sound simple ... You're living in a fantasy ... You're worldview is deficient

That's my view of the Witnesses who visited me.

 

[Tomef]

If you have any sense of right and wrong it could only come from a moral entity.

What gives you that notion? Animals of all kinds have ways of behaving that benefit the group. These behaviours have become entrenched over time because they work. Why would humans need some other means of learning to act morally? Morals are not some abstract thing, they are rooted in the same processes that drive evolution; the need to survive and thrive. Our greater self-awareness gives us more latitude to consider and codify these behaviours - for example inventing a god, and borrowing from earlier writings to have some sets of rules to go by - and the principles are universal, in one form or another. They come from the natural process of development that tends towards life and away from things that hinder that.

 

[EconGuy]

With respect to everyone in this conversation, if I may, I'd like to point out that morality is a result, not a foundation.

Morality is a set rules based on a foundation of shared values. It's logically inconsistent to claim to have ideas of right and wrong irrespective of the underlying conditions that make something right or wrong.

Ponder for a moment the statement, rape is wrong. Now try and tell me why it's wrong without describing how it affects the person that it's happening to without acknowledging the harm and suffering it causes. We value being free from harm and suffering which is the foundation upon which rests the idea that rape is morally wrong.

The only way to describe why rape is wrong independent of the harm and suffering it causes is to claim that it's wrong because god says so. But then this leads to the uncomfortable realization that in that context, anything could be considered good if only a god proclaims it. If on the other hand a person acknowledges that something is or bad because of the pain and suffering it causes, then why do we need the divine to remind us of the obvious, that pain and suffering are bad? I'd argue that that more pain and suffering has been delt at the hands of the self-righteous using a god as their motivation than otherwise.

The problem comes when defining morality as either subjective or objective. It's both.

If I asked you how tall you are and you tell me 6' (in freedom units). If I asked are you objectively 6' tall? How might you answer?

If I measure you and you are 6' beside a ruler that everyone recognizes as accurate, then you are objectively 6' tall. You can claim whatever you want, but you are 6' tall. However, the system that defines freedom units is subjective, that is, the distance in space that we call 6' was chosen subjectively (not arbitrarily). Once the system is widely socialized an adopted, we can all recognize what it. Now anything called 6' that does not measure a distance in space that a standard ruler calls 6', isn't 6'.

If you go to the gas station and pump 20 gallons (sorry, freedom units again) and claim you only pumped 5 and try to leave, you're going to be arrested for stealing.

The point is, we don't need objective systems of morality any more than we need objective systems of measurement. Measurement systems are similar to moral systems in that everyone might consider themselves be better off if they didn't have to follow the system, and yet the vast, vast majority do. Systems of measurement are social system that reflect our desire to avoid conflict and chaos in markets and when trying to build etc. We've already proved that a system where every single individual would be better off if they could cheat and yest the vast majority of people accept it and follow it.

So for those that tell me we can't have morality without morality external to us, tell me, why do systems of measurement work?

 

[setarcos]

Being an atheist is as demanding as not believing in Santa Claus.

Setting aside the obvious differences in ontological class between the two beings - Santa Claus and God - you might consider the fact that the contemporary character we've come to know as Santa Claus in his many cultural variations is based upon an actual person who lived in an actual time and place in reality. In his case the person who corporally enacted his beliefs evolved into a bastardized version of those good ideals which became represented by commercial greed and useful convenience.

So what do you think our conceptions of divinity are based upon? After you regurgitate the same old response - Our primitive ancestors sought out explanations for the natural phenomena that they couldn't understand etc. etc. – I’ll just quote what I've said elsewhere on this and leave it up to you to agree or disagree...

“I don't think the ancient version of "blaming the Gods for phenomena" was understood in quite the same way we "less"? primitive people believe.
More and more discoveries are showing that our ancient ancestors weren't quite the all-pervasive ignorant religious zealots that we tend to portray them as. There's no proof that they looked at some unfamiliar phenomenon and simply believed a God did it. There's little proof that the creation stories told etc. were to be taken literally rather than metaphorically. I think some truth has been taken and mythologized over the years.
Why would we think that a primitive culture would automatically jump to supernatural causes when nature was all they knew? That would be quite an abstractive jump in their thinking. Unless....”

