Atheists: If God existed would God……

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did see that movie and I was surprised how many factual elements were part of the plot. I actually decided to watch it because i was convinced it would be horrible, but was actually somewhat impressed.

Hmm. I actually haven't watched it for the same reason: I also assumed it would be terrible. But now, I might give it a look.

Both books of fiction were set in real historical events, the first being the French Revolution and the second being the Spanish Civil War. The characters were invented and the events depicted never happened. So this illustrates that humans have mixed true and false to create narratives about the human condition. Religious texts seem to fit into this category more than history.

Yep!

It's the age-old "Manhattan is a real place and I'm sure at least one Peter Parker lives there - but that doesn't mean he's Spiderman".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not directly, no.

Not indirectly either.

..but something was most certainly going on.

Sure. The same thing that went on a thousand times before and after: humans coming up with religious variation of established previous beliefs.

Even today, such things happen.
Take a look at scientology. I'm not old enough, but this "religion" was invented AND grew to the point of having millions of followers worldwide within the lifetime of my parents. This one is even quite exceptional, since it has no roots in previously established beliefs. It's not a "variation" of anything. It's brand new.

There's an island somewhere, forgot the name, where they worship a UK prince as a god. He visited the place decades ago and some guy saw in him a "divine being". Now pretty much the whole tribe thinks he's god.

Religions are invented all the time.
There's plenty of documented recent ones that demonstrate that. The ones I just mentioned for example. Or Rastafarianism. Mormonism. You don't even need to look very hard to find them.

It is a tall order, to claim that the Abrahamic G-d is a conspiracy that spans centuries.

Who said anything about conspiracies?
I don't think I ever even used that word in this context, let alone in this conversation.
Au contraire, I have always said that I consider religious believers (be it founders or followers), for the most part at least, are quite sincere in their beliefs.

..because you are an atheist.

Huh???
My atheism is about rejecting theistic claims.
It's not about rejecting the existence of theism and its impact on culture and society as a whole...
What are you on about?

It seems you are still confusing the existence of the religion itself, with the accuracy of its contents.

Scientology has quite some impact in Hollywood as well. But it's obvious nonsense either way.

You don't say

Funny how you can immediatly catch up with the logic when it comes to Lord of the Rings, but can't comprehend the exact same logic when it comes to a religious book.

Note that I'm not asking you to agree to it.
But you don't even seem to be comprehending the point made (cfr: the difference between the religion factually existing on the one hand, and the accuracy of its contents and claims on the other)

I'm used to atheists making false statements, and that is yet another.

And yet, you don't even bother to explain why you think it is false.
I made my case. You haven't. All you can do is deny and assert "you're wrong" without any further explanation whatsoever.

Why is it wrong?

You will never agree to the significance of religion, so you don't have any other choice. You have to claim that any evidence that I might present is non-admissable.

No. I look at it on a case by case basis. You present me with what you consider evidence and I'll be happy to honesty evaluate it.

Off course, if all you can give me is the piling on of more claims (in the form of religious scripture, anecdotes, hearsay, ...) then I will point out that adding claims to a claim is not valid as evidence for said claim.

Not my fault if all you can give me is circularity and other fallacious reasoning.

By all means, if you can present me with independently verifiable evidence for anything "divine", I'm all ears and extremely interested.

But I will admit, I'm not expecting that AT ALL. Because if such evidence exists, every single theist would lead with that whenever the topic of evidence comes up. The fact that nobody has EVER presented me with such, has forced me to conclude that such very likely simply doesn't exist.

So that's the conclusion I run with until someone shows otherwise.
Can you?

There is the Bible and there is the Qur'an.

And the iliad. And the bagavad ghita. And dianetics. And the book of the dead. etc etc etc

So what?
Are the contents of all these mutually exclusive books true and accurate, just because the books exist?

Billions of people are satisfied that there is enough evidence to believe in G-d.

Yet none of them seem able to share this evidence. Curious, isn't it?

They didn't dream it up themselves, like your 'Gandalf' was.

