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

[PureX]

As a Buddhist, you've rejected Jesus, so good luck with that..
Jesus said:- "Whoever rejects me rejects God" (Luke 10:16)

Buddhists don't "reject Jesus". They only reject your interpretation of the story of Jesus as the Christ. Rejecting your interpretation, or the interpretation preached in your church, isn't rejecting Jesus, or God. Because you and your church are not the definers of Jesus or of God. I think some humility is in order, here. Don't you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay try this- "Believe nothing, no matter who said it, unless it agrees with your own common sense and your own reason" (Buddha)
Therefore my own commonsense and reason tells me that allowing mass immigration is a baaad thing because our taxes have to go to welfaring them instead of to our own people and to our own infrastructure like the NHS, education, pensioners etc.

Sorry, but Buddha did not say this (the words come from a John Galt, which is likely a pseudonym given the place of this name in literature), and it is inconsistent with his actual teachings as written. He taught the Eightfold Path, which is not common sense.

Nor do I have much regard for common sense, if by that phrase we mean the kind of thinking we commonly encounter. Neither did Buddha, which is why he taught what he felt was a better way to live and think.

Dialectic is not a contest to see who's 'beliefs' win out. That's just an ego-driven waste of time.

Odd that you would frame it as a competition or ego-driven. Dialectic is a cooperative effort between two people who share a common means of deciding what is true about the world, reason applied to evidence, and who are trying to understand the nature of their disagreement. If it is over a matter of fact, and one had misunderstood the evidence or is not considering all relevant evidence, they can discover this and come to an agreement.

If the disagreement is over a difference in values - perhaps one is pro-life and the other pro-choice - they probably can't come to an agreement except to say that if each held the other's belief, he could come to the same conclusion. Maybe one thinks that abortion is always wrong, and should be illegal. The other, who may believe that the choice belongs to the pregnant woman, not the state. Dialectic allows them to say, "If I had your values, I would come to your conclusions."

This is only possible with people who decide what is true the same way, and who want to cooperatively try to understand why they disagree in an effort to learn and/or teach. If they don't have a common method of deciding truth, there can be no effective cooperation or communication.

Isn't that why discussion between skeptical empiricists and faith-based thinkers are never productive? If I disagree with a creationist, I can't have that type of discussion with him, because he doesn't process information the way I do. He doesn't dispassionately consider evidence and come to sound conclusions using standard reasoning, so how will we ever make any progress in such a discussion?

That would be a place where I have no expectation of being believed and no expectation of engaging in dialectic. That would be the time my purpose is simply to try better to understand that kind of thinking. Also, with an anti-vaxxer. The last few months have been enlightening tapping the aquarium if you will - making comments to see what kind of response they elicit, not to share or exchange information.

Why would anyone in their right mind 'want to be believed'? Understood, accepted, respected; sure. But 'believed'? That makes no sense to me.

Why they would want to be believed is irrelevant. If they do want to be believed, they need to make a convincing argument.

You and I are really very different. I find it difficult to understand how you can ask that question. The purpose of making an argument is to be believed, to change a mind. Some thirty years ago, I began concluding that America was on a downhill trajectory. I discussed it with people who generally didn't believe me. By a decade later, I had decided that I was correct, things would continue to get worse, and it was time to look into moving elsewhere. Now, I needed to be believed by my wife if I was going to ask her to leave America. She eventually came to agree with me, and twelve years ago, we expatriated.

Why do you need to 'believe' anything?

The value of a mind is accumulate correct beliefs - rational biases - so as to make decisions that maximize desirable outcomes and minimize undesirable ones. Pity the people who still don't believe that climate change is real or a threat to them. I saw a man on TV whose northern California house burned down in a wildfire in 2018. So he rebuilt on the same lot, and his house burned down again this year. He announced that he was moving out of the western US. Too bad it took him so long to believe that things had changed permanently. Fortunately, he didn't build there again.

And pity those who believe that the vaccine is a greater threat to them than the coronavirus. You asked why anyone in their right mind would want to be believed. How about for their safety and everybody else's?

Again, I find it odd to be asked why one needs to believe anything, or why one would want to be believed.

The purpose of philosophical dialogue is to gain an understanding of how other people conceptualize their experience of existence.

I find value in philosophy elsewhere as well. It helps me clarify what I believe, as when I answered you recently concerning your claim that materialism has been overthrown. Lately, I've been reviewing logical positivism, the correspondence theory of truth, fallibilism, and false consensus - all ideas that resonate with me, all ideas that I held less distinctly before I had a name for them.