Is it possible that some semblance of divine truth has become bastardized to degrees over the years in the many different versions of religion?

Perhaps atheists might not find it very demanding to not believe in Santa Claus because their hubris leads them to believe something has been proven through lack of proof as long as it conforms to their current belief system. Many seem to be just as good at obfuscating and equivocating terms as any other class of "ideologues".

You're thowing a lot of spaghetti at the wall here, and blurring definitions.

You might be right. Everyone on here seems to love hitting walls with spaghetti at times. I'm no exception of course. I'll walk with you on this as far as I can.
With commentary of course.‍I'm only human.

This illustrates how social experience will drive what we believe and what we experience, even if the experiences are created in our minds.

Okay? So our experiences help develop our beliefs and it's a given that all beliefs are a creation of the mind. Everything I've said I think endorses that idea or at least doesn't contradict it.
A girl might have posters of unicorns etc. in her room not necessarily because she's thought about their actual existence but most likely because she believes the depiction, idea, and stories she's heard about pretty pink ponies with horns is attractive, cool, fascinating or whatever her preferred adjective is in her current development. She might at the same time not believe or believe they do exist but that is a separate belief based upon separate experiences. However, both still require belief to meaningfully interact with the subject.
Still not seeing how this shows a blurring of definitions?

Yet these discussions show us you are wrong.

Of course I am wrong. You wouldn’t have it any other way.
Can you tell me how an Atheist can discuss his beliefs without knowing what has first been agreed upon as to what the terms of the discussion mean?
When a person says "I am a (whatever)." That person needs to know what the "whatever" means (information/data) AND why they think it aptly describes what they are (a belief).
How am I wrong?

Yet atheists do know quite a bit about concepts of Gods that believers present

And what I said was "I think we all know though that Atheists have plenty to say and they do."
AND
"I also think that it’s absurd to believe that Atheists who have plenty to say do not say it from a position of personal belief. Otherwise I'd have to believe all atheists are passionless robots."

Don't atheists think about what they say? They aren't all mindless automatons are they?
Experience initiates thought. Belief implements that thought.

make assessments without bias that culture instills in most people.

Come on....do you really believe this. We are all biased to degrees. Atheists are no better at being unbiased than any other group.

This statement would fall under a lot of logical fallacies.
Moral superiority fallacy, ad populum fallacy, simpliciter fallacy, and plain old bias fallacy which is - just because you’re biased does not mean you’re wrong. And thank God for that since we're all somewhat biased but some of us can still be right.

Atheists don't accept the claims made by believers that God X or God Y exists, yet have plenty to say. So your beliefs here are incorrect.

? You’re literally proving my point. If you don't accept a claim then you've implemented a judgement on that claim based upon your beliefs about that claim.
For instance, I might ask you why you believe the claim is unacceptable.

Could it be that your religious beliefs are so dominant over your perspective that you can't understand how non-belief works?

Awe potatoes! Okay....how do you define non-belief we'll walk through it from there so I understand what you mean. Been down this road before but that's okay, I like the scenery. Non-belief, I have no belief, I don't believe, I do believe, I don’t know to me mean the following...
Having no belief in or a non-belief of, if you insist, is non-actionable -even in questioning another's belief.
As in...If you have no belief, you cannot believe you know anything about the accuracy of another's claims. Such as whether or not those claims have been proven.
Not believing is epistemologically equivalent to saying I believe your belief is incorrect. As in I do not believe in what you believe in about reality because I believe your belief is not accurate to reality.
Even saying “I don’t know” is a belief. As in…I can’t decide because I believe I don’t have enough information to make a decision. The act of not committing is itself an act of belief.

How much personal belief is involved with not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

How do we determine degrees of belief? I kind of believe? I slightly believe? I’m 50% certain?
If you’re asking me what "I" believe it has to be personal and there are three choices; I believe, I don’t believe, or I abstain.
Belief can also be subcategorized into personal belief and belief as an object of inquiry. But only personal belief must exist within the person in all cases.
Anyway...One should develop quite a lot of personal beliefs once one commits to understanding the truth about a subject.

