Atheists: If God existed would God……

[TagliatelliMonster]

God 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 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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

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?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think my reasoning is perfectly sound but you think it is unsound.
Which one of us is right

@Policy is.

and what is the basis for deciding?

Reason and formal rules of logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any critical thinker could figure out WHY atheists believe I am incorrect in two seconds flat

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.

, but that does not prove a thing. Critical thinkers who are Baha'is would think that atheists are incorrect. So what?

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not good evidence only in your opinion

Nope. It's bad evidence by definition of evidence and reason.
Texts are nothing more or less then the piling on of claims.

Anecdotes aren't evidence - they are claims.
Hearsay isn't evidence - they are claims.
Testimonies aren't evidence - they are claims.

These claims require evidence. They aren't evidence.

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

Can you prove what is good evidence and what is not good evidence?
If not it is only your personal opinion. We all have those.

No. What is and isn't good evidence is not a matter of opinion.
Verifiable evidence is always better then unverifiable evidence.
This is why independently verifiable objective evidence is better then "subjective evidence" - which is just unverifiable hearsay / bare assertion / testimony / anecdote.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope. It's bad evidence by definition of evidence and reason.
Texts are nothing more or less then the piling on of claims.

I wonder why lawyers even bother with the pen, if it is irrelevant

..and by this reasoning, history is too a pointless subject, as it is all "unverifiable".

 

[samtonga43]

It is not illogical to assume that you are obsessed with me when you follow me from thread to thread and criticize me constantly. This is not about my beliefs, it is about ME. You can disagree with my beliefs all you want to and criticize them, but that is not what you are doing.

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

But you don't point out where you believe I am going wrong and you don't explain why you think I am wrong, you only SAY I am wrong, illogical, etc. with zero evidence to back that up..

Pointing out why you think my BELIEFS are wrong is fair game, but you always make it personal.

See above

Some are trying to do that but some aren't. Some atheists have a sense of humility, but others think they know everything, as much or more than God would know if God existed.

Ah well, there will always be those who think they know everything.

Nobody has shown me why my statements are irrational. They just arrogantly believe that they have.

As I said, we try to show you. Continually. But, as you wriggle away from reason, it becomes obvious that you do not understand, (or you do understand and lack the humility to admit that may of your 'logical' statements are anything but logical).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wonder why lawyers even bother with the pen, if it is irrelevant

Not really sure what you mean.

Assuming you are talking about how "testimony" is accepted as evidence in court, I can only inform you that a single piece of actual objective evidence will instantly overturn 100 "testimonies" saying otherwise.

Take a look at the cases from the innocence project: All Cases - Innocence Project

Almost every single one of them, were originally convicted based on "testimony" only.
Almost every single one of them, was overturned by actual objective evidence (DNA as the leading winner).

..and by this reasoning, history is too a pointless subject, as it is all "unverifiable".

No, it isn't.

For example, we know Julius Ceasar existed because there is plenty of independent and contemporary evidence that corroborates the written sources. Evidence that isn't dependent on mere claims / anecdotes / hearsay. Aka, objective evidence.


The lesson to learn here is that humans lie. Humans make mistakes. Humans misinterpret the things they experience. And it's not even uncommon for these things to happen.

So relying solely on someone's word - especially when it concerns extra-ordinary things - is a good way to draw false conclusions and believing inaccurate things.

Consider all the (mutually exclusive) things you would have to believe if we were to take the position that "testimony" is a valid pathway to truth....

Bigfoot, loch ness, alien abduction, incarnations of Napoleon and Elvis, etc etc etc etc.

After all, if "mere testimony" is sufficient evidence for ones religion of choice, why shouldn't it be enough to buy into alien abduction?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it isn't.

For example, we know Julius Ceasar existed because there is plenty of independent and contemporary evidence that corroborates the written sources. Evidence that isn't dependent on mere claims / anecdotes / hearsay. Aka, objective evidence.

You are just cherry-picking.
That's what historians do, just as in the history of Islam and Christianity.