But I also find great value in trying to understand how others think even if I don't value their opinions - especially if I don't value their opinions.

 

[PureX]

Odd that you would frame it as a competition or ego-driven. Dialectic is a cooperative effort between two people who share a common means of deciding what is true about the world, reason applied to evidence, and who are trying to understand the nature of their disagreement.

That's a pretty good definition, but it would exclude nearly every discussion on this site. Simply because few of us agree on what constitutes evidence, or what is the threshold for evidence becoming proof. For most theists, personal experience is their evidence. But the atheist has no such personal experience of his own, and will not accept anyone else's as valid evidence. So the dialectic dies there. Or it would die there if the participants egos were not involved; driving the dialectic into an intellectual pissing contest wherein one's "beliefs" must subjugate the other's, by whatever means available, to claim the delusional prize of "righteousness".

Isn't that why discussion between skeptical empiricists and faith-based thinkers are never productive?

Empiricism is too limited to reach into the realm of experience that faith can reach into. But the reality of this hurts the empiricist's ego. So the dialectic then devolves into a battle of egos.

If I disagree with a creationist, I can't have that type of discussion with him, because he doesn't process information the way I do. He doesn't dispassionately consider evidence and come to sound conclusions using standard reasoning, so how will we ever make any progress in such a discussion?

In almost every instance, neither you nor the 'creationist' has any idea what you're even debating, because neither of you ever gets past the artifice representing the ideal, to the actual ideal being represented.

When you try to engage in a dialectic with a child about the existence of Santa Clause and you immediately sink to his naive level of understanding, how much of a dialectic do you expect to occur? And why are you trying to defeat a child's belief in Santa Clause to begin with? Does your ego need to "win" that badly???

Why they would want to be believed is irrelevant. If they do want to be believed, they need to make a convincing argument.

It's ALL irrelevant. And you ought to know better than to get sucked into such nonsense.

You and I are really very different. I find it difficult to understand how you can ask that question. The purpose of making an argument is to be believed, to change a mind.

No, I really don't think that's why people argue. I think it's all about the ego's need to constantly defend the delusion of one's own righteousness, no matter how right or wrong that delusion is. Most of these arguments are wildly irrational and illogical, and yet they go on post after post, with no hope or even desire of mutual understanding. It's ALL auto-defense. Blind, stupid, insane, auto-defense.

That's why there is this obsession with the 'battle of beliefs' instead of any real curiosity about what the other person thinks is true, and why they think so. Our egos do not care what anyone else thinks is truth. All our egos care about is maintaining the delusion of our own truthfulness at all cost. Everyone else's view of truth is the 'enemy', and must be defeated by any means available.

Some thirty years ago, I began concluding that America was on a downhill trajectory. I discussed it with people who generally didn't believe me. By a decade later, I had decided that I was correct, things would continue to get worse, and it was time to look into moving elsewhere. Now, I needed to be believed by my wife if I was going to ask her to leave America. She eventually came to agree with me, and twelve years ago, we expatriated.

You didn't actually need her to "believe" you. You just needed her to agree to support your course of action. And she could have done that for reasons of her own. In fact, wouldn't you have preferred that?

The value of a mind is accumulate correct beliefs - rational biases - so as to make decisions that maximize desirable outcomes and minimize undesirable ones.

This is where we disagree fundamentally and philosophically. I contend that as limited (non-omniscient) human beings we will never get to know the truth, and know that we know it. So all we can ever do is guess at it, and hope our guess is not so wrong that it causes us or others harm. So from my perspective, all this battling over belief is just a giant waste of time and energy. Because even if one of us does stumble on the truth, there is no way for us to know it. So we're just blowing smoke up our own butts, and up each others, with this absurd battle over our 'believed in' truths. It's like two blind men fighting over what color 'blue' is. Even if one of them gets it right, neither will ever know it.

Far better that we share our current understanding of what is real and true with each other, so as to incorporate and expand our own. Not to destroy all the alternatives, as our egos would have it.

Pity the people who still don't believe that climate change is real or a threat to them.

I pity the people who are still enslaved to the delusion of their own "beliefs", period. And everyone else for the problems those people are going to cause us all. It's time for humanity to stop "believing in" stuff and start accepting how profoundly ignorant we really are. So that maybe we can begin to create some safeguards against our own self-destructive insanity.

Again, I find it odd to be asked why one needs to believe anything, or why one would want to be believed.

I find it odd that you cant see what a waste of time and energy all this "believing in" nonsense is.