Believers have a position that they have to show is true

I think we've covered this. If true is supposed to equal proof then it’s not going to happen. Science can't even prove their own theories "true". The best we can do is attempt to show that it is more likely, or at least as likely to be true given certain conditions.

What’s more, believers don’t HAVE TO anything. If their reasons are good enough for them to believe then it matters little if it’s unacceptably unprovable to non-believers. That alone doesn’t make believers wrong. It might be extremely annoying to non-believers but they’ll just have to accept that that doesn’t prove believers to be wrong. Now, if non-believers can demonstrably show that believers are wrong in some fashion in their belief then that is a whole other situation and level of annoyance especially if believers still don’t change that belief.

Atheists don't. But your post thus far is an effort to impose beliefs onto atheists that we don't have.

For one thing, according to many atheists, no one can ask them to prove anything since they haven't a belief which must be defended. However that would equally apply to the atheists attempt to prove a theist wrong on a particular issue since atheists would have no belief on which to found the applicability of their thoughts upon.

Even if atheists did have beliefs in regard to god concepts we still have the advantage given the ack of evidence for any of the thousands of gods in human lore.

Advantage? Do scientists have an advantage over their peers if they haven’t a theory of their own that may be disproven? If so in what way are they closer to reality? If they have beliefs in regard to god concepts are you saying that a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack? I think you know that wouldn’t logically follow.

That lack of evidence depends on what evidence you’re seeking to found your beliefs upon.
I find the most natural logical progression is from the many finite beings to the one infinite being. Humans naturally think hierarchically. The God concept is simply a natural pinnacle to that thinking. And no that isn’t an attempt at proving Gods existence.

Therefore I primarily base my discussions upon monotheism. What name this supreme being is given does not matter in debating its possible existence?
Nor does it matter the number of supposed gods that have been claimed to exist. Metaphysical beings are not like butterflies flittering around the countryside where the larger the population the more likely you are to glimpse a particular species. Your tools may be inadequate, you may be looking in the wrong place, or your eyesight might simply be too poor.
By their very nature metaphysical beings are beyond the natural tools at our disposal to use to prove their existence. The evidence is often personal experience, unrepeatable phenomena, or unexplainable single events. We can't choose to reveal Gods existence. God chooses to reveal its existence to us.
And I believe God has done just that with evidence that can be cooperatively interpreted from our natural universe.

This has gotten lengthy. I'll continue commenting on your response later in the next post.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

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?

No

 

[F1fan]

Setting aside the obvious differences in ontological class between the two beings - Santa Claus and God -

Sorry, the content of any abstract concept has no "class" just because the content says so. Gods are in the same category of literary characters. Yahweh is in the same category as Hobbits and even Santa Claus. Gods don't get special treatment due to their popularity, and how many consider some of these ideas true and significant.

you might consider the fact that the contemporary character we've come to know as Santa Claus in his many cultural variations is based upon an actual person who lived in an actual time and place in reality. In his case the person who corporally enacted his beliefs evolved into a bastardized version of those good ideals which became represented by commercial greed and useful convenience.

Yeah, Santa is more credible as a character than any God. I suggest that most every child believes in Santa for a time, and some of them become atheists, making Santa a character with more believers. Of course, all belief is uncertain, and humans often make the error of judgment that implausible ideas are true.

So what do you think our conceptions of divinity are based upon?

Culture and traditions of belief that are passed on to next generations. Look at how religions and sects are regional and geographical, that's because these diverse beliefs are social, not factual.

After you regurgitate the same old response - Our primitive ancestors sought out explanations for the natural phenomena that they couldn't understand etc. etc. – I’ll just quote what I've said elsewhere on this and leave it up to you to agree or disagree...

Yea, anceint people lacked knowledge, but wanted answers. They created answers and today how many are supported by facts? You tell me. Do any of the most common Gods have facts that demonstrate they exist outside of human imagination? How accurate is the Bible or Quran? They aren't.

Is it possible that some semblance of divine truth has become bastardized to degrees over the years in the many different versions of religion?

Do you mean did God allow religions to become corrupt? How does that suggest a God exists and interacts with humans? It doesn't.