Naturally, you will deny the significance of Islam and Christianity.
We all cherry-pick what we want to accept or reject.
..and G-d knows why we make the claims that we do.

It is simply false, to suggest that there is good evidence for Julius Caesar, but not for Jesus or Muhammad.
Don't forget it was you who claimed "Texts are nothing more or less then the piling on of claims".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'd rather not spend much finger tapping time there Tag. Why should I, when the person is only listening to themselves.

I think that what he is looking for from you is a clear statement that he can either agree with or rebut. And if you do, and he rebuts it, he wants you to do the same - either agree with what you read or explain to him why you don't if you don't. This is the method called dialectic, and if two or more people skilled at critical thinking perform this cooperative action, they ought to be able to resolve why they have different opinions.

Rebuttal is a particular type of disagreement, the type just described. There are other ways to disagree, such as merely stating that that is not how one sees things, but they won't come to a resolution without rebuttal. I've recently been in a discussion on RF about the January 6th committee in the US House of Representatives. Another poster calls the committee partisan and thus unfair. I addressed exactly that with rebuttal. I told him why I thought the committee was neither partisan nor unfair, and he merely repeats his previously stated opinion without addressing the rebuttal, adding new criticisms. Well, we're dead in the water in that discussion if he won't explain why he rejects that answer. If he would do that, we would eventually reach a point that we either agree, or identify the different opinion or value that explains why we don't, and then we are done. But he won't rebut, so there is no dialectic and no resolution of differences.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are just cherry-picking.

Yes, I'm "cherry picking" examples from history that are corroborated by objective evidence to make the point that history that is corroborated by objective evidence is more reliable then history that isn't.

For crying out loud...........

That's what historians do, just as in the history of Islam and Christianity.

Obviously Islam and Christianity have a history.
That doesn't mean that Jesus was a divine being or that Mohammed actually received intel from some angel or whatever.

The Roman sources about Julius Ceasar also declare him a god. That doesn't mean he actually is a god, eventhough he existed.

That Ceasar existed can be objectively corroborated.
That he was a god, can not.

Naturally, you will deny the significance of Islam and Christianity.

Why would I deny their significance?
Obviously they had big impact on western and middle eastern culture.
So what?

The question is not if Islam and christianity exist.
The question is not if they had impact on society.
The question is their contents are accurate.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

The Iliad also exists and also has history. But that doesn't mean that Zeus and Hercules are real.
Lord of the Rings exists and also has history. But that doesn't mean that there actually is a magical ring to rule them all.

We all cherry-pick what we want to accept or reject.
..and G-d knows why we make the claims that we do.

I don't. I accept what is supported by valid evidence and reject what isn't.
I see no point or use in doing it any other way.

It is simply false, to suggest that there is good evidence for Julius Caesar, but not for Jesus or Muhammad.

The evidence for Julius Ceasar is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better then the evidence for Jesus, which is actually non-existent. The only place where Jesus shows up, is in the bible. There's a handful of extra-biblical sources that mention him, but those sources ultimately use the bible as their source also. There is ZERO independent, contemporary evidence for this dude.

Having said that, once more.... the question is not if Jesus existed. The question is if he was a divine being.
The question is not if mohammed existed. The question is if he actually received intel from divine sources.

Once again, I'm sorry if you can't comprehend the difference.

As an illustration, consider this story / movie:

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Wikipedia

It's about Abraham Lincoln who's secretly also a vampire hunter.
Abraham Lincoln definitely existed. He was definitely a US president. Just like the movie says.

But was he secretly a vampire hunter?

Don't forget it was you who claimed "Texts are nothing more or less then the piling on of claims".

And I stand behind that statement.
You have said nothing here that even addressed that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Obviously Islam and Christianity have a history.
That doesn't mean that Jesus was a divine being or that Mohammed actually received intel from some angel or whatever.

Not directly, no.
..but something was most certainly going on.
It is a tall order, to claim that the Abrahamic G-d is a conspiracy that spans centuries.

Why would I deny their significance?

..because you are an atheist.