Was mormonism dreamed up? How about scientology? Rastafarianism? Hinduism? Buddhism? The viking gods? The roman gods? The egyptian gods? The ancient greek gods? The sumerian gods? The voodoo spirits? The Great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you, as a muslim, don't believe that any of these are real.
So therefor, that must mean that you believe that all these religions were dreamed up by humans, right?

So why is it okay for you to think that about those religions, but not okay for me to think the same about your religion?

Your argument is pathetic

You didn't even comprehend the argument. You still don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Muhammed was likely a real person, but the texts of the Quran can't be verified as true at face value given their fantastic claims, so we are naturally suspicious the fantastic bits are human invention.

Exactly....

Not to mention that we have PLENTY (ridiculously PLENTY) of precedents of people inventing fantastical things out of thin air (and even believing them!). But we have ZERO precedents of anything magical or "divine" or "supernatural" or whatever-you-wish-to-call-it.

And as Carl Sagan once said: extra ordinary claims, require extra ordinary evidence.
And the evidence is non-existing.

We can even go to Occam's razor... Assuming it's human invention requires NO assumptions (we KNOW for a FACT that humans tend to invent religions out of thin air - like mormonism, rastafarianism, scientology, etc which are all very recent). Assuming they are actually of "supernatural" origin, requires nothing BUT assumptions.

 

[F1fan]

Exactly....

Not to mention that we have PLENTY (ridiculously PLENTY) of precedents of people inventing fantastical things out of thin air (and even believing them!). But we have ZERO precedents of anything magical or "divine" or "supernatural" or whatever-you-wish-to-call-it.

And as Carl Sagan once said: extra ordinary claims, require extra ordinary evidence.
And the evidence is non-existing.

We can even go to Occam's razor... Assuming it's human invention requires NO assumptions (we KNOW for a FACT that humans tend to invent religions out of thin air - like mormonism, rastafarianism, scientology, etc which are all very recent). Assuming they are actually of "supernatural" origin, requires nothing BUT assumptions.

And I have to wonder if children were not raised to accept religious ideas all though their development, and if they were taught critical thinking skills, if there would as many believers as there are today. We see the hostility of education by some republicans in America and it seems they understand that education means better thinking skill, and less influence their appeals to religion and emotion will work on them.

Religions have been largely successful because they can present ideas that appeal to the emotions, mainly anxiety and fear, and get people to adopt the ideas before they can think what they really say. To my mind I find it immoral to indoctrinate the young in religious beliefs, but how could that sort of thing be widely accepted?

 

[lukethethird]

What is actual evidence? I believe I have actual evidence and you do not believe it is actual evidence. We disagree. There is nowhere to do with this.

Atheists act as if there is this magic thing called actual evidence, but it is just what you imagine should exist. What is actual evidence to me is not actual evidence to you. Most atheists figure this out pretty quickly and the discussion ends.

It is not my fault that atheists keep asking me for evidence. It is not my fault you do not consider what I offer as evidence. Once you realize that I don't have what you want you should drop the subject and move on. I cannot give you something I do not have.

I gave all the atheists a chance to tell me what would be evidence for God, since you do not consider Messengers to be evidence.

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

OK, so you are just playing word games.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I have to wonder if children were not raised to accept religious ideas all though their development, and if they were taught critical thinking skills, if there would as many believers as there are today.

I'm fairly sure there wouldn't.
I look at myself and my life-long friends as examples of that.

In our small village, we grew up in the 80s and went to the same school. We were classmates. It's public school, so there wasn't even a religious class. Our parents gave all of us a secular education. None of us were baptized. It wasn't even considered. Gods/religions were utter and complete non-issues during our upbringing. It was never discussed, never brought up,... completely and utterly irrelevant.

I'm trying to paint a picture, lol.

To theists who have trouble imagining what that was like.....

Consider this "sport": The World Extreme Ironing Championships - YouTube

Extreme ironing. Consider how much of a topic this sport was in your home during your upbringing from say age 0 to 16. Seriously. Think about it.
Now consider that "gods" and "religions" were about as relevant during our childhood as "extreme ironing" was in yours.