Perhaps atheists might not find it very demanding to not believe in Santa Claus because their hubris leads them to believe something has been proven through lack of proof as long as it conforms to their current belief system. Many seem to be just as good at obfuscating and equivocating terms as any other class of "ideologues".

Start asking questions instead of making up answers that are inaccurate. Atheists give believers plenty of oppirtunity to explain how religion is true. When theists fail, it's their failure alone. Atheists owe believers nothing.

Okay? So our experiences help develop our beliefs and it's a given that all beliefs are a creation of the mind. Everything I've said I think endorses that idea or at least doesn't contradict it.
A girl might have posters of unicorns etc. in her room not necessarily because she's thought about their actual existence but most likely because she believes the depiction, idea, and stories she's heard about pretty pink ponies with horns is attractive, cool, fascinating or whatever her preferred adjective is in her current development. She might at the same time not believe or believe they do exist but that is a separate belief based upon separate experiences. However, both still require belief to meaningfully interact with the subject.
Still not seeing how this shows a blurring of definitions?

We see examples of little girls being associated with unicorns in cartoons and movies and other products. This is cultural and marketing, which is what our Capitalist society wants and does. Santa Claus gets promoted, too. Religions promote their symbols and products, and citizens get influenced by them. Some absorb it, some don't. Atheists reject the indoctrination, the associations with identity, the influences, etc. that religions are otherwise successful at making work.

Of course I am wrong. You wouldn’t have it any other way.

I'd prefer you being correct, but that's your decision.

Can you tell me how an Atheist can discuss his beliefs without knowing what has first been agreed upon as to what the terms of the discussion mean?

What controversial terms are there? English is quite a reliable tool. Atheists won't accept religious assumptions, perhaps that is what you mean.

When a person says "I am a (whatever)." That person needs to know what the "whatever" means (information/data) AND why they think it aptly describes what they are (a belief).
How am I wrong?

Did I ever say you were wrong about this particular thing?

And what I said was "I think we all know though that Atheists have plenty to say and they do."
AND
"I also think that it’s absurd to believe that Atheists who have plenty to say do not say it from a position of personal belief. Otherwise I'd have to believe all atheists are passionless robots."

Don't atheists think about what they say? They aren't all mindless automatons are they?

I'm not sure what the context these statements were. At face value they don't make sense.

And do you really think some atheists are mindless automatons? If so, what gave you that idea? Their independent thinking?

Come on....do you really believe this. We are all biased to degrees. Atheists are no better at being unbiased than any other group.

Most atheists, including myself, give belkievers plenty of opportunity to explain and justify their beliefs and claims. We don't owe believers anything.

This statement would fall under a lot of logical fallacies.
Moral superiority fallacy, ad populum fallacy, simpliciter fallacy, and plain old bias fallacy which is - just because you’re biased does not mean you’re wrong. And thank God for that since we're all somewhat biased but some of us can still be right.

An accusation, yet no explanation. So I reject it. You give me nothing to consider, and your biased condemnation is reason enough for rejection.

 

[F1fan]

? You’re literally proving my point. If you don't accept a claim then you've implemented a judgement on that claim based upon your beliefs about that claim.

Incorrect. I've been debating religion since 1996, I am fully aware of the many diverse claims believers make, and I don't have to believe anything to understand these claims are not plausible or defendable. You certainly offer nothing to demonstrate any God exists.

For instance, I might ask you why you believe the claim is unacceptable.

There's no belief required. Because not only do claims of supernatural beings lack evidence, they are often contrary to what we know of reality. What other option do I have but to reject these claims? Atheists owe believers nothing.

Awe potatoes! Okay....how do you define non-belief we'll walk through it from there so I understand what you mean. Been down this road before but that's okay, I like the scenery. Non-belief, I have no belief, I don't believe, I do believe, I don’t know to me mean the following...
Having no belief in or a non-belief of, if you insist, is non-actionable -even in questioning another's belief.
As in...If you have no belief, you cannot believe you know anything about the accuracy of another's claims. Such as whether or not those claims have been proven.
Not believing is epistemologically equivalent to saying I believe your belief is incorrect. As in I do not believe in what you believe in about reality because I believe your belief is not accurate to reality.
Even saying “I don’t know” is a belief. As in…I can’t decide because I believe I don’t have enough information to make a decision. The act of not committing is itself an act of belief.