 

[Suave]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. Based on this signal of intelligence left in our genetic code, I suspect our genetic coding was created by a greater intelligence beyond the limited scope of us humans on Earth.
The 3 main words (God, the heaven, the earth) in Hebrew have a gematria numeric value of 777 (111x7), ". which is divisible by 37.
The numeric value of the entire verse is 2701 which is divisible by 37.
We may now proceed to finding the number 37 interlaced in the first verse of the Bible. We can do this by discovering words or groups of words with number values evenly divisible by 37, e.g. the 3 main words (“God” + ”the heaven” + ”the earth” = 777 = 21x37), the 5 first words (“In the beginning” + “created” + “God” + “*” + “the heaven” = 1998 = 54x37), or the last two words separately (“and” = 407 = 11x37 and “the earth” = 296 = 8x37)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For most theists, personal experience is their evidence. But the atheist has no such personal experience of his own, and will not accept anyone else's as valid evidence.

Another odd comment, but I've seen it before:

You confound me often. Atheists have no experience? Do you (or Chopra) see us as the equivalent of robot vacuum cleaners, mindlessly going through life having no experience?

Or maybe by no experience, you meant no experience with faith or religion, which is also a strange claim if that's what you meant.

But you are correct that I wouldn't accept your experience as my evidence. Your report of your experience is all you can offer, which is only evidence that you are willing to make such a report. As I tell people that tell me that the Bible contains evidence, that report is also only evidence that somebody wrote it down.

I interpret what I think their experience actually is when I don't believe their report. When they tell me that they experience a God, I translate that into they have a psychological state that projects a god onto the universe. What they are experiencing is their own minds, and misinterpreting the experience.

And why do I think that? Because I had that experience and misinterpreted it as the presence of God. I have made important decisions based in faith that worked out pretty badly. Too bad I didn't understand what was happening better until years later.

Interestingly (to me), that feeling was with me the first three years I was a Christian, and I interpreted it as the Holy Spirit, which I had been promised would fill me if I had faith. Those were my Army days, and my initial experience with Christianity. Then I was discharged, moved back to my home state, and went from congregation to congregation, but was unable to get the Holy Spirit back. That's when it dawned on me that I had had a very charismatic pastor, whose infectious happiness and talented sermonizing I had misinterpreted as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have gone with me back to California. That was the beginning of the end of Christianity and faith-based thinking altogether for me.

But this is not the mistake I was referring to. I married badly because one day, while sitting on the steps to the barracks with the person who first took me to that church, when crepuscular rays beamed down through clouds, and I experienced a frisson that I misinterpreted as God telling me to marry her. Turned out to be a pretty poor way to decide what is true about the world and how to make decisions.

Or it would die there if the participants egos were not involved; driving the dialectic into an intellectual pissing contest wherein one's "beliefs" must subjugate the other's, by whatever means available, to claim the delusional prize of "righteousness".

This theme keeps coming up in your writing. You view discussion in terms of conflict and victory or defeat. That description is nothing like what I am experiencing when I engage in this activity. I have to assume that you're projecting, that that is the way you feel in discussions. You seem to have no concept of any other purpose for discussing ideas.

But you do allude to an interesting phenomenon I've observed here repeatedly. The faith-based thinkers are often quick to feel persecuted or insulted by these discussions, and they get emotional in their writing. Many are taught by their religion to dislike and distrust atheists, and they view us as malevolent, hedonistic (in the negative sense), and defiant.

Empiricism is too limited to reach into the realm of experience that faith can reach into.

There is no realm of experience for faith.

And there's another thing I see a lot - people telling us that there is something important available to faith-based thinkers not available to rigorous thinkers, but we never get to see what this knowledge is or how it helps them. I also have opinions about the psychology underlying that claim. Maybe you can share some of the great insights that you imply from that comment that elude skeptical empiricists.

the reality of this hurts the empiricist's ego. So the dialectic then devolves into a battle of egos.

There you go again. My ego is not at risk, nor do I need to assert it. Theists are continually telling us how uncomfortable we are. Maybe it would help you to see how two experienced critical thinkers actually interact with one another. It's not emotional, nor competitive.

In almost every instance, neither you nor the 'creationist' has any idea what you're even debating, because neither of you ever gets past the artifice representing the ideal, to the actual ideal being represented.

The last clause here is too vague to be meaningful. The first one is incorrect. It's the creationist that comes unprepared, who has no idea about the science he is contradicting, or the arguments that he is misnaming fallacies in, or the fallacies in his own writing.