Now, all of us are 41/42.
ALL of us are, in all honesty, baffled by how people can believe any of these religious tales. And that goes for both fundamentalists as well as moderates.

It's so alien to me. In fact, that's where my fascination for religion and religious belief comes from. I really experience it all as extremely bizarre and weird.

We see the hostility of education by some republicans in America and it seems they understand that education means better thinking skill, and less influence their appeals to religion and emotion will work on them.

Yep. The demographics of atheism also further supports this. The higher the education level, the more like that the person is atheist. But off course, correlation doesn't imply causation. Although it's not exactly a stretch to take that leap in this case....

Religions have been largely successful because they can present ideas that appeal to the emotions, mainly anxiety and fear, and get people to adopt the ideas before they can think what they really say. To my mind I find it immoral to indoctrinate the young in religious beliefs, but how could that sort of thing be widely accepted?

Indeed. And on that point, it's also not hard to see how religions like christianity could take root in a society like ancient rome. The gods there were all about "the strong" etc.
The christian god was a god for the weak and poor. And there were a lot of them...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sure. The same thing that went on a thousand times before and after: humans coming up with religious variation of established previous beliefs.

That's your claim .. which is not provable.

Huh???
My atheism is about rejecting theistic claims.
It's not about rejecting the existence of theism and its impact on culture and society as a whole...
What are you on about?

Don't you know?
Whole societies worldwide, have sprung from Christianity alone, and yet you claim that although sincere, these people are not so smart as you, because you know better.

Funny how you can immediatly catch up with the logic when it comes to Lord of the Rings, but can't comprehend the exact same logic when it comes to a religious book.

Nothing strange about it at all.
You claim that you don't see the Bible being a conspiracy, yet you claim it to be equivalent to 'Lord of the Rings'.
That is incoherent. It is well known that the Bible is classified as non-fiction.

Yet none of them seem able to share this evidence. Curious, isn't it?

That's ridiculous. If there was no 'evidemce', there would be nothing to discuss.
..so I really don't know why you bother to reply.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you, as a muslim, don't believe that any of these are real.
So therefor, that must mean that you believe that all these religions were dreamed up by humans, right?

No .. that is not right.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's your claim .. which is not provable.

Off course it isn't. But it's extremely plausible and likely. Considering that:
1. we have LOADS of precedents of documented inventions of religions (mormonism, scientology, rastafarianism, etc)
2. we have ZERO precedents of established / documented supernatural encounters.
3. all religions (including the ones we KNOW for a fact are inventions) all make the same type of unfalsifiable claims.

I see no reason to pick this one religion, Islam, or even a group of religions (abrahamic theism), out of literally hundreds if not thousands and consider them "special" as opposed to all the others. No reason at all.

If you think you have such reasons, I'm all ears.

Don't you know?
Whole societies worldwide, have sprung from Christianity alone, and yet you claim that although sincere, these people are not so smart as you, because you know better.

You should really stop with the strawmanning.
I never once said anything about me being smarter then anyone, or others being "dumb" or whatever.

Plenty of intelligent, smart people are theists.

I have already acknowledged that religions have impact on society and culture. Some more then others (mostly due to numbers of followers). This is undeniable and I have never said otherwise.

So I wonder why you feel the need to double down on this strawman... and that even while responding to a post where I'm literally acknowledging said impact....



None of it has any bearing on the actual accuracy of the beliefs.

Nothing strange about it at all.

I agree. But probably for different reasons.....................

You claim that you don't see the Bible being a conspiracy, yet you claim it to be equivalent to 'Lord of the Rings'. That is incoherent

??????

The lord of the rings isn't a conspiracy either.
You are really all over the place.

It is well known that the Bible is classified as non-fiction.

by believers

The believers of mormonism don't classify their scripture as fiction either.
And the same goes for the believers of the ancient greek pantheon, the roman pantheon, the viking pantheon, the germanic pantheon, the hindu, scientologists, rastafarians, etc etc etc.