You seem to overlook knowledge as a factor in assessing claims. When someone claims the world will come to an end on May 1st because God told them. 1. Gods aren't known to exist, 2. there have been many, many claims of end times, so we can be skeptical. Then may 2nd comes, well, we know the claim was bogus. If your friend Jim says he got a new pet cat, but shows up with a dog on a leash, you don't need to believe anything about what you are observing, Jim was joking or has some mental issue. This assumes you can discern dogs from cats.

How do we determine degrees of belief? I kind of believe? I slightly believe? I’m 50% certain?

Easy. Do you really struggle with this?

If you’re asking me what "I" believe it has to be personal and there are three choices; I believe, I don’t believe, or I abstain.

That is a black/white rule you have for yourself. For me I can can assess an idea and be aware that I have some doubt about it. Look at a trial. If you have seen the movie My Cousin Vinny it's a good example of a case that is strong against the boys. It's easy for the jury to convict based on the testimony and evidence. The final scenes reveal facts about the evidence that slowly creates doubt that the boys did it.

Or you hear a neighbor say that the guy across the street is a serial killer. But he's a nice guy and you believe it. But really? You send your wife over there to borrow some sugar, and she comes back. Are you going to trust a rumor?

Belief can also be subcategorized into personal belief and belief as an object of inquiry. But only personal belief must exist within the person in all cases.
Anyway...One should develop quite a lot of personal beliefs once one commits to understanding the truth about a subject.

All belief is uncertain. But some can be unconvinced either way. I have watched some true crime investigations where they have suspects but lack adequate evidence. I've definately been unsure and have no opinion.

I think we've covered this. If true is supposed to equal proof then it’s not going to happen. Science can't even prove their own theories "true".

Really? The 99.95% minimum isn't adequate for you? Do you even know what a theory in science is? I believe you are a poorly informed person where it comes to science. My evidence? What you just wrote. It's 7th grade science and you don't have a grasp of it. Yet you have an opinion about it that is inaccurate.

What’s more, believers don’t HAVE TO anything. If their reasons are good enough for them to believe then it matters little if it’s unacceptably unprovable to non-believers.

In debate it is bad manners. If you make a claim in a debate forum it is expected that you be willing to support it with evidence and answer questions.

That alone doesn’t make believers wrong.

In logic the default of any claim is that it is untrue, and the claims is demonstrated true by adequate evidence and a coherent explanation. Theists fail this routinely. They are by default incorrect.

It might be extremely annoying to non-believers but they’ll just have to accept that that doesn’t prove believers to be wrong. Now, if non-believers can demonstrably show that believers are wrong in some fashion in their belief then that is a whole other situation and level of annoyance especially if believers still don’t change that belief.

Non-believers are not convinced the claims are true. If believers bother to make claims of truth then they had better be able to present a valid case. Theists routinely overestimate their reasons and ability.

For one thing, according to many atheists, no one can ask them to prove anything since they haven't a belief which must be defended.

Correct. Not being convinced that theists are correct is nothing that has to be argued. If you claim to be Santa Claus and I don't believe you, I don't have to prove that I don't believe such an outrageous claim. Of course I'll give you the chance to prove you have some miraculous secret. I'll give you a list and my address.

However that would equally apply to the atheists attempt to prove a theist wrong on a particular issue since atheists would have no belief on which to found the applicability of their thoughts upon.

Theists don't have to prove theists wrong WHEN theists fail to present a case that is likley true. Theists so often fail to launch, and they are easy pickin's for savvy atheists who expose the mistakes of believers.

Advantage? Do scientists have an advantage over their peers if they haven’t a theory of their own that may be disproven? If so in what way are they closer to reality? If they have beliefs in regard to god concepts are you saying that a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack? I think you know that wouldn’t logically follow.

You don't understand science well enough for me to explain this error of yours. This is embarrassing for you. This is avoidable. I suggest you read science basics.

That lack of evidence depends on what evidence you’re seeking to found your beliefs upon.