And it really isn't a debate with the creationist. The creationist is asking for data he doesn't read or care about, and usually ignoring rebuttals followed by making the same claims already rebutted.

But it is still a worthwhile activity. As I said before, I'm a student of human psychology, and just observing is instructive. I find it interesting that people who don't respect reason enough use it to decide what is true then offer explanation couched in the language of reason for their choices, like the people who fear vaccines more than coronavirus. They're doing research. Or they go to VAERS data. Or they're waiting for FDA approval.

When you try to engage in a dialectic with a child about the existence of Santa Clause and you immediately sink to his naive level of understanding, how much of a dialectic do you expect to occur?

None. Dialectic is for experienced critical thinkers. Children aren't equipped for it yet, which is why the church wants early access to them.

You didn't actually need her to "believe" you. You just needed her to agree to support your course of action. And she could have done that for reasons of her own. In fact, wouldn't you have preferred that?

If all I cared about was her compliance, I probably could have gotten that just by asking. But I wanted it to be her idea as well. She's a smart woman, but she wasn't scouring the papers as I had been doing for years, and so wasn't as aware of the changes occurring as I was. I just needed to present a sound, evidenced argument, and she came to the same conclusions I did.

We knew another couple here in Mexico through the dog park. She was in Mexico only because he wanted to be, and as soon as he died, she returned to Colorado. My wife is here because this is where she wants to be. Our reasons for leaving the States were the same, but some of our reasons for liking Mexico are not the same. If I die tomorrow, she'll remain in Mexico until it's her time.

So, yeah, I did want her to agree with me about the significance of current events in the States and the way they would be impacting us. I explained about what the rise of Newt Gingrich and the Republican scorched earth approach to wielding power, of the meaning of the rise of the Moral Majority, Falwell, and Robertson, about the rise of Fox news and Rush Limbaugh, about the shenanigans during the 2000 presidential election, and about how America was simply becoming a worse experience and a worse value for those living there. By the end of Bush's first term, which contained 9/11 and the rush to war over a lie, we were in agreement that it was time to stop traveling and buying art, where most of our discretionary income that wasn't saved was spent, begin doing some serious saving in anticipation of a 2009 retirement, and buy a house on a lake in the mountains of Mexico.

All of this had to do with believing and wanting to be believed.

I really don't think that's why people argue. I think it's all about the ego's need to constantly defend the delusion of one's own righteousness, no matter how right or wrong that delusion is. Most of these arguments are wildly irrational and illogical, and yet they go on post after post, with no hope or even desire of mutual understanding. It's ALL auto-defense. Blind, stupid, insane, auto-defense. That's why there is this obsession with the 'battle of beliefs' instead of any real curiosity about what the other person thinks is true, and why they think so. Our egos do not care what anyone else thinks is truth. All our egos care about is maintaining the delusion of our own truthfulness at all cost. Everyone else's view of truth is the 'enemy', and must be defeated by any means available.

Yes, you've explained that that is how you see these activities. It's about conflict and prevailing in your view.

I can't emphasize enough how far from what is really happening that is. I don't view this discussion as conflict or a battle of egos. It's a disagreement.

And I don't see you behaving as if it were, either, so I don't know why you view debate in those terms.

I contend that as limited (non-omniscient) human beings we will never get to know the truth, and know that we know it. So all we can ever do is guess at it, and hope our guess is not so wrong that it causes us or others harm.

I find it odd that you cant see what a waste of time and energy all this "believing in" nonsense is.

Believing in? I believe much, but don't believe in anything, if by that term you mean believing by faith as in believing in God.

So I agree that there is not much value in believing anything that can only be believed in rather than believed empirically. Believing that we would benefit by expatriating was very helpful. Believing in God was not. Au contraire. It caused me to make important mistakes. However, believing that I had made a mistake believing in gods was helpful. Believing in America turning things around against the evidence would have been a mistake for us as well. That's the difference between believing and believing in as I use the two.

Believing that which sound argument or experience teaches is absolutely essential to successfully navigating life. Believing in that which can only be believed by faith is not a good idea.

 

[CG Didymus]

The establishment goons are everywhere, in education, TV and films, politics and are too many to name individually.
They all try to push their warped and twisted agendas on us, for example the mass immigration thing is their attempt to swamp Christianity and ruin our countries, and if anybody speaks against it, they get called "racist".