Lord of the Rings exists and also has history. But that doesn't mean that there actually is a magical ring to rule them all.

You don't say

And I stand behind that statement.
You have said nothing here that even addressed that.

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

I know that is absolute nonsense.
There is the Bible and there is the Qur'an.
Billions of people are satisfied that there is enough evidence to believe in G-d.
They didn't dream it up themselves, like your 'Gandalf' was.
Your argument is pathetic

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nobody has shown me why my statements are irrational. They just arrogantly believe that they have.

It's you that is being arrogant here. The fact that you can't understand what is being told you is on you, not the chorus of skilled critical thinkers singing in unison that your reasoning is faulty. That you think that they haven't demonstrated the fallacies in your comments is due to your being unprepared to evaluate statements critically. You should be more humble and consider the possibility that you might be wrong, especially in the face of so much evidence that you are coming from other posters. You can only be right if they are all wrong. To dismiss them all is arrogance.

There is no empirical evidence for a deity, and any logical person would understand why.

If you were better at reasoning, you would see the fallacy in that comment. It's already been explained that there are more logical explanations for why we lack compelling evidence of a deity, but you keep dropping them from your list of candidate logical reasons for no reason. That is a logical error. Is this an example of an atheist being arrogant to you, telling you with certainty that you are wrong? How are you not arrogant then to say otherwise?

Of course, if an omnipotent deity exists it could prove that it exists to everyone but what the deity could do is a moot point, as it only matters what a deity has done.

So the only logical options that are available to you are as follows:

1. A deity exists and has chosen not to prove it exists and that is why there is no proof, or
2. No deity exists and that is why there is no proof of the deity.

Wrong again. You left out a few other logical possibilities. Also, you have chosen to believe that [1] is correct without ruling it in or the only other logical possibility that you were able to come up with out. Forgive my arrogance here, but that is simply a logical fallacy. This is not just a personal opinion. It is a fact. Your reasoning is faulty. This is no different than if you were to add a column of numbers incorrectly and come up with a wrong sum, and a dozen people who all were proficient adders, or perhaps using a digital device, told you you were wrong and what the correct sum was, and you ending with, "Don't be arrogant. That's just your opinion. Nobody has shown me where I'm wrong."

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

You don't seem to understand that critical thinking is constrained to certain pathways of reasoning and comes to identical sound conclusions when applied properly, just like with the adding of a column of numbers. Those that adhere to that same rules of interpreting evidence come to the same conclusions. Those that go off the rails can come to any conclusion. There is only one correct sum (sound conclusion), but many wrong ones.

The same is true with all reasoning. There is only one path that takes one to correct beliefs. Skilled critical thinkers understand that, and when they come to different conclusions, they have a common means of discovering why. The can engage in dialect as I just described in my post above this one, and sort that out. Without such a method, they're left where you are - "That's just your opinion."

Religious belief is not critical thinking. Science is. Religious belief follows no rules of reason. Science does. The result of the two processes is that religious is free from constraint, but scientific belief is not. This is why there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone and just one periodic table of the elements. It is also why none of those religions can produce any new knowledge, by which I mean ideas that can be used to predict outcomes, but science can. It's why there are hundreds of creation stories from the religions, none of them useful for anything, but one scientific cosmology, one scientific evolutionary theory.

Evolution theory has done for biology what no creation story does. It unifies mountains of evidence, correctly predicts what can and cannot be found in the world, provides an explanation and mechanism for the tree of life and the fossil record we see today, and has been used to make advances in medicine and agriculture, for example. That is because it is derived from evidence properly interpreted, unlike every creation story.

But you are unaware of this. You don't seem to understand that there exists a form of thinking capable of generating empirically derived and confirmed truths. To you, evolution is just somebody's opinion, no better than any other. Worse, you have coopted the language of these other people - reason, logic, deduction, critical thinking, evidence - and applied it to your own undisciplined thinking.

You aren't just wrong (look, there's that arrogance again, right?). You are locked into forever being wrong if you never learn what reason really looks like, and fail to recognize it when you see it, which is why you keep repeating that nobody has proved anything to you or shown where you are wrong. That's all you. You aren't prepared to critically evaluate what is written to you, because you've never learned the rules of logic.