There are well established standards in logic, journalism, science, law, etc. Not controversial for the well informed.

I find the most natural logical progression is from the many finite beings to the one infinite being. Humans naturally think hierarchically. The God concept is simply a natural pinnacle to that thinking. And no that isn’t an attempt at proving Gods existence.

These aren't factual statements.

Therefore I primarily base my discussions upon monotheism. What name this supreme being is given does not matter in debating its possible existence?

Call it Fred. I don't care. Where's your evidence? Nothing offered in all these words of yours.

Nor does it matter the number of supposed gods that have been claimed to exist.

It suggests a pattern of human behavior. That is significant.

Metaphysical beings are not like butterflies flittering around the countryside where the larger the population the more likely you are to glimpse a particular species. Your tools may be inadequate, you may be looking in the wrong place, or your eyesight might simply be too poor.

Too bad you have no evidence that my vison is poor. This isn't an uncommon tactic by theists. When I see attempts at mind tricks and accusations like this, and no evidence, it indicates insecurity and awareness that the self could be mistaken.

By their very nature metaphysical beings are beyond the natural tools at our disposal to use to prove their existence.

Assuming they exist, which you haven't established. So irrelevant.

The evidence is often personal experience, unrepeatable phenomena, or unexplainable single events. We can't choose to reveal Gods existence. God chooses to reveal its existence to us.

All of which could be minds being manipulated or imagined experiences. We need evidence, not guesses.

And I believe God has done just that with evidence that can be cooperatively interpreted from our natural universe.

Yet not a single word about it. So irrelevant.

This has gotten lengthy. I'll continue commenting on your response later in the next post.

Oh no. Why don't you go see a movie.

 

[viole]

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?

Of course not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[DNB]

I'm curious, and please, understand, I'm genuine when I ask this question as I'm very interested in the concept of subjective vs objective morality.

Assuming that something like rape, forcing another person to engage in sex without their implicit or explicit permission, is wrong. Why is it wrong? Please explain based on your belief that right and wrong can only come from a moral entity.

And understand I think it's wrong, but I don't think it requires a moral entity for me to say it and provide a logical and reasonable basis for my belief.

Respectfully,

EG

Meaning, the endowment, and not the precept. Because you are repulsed by rape or cold-blooded murder reveals an innate sense of equity and compassion. No other creature besides humans have an awareness and demand for legality and justice.

And only a spiritual entity, as opposed to stardust and protoplasm, could've have created us with such a disposition in regard to morality - man is created in God's image.

 

[DNB]

What is unbelievable is that you don't seem to be bothered as to the evidence inevitably coming from our explorations and investigations as to life, the universe, and everything. So that we learn from this - as evidenced by our progress as a species. Why don't you at least try to learn - for example, as to what we are beginning to understand with regards animal behaviour and what makes up each of the more intelligent and/or social species. If you did so perhaps you might not have this reliance on descriptions and dogma coming from some old religious text - that had none of this knowledge.

And one can do all this without necessarily compromising one's position as to God beliefs.

PS And if you did more searching - as to the extent of human behaviour and how peoples live in more primitive societies (Tribes in South America or South-East Asia, for example), you will understand as to how morality is just as much relative and subjective - because the circumstances and environments within which people live is (and has been) varied and often tends to produce differences in morality because of such. Even now there is no objective morality other than those projected by various religious beliefs, which of course are not necessarily the same.

Wisdom determines morality - one's moral system can be proven to be more efficacious than another's.
You've been left behind - still can't get past primitive studies, while all the evidence as to what is actually occurring on earth, as far as man's motives are concerned, is eluding you.
You keep staring at the finger, and not to what it is pointing at.

 

[DNB]

I don't know where you have gotten such a sad outlook on life from but I'm certainly glad not to have such.

As to Dylan and the Stones - I like both, but Dylan had the greatest affect on those later I suspect - but his voice no doubt is a matter of taste.

Man should hate the conventions and constructs of the world, as we understand who the god of this world is. Man's hope and joy is in the reconstruction of all things.