But I'm guessing you will agree that the Iliad is fictional, right?
And mormonism also, right?
As well as the tales about Whalhalla and the river Styx. Right??

That's ridiculous. If there was no 'evidemce', there would be nothing to discuss.

And there is nothing to discuss.
Please note how we are not discussing any evidence here, since you didn't present any.
Even though I invited you to do so. I also predicted that you wouldn't. I'm such a prophet.

..so I really don't know why you bother to reply.

It's fun.

No .. that is not right.

Ow? Why not? So what DO you believe about scientology, mormonism, rastafarianism, the viking gods, and all the other religions you don't follow / believe in?

You don't think that Scientology was dreamed up by Ron Hubbard?
You don't think that Mormonism was dreamed up by Joseph Smith?
So where then do you think these religions come from?

 

[Trailblazer]

He asked you what this independent objective evidence is. He did not ask you to repeat for the upteenth time your claim that such evidence exists without sharing it.

I have shared it innumerable times, only to hear atheists say "that's not evidence!"
Why would I share it again?

 

[Trailblazer]

Plenty of us have done exactly that.

Plenty of us? That is the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Trailblazer]

The fairy that never lies can never be proven as an objective fact because the fairy that never lies does not want to be known as an objective fact.

He just told me. And he never lies. So.... there.

Yet another logical fallacy... you must like fallacies.
I'll bet you do not even know which fallacy that is.
Here, let me help.

I said: God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

You said: The fairy that never lies can never be proven as an objective fact because the fairy that never lies does not want to be known as an objective fact.

If you are trying to say that God is equivalent to a fairy that is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

The God that never lies (A) can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

The fairy that never lies (B) can never be proven as an objective fact because the fairy that never lies does not want to be known as an objective fact.

Therefore, God (A) is equivalent to a fairy (B).

That is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and it is also the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

'Jumping to conclusions' is made easy with hasty generalizations. This is where a speaker will form a specific conclusion without considering all of the variables involved. A speaker will use this fallacy when thinking of the world in 'black or white' terms.

Logical Fallacies

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: The correct method is to look at the evidence for yourself but not everyone will come to the same conclusions... Why would they?

You said: Because it's subjective evidence. Aka, hearsay / anecdotal.
There's nothing to verify.

However, how many people will look at the evidence of say... how rainbows occur, and not come to the same conclusion?

No, the reason is not because it is subjective evidence. The reason is because no two human brains process objective evidence in the same way.

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Policy is.

You assert that Policy is right, but you cannot explain why Policy is right. This is typical of atheists. They make assertions with nothing to back them up. These are bald assertions, yet another logical fallacy.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

Reason and formal rules of logic.

I have just shown you that you have committed four logical fallacies.
So who is breaking the formal rules of logic?

I know all the logical fallacies very well because I have been watching them being committed by atheists for about eight years on forums, so I had to look them up and learn what they are. I have them all saved in a folder that contains various Word documents by name, so I can easily grab and go.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: No, I know God exists, but not as a fact.

How can you not see the blatant and obvious contradiction in that statement?

There is no contradiction at all, because God can be known, but not as a fact.
God is known through Messengers of God who bring revelations. That cannot be proven true, so it is not a fact.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

I also know by the second way listed below: Cognitive (Rational)
I know God exists because I have thought my way through it.

3 Ways to Know Something

There are 3 main ways.

1. Experiential (Empirical)
With experiential, you know something because you’ve “experienced” it – basically through your five senses (site, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.)

2. Cognitive (Rational)
With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

3. Constructed (Creational)
With constructed, you know something because you created it – and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on convention or perception.

3 Ways to Know Something

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed. And that "why" is your complete lack of evidence for your claims. It is absent to the point where the absence of that evidence actually becomes evidence against the idea.