What if the immigrants are Christian? Or, what if they are Jesus? You know he supposedly said that when you feed and help people in need, it's like you've done it to me. Central America and Haiti don't sound like places where it is safe to raise a family. If you lived in a place like that would you stay? And, would you hope that somebody out their would help you? You know, like people that preach to love your neighbor as yourself? But I know, some of them are bad people, so best to keep them all out. We sure wouldn't want our land to be taken over by a bunch of people from other countries.

Oh wait, you're British? You got an immigration problem too? Hmmm? But it was okay to colonize the world and exploit the people and resources in those countries? I guess it was, 'cause that what England and other European countries did. But was it the Christian thing to do? Again, you know, that love thy neighbor thing?

At least, the Baha'is are trying to unite all people no matter what race or religion. I hope they become a religion that actually does what it preaches.

 

[PureX]

Another odd comment, but I've seen it before:

View attachment 56311

Weird. Chopra's comment had nothing to do with mine. I posted; "For most theists, personal experience is their evidence. But the atheist has no such personal experience (of God) of his own, and will not accept anyone else's as valid evidence." This was not intended to suggest that the atheist should "believe in" someone else's experience. I have stated MANY times that I don't care what you or anyone "believes in". I am simply saying that when the atheist complains endlessly that the theist has no evidence, it's simply wrong. It's the atheist that has no evidence. The theist has the evidence of his own experience. Evidence that can only be gained through personal experience. And since the atheist cannot have such an experience that he could or would identify as such, it's HE who is lacking the evidence. Not the theist.

You confound me often. Atheists have no experience? Do you (or Chopra) see us as the equivalent of robot vacuum cleaners, mindlessly going through life having no experience?

(Forget Chopra) You have no experience of God because that would require action based on faith, to receive. And since the atheist has refused that course of action, he cannot gain that experience. Occasionally, very rarely, an atheist will have such an experience, unexpectedly, but that's too rare to be a salient point, here.

Or maybe by no experience, you meant no experience with faith or religion, which is also a strange claim if that's what you meant.

Religion is not relevant to me (same as 'belief'). When I use the term 'faith' I am referring to actions based on a trust and hope in a God of our own understanding. Not on religious beliefs or dogmas or rituals or whatever.

But you are correct that I wouldn't accept your experience as my evidence.

Yes, because you think the discussion is about 'convincing you' of something you don't intend to be convinced of. But it what if it just about how the theist experiences and understand reality. Then, his evidence becomes a crucial part of the picture. I think the problem is that you're fighting a 'battle of beliefs' that isn't always there. And if it is there, I, personally, would disengage, because it's just a big waste of time.

Your report of your experience is all you can offer, which is only evidence that you are willing to make such a report. As I tell people that tell me that the Bible contains evidence, that report is also only evidence that somebody wrote it down.

The truth is that you accept other people's experiences as evidence of the truth of reality all the time. It's just that you're automatically set against doing it in this instance.

........... I have to do this in pieces ......... later

 

[CG Didymus]

That's funny, when we have an incompetent corrupt philanderer and shameless barefaced liar for a PM. I've never understood the connection between Christianity and right wing politics. Right wing politics is pretty much the opposite of what the Jesus character in the bible was preaching. Christians should really be socialists.


No thanks, I value my sanity (Vigilant Citizen).

Politics and religion? A very bad mix.

 

[CG Didymus]

Boris is not perfect but he's the best we've got right now, for examp he wants to introduce legislation to cut down on immigration.
Glance at your copy of the gospels now and again mate..
Jesus on mass immigration-
"It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs....do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" (Matt 15:26,Matt 7:6)

And on the same theme John said- "...many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world...do not take them into your house or welcome them." (2 John 1:7-11)

[/QUOTE]

Leviticus 19:34 ESV / 1,373 helpful votes. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Matthew 25:35-40 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'LORD, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'​

Unfortunately, people find verses to prove whatever they want. But really, where's that Christian love?

 

[CG Didymus]

Some are, some aren't. Some are able to articulate the reasons for their faith in the idea of God, and some aren't.

And some were inquisitors and witch hunters and clansmen. The extreme belief in Christianity and some of the other religions hasn't been a good thing.

 

[CG Didymus]

I quoted Jesus so if you don't like what he said you'd better have a good lawyer when you're face to face with him at that great courtroom in the sky..
Jesus said- "Pray that you may be able to stand before me.” (Luke 21:36)

View attachment 56298

Whose picture is that? I mean who posed for the picture? And why do you think that is what Jesus, the Jew, really looked like? And God forbid, he might have had darker skin and looked, again, God forbid, Middle-Eastern.