Dylan was probably more influential - had an appeal to a wider audience. Not because he was a better artist, I believe, but that his music did not go to extremes and marginalize part of his listenership. Stones were more one-sided rock/blues

 

[DNB]

This recently, and where the video can be found on the internet, such that if some creatures seem so upset as to basic things like food, why would they not feel equally as to much more important things, like life and death?

The Science of Reducing Prejudice in Kids

You're joking? You need an experiment to tell you the capacity for morality of a monkey, or a tiger, or a fish, or a bumble bee???

 

[DNB]

Elephants do"

Asian elephants seen burying their dead for the first time

Five elephant calves have been found buried in drainage ditches on tea-growing estates in India in a rare example of burial behaviour in non-human animals

www.newscientist.com

'They are very well aware of their agency': Elephant calf burial ritual discovered in India

Elephant burial rituals have been discovered in India, with herd members placing calves upside down in irrigation pits then covering the bodies with soil.

www.livescience.com

Tragic And Mysterious Elephant Burial Ritual Witnessed by Scientists

Asian elephants loudly mourn and bury their dead calves, according to a study by Indian scientists that details animal behaviour reminiscent of human funeral rites.

www.sciencealert.com

Rare Video Shows Elephants 'Mourning' Matriarch's Death

A poignant scene from Africa sheds new light on animal behavior.

www.nationalgeographic.com

You sound convinced, ...or should I say credulous?

 

[DNB]

What gives you that notion? Animals of all kinds have ways of behaving that benefit the group. These behaviours have become entrenched over time because they work. Why would humans need some other means of learning to act morally? Morals are not some abstract thing, they are rooted in the same processes that drive evolution; the need to survive and thrive. Our greater self-awareness gives us more latitude to consider and codify these behaviours - for example inventing a god, and borrowing from earlier writings to have some sets of rules to go by - and the principles are universal, in one form or another. They come from the natural process of development that tends towards life and away from things that hinder that.

animals eat each other alive - how in the world could they have a sense of justice and compassion

 

[McBell]

You sound convinced, ...or should I say credulous?

I say that I am much more inclined to follow the evidence.
The evidence I presented strongly indicate you are just plain flat out wrong.
That you hand wave it away reveals much about your zealotry.

Since your posts strongly indicate you are not here for honest discourse....

 

[EconGuy]

Meaning, the endowment, and not the precept. Because you are repulsed by rape or cold-blooded murder reveals an innate sense of equity and compassion. No other creature besides humans have an awareness and demand for legality and justice.

And only a spiritual entity, as opposed to stardust and protoplasm, could've have created us with such a disposition in regard to morality - man is created in God's image.

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that our sense of morality is fascinating. However, I think it's important to consider that values (where humans are the valuer doing the valuing) come first, providing the framework for us to judge actions as being right or wrong. You could resort to special pleading) by claiming that god is the objective source of morality while ignoring that his proclamations are, subjective in that god is the subject when considering the subject-object relationship.

Think of it like this: imagine trying to create a system of measurement without knowing what you want to measure. The purpose of the measurement – whether it's length, weight, or temperature – determines the kind of system we develop. Similarly, our values about well-being, fairness, or compassion shape our moral judgments. To say that they exist independent of human valuing is to run into the rather uncomfortable fact that, if that's true, a god could proclaim anything, even rape, to be moral and you'd have to admit that it is because you appear to believe that human values should be shaped by gods arbitrary commands, what you'd call morality, rather than admitting that morals are the result of experience, reason, awareness, empathy modified by social, cultural and ecological environment.

The idea of morality existing outside of human values and concerns seems problematic. If morality is disconnected from what we seek to achieve or avoid, then it becomes arbitrary. That could justify any action, no matter how harmful.

Social systems like standardized systems of measurement (as one example) work because we all agree on the underlying values of accuracy and fairness in exchange. When someone cheats that system, we recognize it as wrong because it undermines those shared values. We don't need an objective set of measurement for society to come to a majority consensus, despite the fact that virtually everyone would be better off if they cheated the system.

I think this highlights how morality stems from our needs, desires, and our understanding of how to thrive as individuals and within a society. This doesn't diminish the importance of morality, but suggests its origins are rooted in our human experience rather than solely in a divine source.