Sorry, that is not the reason. The reason is because they think they are right. It is all about ego.
There is evidence, atheists just don't accept the evidence, but that does not make it non-evidence. The evidence presented to a jury is evidence even if they conclude that the defendant is not guilty. The evidence presented by God through Messengers is evidence even if atheists find God guilty of not existing

Their basis for believing that atheists are incorrect amounts to nothing more or less then them believing otherwise. That's it.

Atheists' basis for believing that believers are incorrect amounts to nothing more or less than a personal opinion. That's it.

Whereas the atheist can give you actual reasons for why they reject religious claims, by pointing at the embarrassing lack of evidence to warrant belief.

Believers can give atheists actual reasons for why they accept the religious claims, by pointing at the extensive amount of evidence to warrant belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

These claims require evidence. They aren't evidence.

Claims are not evidence. I have presented the claims and the evidence that backs the claims.

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of logic and reason.

It is ALL a matter of personal opinion of atheists as to what constitutes evidence for God.

No. What is and isn't good evidence is not a matter of opinion.
Verifiable evidence is always better then unverifiable evidence.

There is verifiable evidence for many facts surrounding my religion but there is no verifiable evidence for God because God does not want to be verified the way you want to verify Him - as a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am criticizing the reasoning you use as you present your beliefs. Note, Tb -- your reasoning, not you.

Yet you have no evidence that proves there is anything wrong with my reasoning.
Unless you can back up your assertion with evidence it is a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[ppp]

Claims are not evidence. I have presented the claims and the evidence that backs the claims.

Never in life.

 

[Trailblazer]

If this was true you would be able and willing to rebut the many critics who are pointing out flaws in your thinking. You don't.

I have rebutted my critics numerous times, you simply reject my assessments.

Because it is irrelevant that we are atheists. Even a few theists, like lukethethird, are criticizing your claims/beliefs.

It is irrelevant that you are atheists, but it is also irrelevant that you disagree with me.
If everyone on this forum criticized my claims/beliefs, what would that prove, logically speaking?

Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true or that they're wrong because all the rest do otherwise.

• Billions believe in my religious belief.
• Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.
• Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
• Everyone's doing it.
• In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.
• Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.
• Millions of people agree with my viewpoint, therefore it must be right.
• The majority of this country voted for this President, therefore this president must be the right choice.
• My family or tribe holds this as a truth, and everyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
• No one else has ever complained about this.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The criticisms of your views, thinking, claims, beliefs, language usage, etc. are being done regardless of whether the person is atheist or theist. Reason is an objective approach. Logic is an objective approach.

That's right, and I have pointed out the numerous logical fallacies committed by atheists.

Yet you don't explain how this is true except by you being biased against atheists. Your red quote above illustrates that you believe our criticism of your claims/beliefs are because we are atheists, and you avoid our criticisms as a result. THAT is bias.

I said......

You mean atheists explain to me daily how they BELIEVE I am incorrect.
Of course atheists BELIEVE I am incorrect, they are atheists.

Why should I accept your criticisms? You have no basis for your criticisms except your own egos.

That red quote shows how atheists are biased against me, NOT how I am biased against atheists. Atheists do not believe I am correct because they disagree with my beliefs.

Show me where I ever said that atheists are incorrect. Me saying I believe that God exists is a statement of personal belief, it is not an attack on atheists. It is the atheists who attack me constantly and tell me I am wrong, but they cannot prove I am wrong anymore than I can prove I am right.

 

[muhammad_isa]

by believers

No .. by everyone.
Do you ever go into a library?
..perhaps you didn't know that the Bible isn't in the fiction section.
Would you reclassify it, and put it next to the Lord of the Rings?

You know very well that it doesn't make sense.
The Lord of the Rings isn't claimed to be divine truth by its author.
You claim that it is fiction [made up by people].
How can it NOT be some kind of conspiracy, if that were true?

Please note how we are not discussing any evidence here, since you didn't present any.

I know better than to present any worthwhile argument about evidence with atheists.
..because it always ends up being "if you can't show us G-d, then you have no proof" .. which means that nobody learns anything new.
..but then you're not interested in leaening anything new. You just enjoy being negative.

It's fun.

Interesting, maybe .. but fun?