Everything you say about my reasoning is based upon your personal opinion that I cannot reason, nothing more. You have no evidence to back up what you are saying and that is why it is only a personal opinion.

And there it is. It's not just his personal opinion. It's the opinion of at least a half dozen other people writing to you in this thread. Could it be that they know something you don't? How arrogant of them to think that your reasoning is flawed, but not arrogant of you to believe that.

There are no facts about a God because God cannot be proven as a fact so that means we cannot ever know any characteristics of God as a fact. That is another example of critical thinking.

No, it's also flawed. You are assuming the existence of a deity. I've already given you the result of critical thinking applied to the fact that there exists no compelling evidence for a deity. You've forgotten all but one, and disregard that one without ruling it out. That is not critical thinking.

Let me help you again - either this deity doesn't exist (you remembered that one), exists and communicates through messengers that don't convince most people either because it can't do better or chooses to not do better, or there is a deity that either doesn't know we exist or is indifferent to us. Maybe others can add to that list of logical possibilities, none of which can logically be ruled in or out. That's what critical thought looks like. That's what reason generates. You're not even close to that, and that is because like the adder who can't add properly for having never mastered the rules of addition and keeps coming up with a wrong sum, you will arrive at unsound conclusions for never having learned the rules of reasoning.

Most atheists do not even bother to think, and you call them thinkers. They just discard the only evidence that God has provided out of hand because they don't like the idea of Messengers of God. They offer no logical reason to disbelieve except that they do, as if their endorsement is enough.

How arrogant. You are the one not thinking well.

This is not rejection out of hand as you suggest, but the result of the proper analysis of your evidence. They reject your claim that the words and deeds of a man are evidence for a deity for reasons already given you, which you did not understand. You never rebutted them, just continued to say that you disagree and calling your thinking reason. Rebuttal is more than mere disagreement. It is explaining why you believe the other guy's position is wrong. In this case, it means demonstrating why what you consider evidence of deity is evidence of a deity. You've never even tried to do that. I doubt that you understand that that is what you need to do to persuade critical thinkers.

You say that they offer no logical reason to disbelieve, apparently unaware that one of the central tenets of critical thought is skepticism, or the idea that no idea should be believed without sufficient justification, and that you haven't made your case. There is no logical reason to believe what you do, and skilled critical thinkers just won't follow you into the world of unjustified belief. They know better than that.

 

[F1fan]

I don't need to get off the hook because I have no errors in my thinking.

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. You just reject their assessments, which are often sound and true.

Going after people? No, only you and your ilk go after people so you are projecting.

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.

How does that constitute "going after people?"

Because it is irrelevant that we are atheists. Even a few theists, like lukethethird, are criticizing your claims/beliefs. 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. Facts are objective. these are used to assess whether various claims/beliefs are reasonable or true, and being an atheist is irrelevant to this process. So you referring to us as atheists as if that means we are biased IS a bias you are using, and you're using it to dismiss and avoid hard questions.

I think you are paranoid. Either that or you just could not respond with a reasoned answer.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion about my mental state. And you haven't explained how my responses are not reasoned, only that I'm an atheist and must be biased because I'm in that category. You seem to assume yourself more capable of reason, and objectivity, and knowledge of logic than your posts suggest.

You are so biased that you cannot even imagine you could be wrong about me.

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.

 

[F1fan]

You are just cherry-picking.
That's what historians do, just as in the history of Islam and Christianity.

Naturally, you will deny the significance of Islam and Christianity.

Historians can know how humans behaved under the influence of Islam and Christians and this is part of history. This includes the periods where Islam and Christians fought each other despite serving the same God. Why would Christians and Muslims do this, following the same God's directives to kill each other?

What you seem to be trying to do is suggesting historians have to accept the idea that a God must exist if Muslims and Christians exist as part of history. But as I just illustrated it is apparent that much of what Muslims and Christians do is following what they believe God to be, whether it exists as they imagine or not.

We all cherry-pick what we want to accept or reject.
..and G-d knows why we make the claims that we do.

Then God doesn't;t share that knowledge with humans, because we see humans act with a great deal of ignorance and understanding, including their own psychology and biological motives to be tribal and competitive.

It is simply false, to suggest that there is good evidence for Julius Caesar, but not for Jesus or Muhammad.

As an analogy let's say I have two things in my lunch box, one is a ham sandwich and the other is magic cookies made by elves in a hollow tree. One of those items is believable at face value because it is plausible. The other item is dubious because magic isn't known to be a real phenomenon. Elves aren't known to exist. It's more likely that the cookies were made by humans and I have adopted a belief from Keebler cookie commercials. So there is a better explanation.

Julius Ceasar is a person of history, and there are no fantastic claims associated with his history. Plus the numerous historical references suggest these are credible as evidence of him existing. As for Jesus, well we don't know if a Jesus existed. If someone did exist he was more likely just a normal guy and a myth was built around him and became part of fantastic stories that have been passed down over the centuries. 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. there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. That there are Christians and Muslims in the world doesn't;t imply these texts are true, only that modern humans are susceptible to adopting cultural beliefs as they have for many, many centuries.

Don't forget it was you who claimed "Texts are nothing more or less then the piling on of claims".

Which is why we can sift through texts and reject statements that make fantastic claims of magic. We need more credible evidence to believe these are true or even plausible.

 

[F1fan]

As an illustration, consider this story / movie:

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Wikipedia

It's about Abraham Lincoln who's secretly also a vampire hunter.
Abraham Lincoln definitely existed. He was definitely a US president. Just like the movie says.

But was he secretly a vampire hunter?

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.

Other examples of books that include historical circumstances are A Tale of Two Cities and For Whom the Bell Tolls.

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.

 

[F1fan]

Not directly, no.
..but something was most certainly going on.
It is a tall order, to claim that the Abrahamic G-d is a conspiracy that spans centuries.

Is it more reasonable to suggest this God pitted Muslims against Christians?

 

[nPeace]

Could it be the Bible? Or is it the Quran or the Baha'i writings.

I like to use a process of elimination.
If it is not the Bible, then it cannot be the Quran or the Baha'i writings, since 1) both those writings are much much later, and 2) both claim to stem from what is actually recorded in the Bible.
So, if the Bible is the source of truth, then either 1) the Quran or the Baha'i writings are a replacement of the Bible, or 2) a support of the Bible, or 3) a deviation, and twisting of the truth.

We can try to eliminate further, by asking, does the Quran or the Baha'i writings 1) support the Bible? Or, 2) deviate from, and contradict it?

I think this is a good way to investigate.
What are your thoughts on that?

 

[nPeace]

I think that what he is looking for from you is a clear statement that he can either agree with or rebut. And if you do, and he rebuts it, he wants you to do the same - either agree with what you read or explain to him why you don't if you don't. This is the method called dialectic, and if two or more people skilled at critical thinking perform this cooperative action, they ought to be able to resolve why they have different opinions.

Rebuttal is a particular type of disagreement, the type just described. There are other ways to disagree, such as merely stating that that is not how one sees things, but they won't come to a resolution without rebuttal. I've recently been in a discussion on RF about the January 6th committee in the US House of Representatives. Another poster calls the committee partisan and thus unfair. I addressed exactly that with rebuttal. I told him why I thought the committee was neither partisan nor unfair, and he merely repeats his previously stated opinion without addressing the rebuttal, adding new criticisms. Well, we're dead in the water in that discussion if he won't explain why he rejects that answer. If he would do that, we would eventually reach a point that we either agree, or identify the different opinion or value that explains why we don't, and then we are done. But he won't rebut, so there is no dialectic and no resolution of differences.

The guy responded to my response by basically saying that I do not know what I was saying, and he does.
Perhaps you don't know the person you are referring to.
I do. My experience with him has not been what you are suggesting here.
Thanks for trying? Or are you partners in a plan?