 

[Dropship]

Okay try this-
"Believe nothing, no matter who said it, unless it agrees with your own common sense and your own reason" (Buddha)

Sorry, but Buddha did not say this (the words come from a John Galt, which is likely a pseudonym given the place of this name in literature), and it is inconsistent with his actual teachings as written..

Thanks, in that case I'll delete that Galt quote from my hard drive..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I posted; "For most theists, personal experience is their evidence. But the atheist has no such personal experience (of God) of his own, and will not accept anyone else's as valid evidence."

You changed the quote by adding "of God." Nevertheless, I guessed that that might be what you meant and answered that as well. I have to agree with you that I had no experience of God. I also believe that nobody has, although some have experienced their own minds and interpreted that as experiencing a god.

This was not intended to suggest that the atheist should "believe in" someone else's experience.

It sure sounds like it. What else could "will not accept anyone else's [personal experience] as valid evidence" mean?

Incidentally, if you want to add to a quote, it's customary to use square brackets, not parentheses: "Square brackets are used around words that are added that are not part of the original quote."

It's the atheist that has no evidence.

The atheist needs no evidence, but I suspect you're referring to strong atheists only. The atheist only needs that there be no evidence for theism and that he be a persn who doesn't believe with insufficient evidence.

You might want to resolve this matter someday. I've already rebutted you in this area twice, and both times, you failed to acknowledge even seeing that, and came back making the same error. It was only a week or two ago that I told you this, predicting then that you would ignore it again and return making the same error.

That also is not dialectic, which I said was a cooperative enterprise. In dialectic, one either acknowledges what has been said by agreeing explicitly, or disagreeing and giving the argument in support of that.

You have no experience of God because that would require action based on faith, to receive. And since the atheist has refused that course of action, he cannot gain that experience. Occasionally, very rarely, an atheist will have such an experience, unexpectedly, but that's too rare to be a salient point, here

And this would be another example of it appearing that you either didn't read or understand my description of my experience with Christianity, faith, and a god belief.

you think the discussion is about 'convincing you' of something you don't intend to be convinced of.

No, that's your strawman. I've been discussing the skeptical empiricist's criteria for belief, misinterpreting ones own experience, the flaw with faith-based thought, why belief is fundamental to thought and and making decisions if one's beliefs are based in a proper understanding of experience, but potentially harmful if based in faith, and that discussion is not necessary war or a waste of time.

And there is nothing that I don't intend to be convinced of. Closed-mindedness is characteristic of faith-based thought. I don't decide in advance what I want to believe. I believe anything that is convincingly demonstrated.

Theists are simply unable to convince a person who requires compelling evidence before believing. If something can only be believed by faith, it shouldn't be believed. They understand this as willful resistance to reason, but it's the opposite. It's the willful resistance to unjustified belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are correct that I wouldn't accept your experience as my evidence. Your report of your experience is all you can offer, which is only evidence that you are willing to make such a report.

I fully agree. Someone else's personal experience is not evidence at all. It might be evidence for them but not evidence for anyone else.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually the members who demonstrate good critical thinking skills have ALL pointed out your poor standard of evidence.

Who is the judge of who has critical thinking skills and who does not have them? Do you have some kind if college degree in critical thinking? If not then you have no way to demonstrate that you have better critical thinking skills than anyone else, including me, so it is only your personal opinion that you have good critical thinking skills. It is my opinion that I have good critical thinking skills but that does not prove anything.

Your post here is an attempt to discredit Sub Zone with an inaccurate description of what is going on. It is UNTRUE that atheists "cannot point to anything specific that I did". We point it out daily. We can all see how your fallacies are pointed out and explained, sometimes is great detail. How do you think you can get away with saying that this never happened when we see it for ourselves?

Pointing out what you believe I do daily is not proof of any kind. It is nothing more than a personal opinion and a bald assertion, since you cannot prove it. You "believe" you have proved it but that is just ego.

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

No explanations you ever presented proved I committed a y fallacies because you misapplied the fallacies and said I committed them when I clearly did not. I explained how I did not commit them in my replies.

I can see all the fallacies atheists commit and I have pointed them out, sometimes is great detail. How do you think you can get away with saying that this never happened when I can see it for myself? It matters not one iota that there is one of me and more of you, since that does not prove that what you say is true. All it shows is that I am the only believer who spends so much time posting to atheists about logic

 

[Trailblazer]

Theists are simply unable to convince a person who requires compelling evidence before believing.

Yes, you should have compelling evidence before believing, but why do you think that theists are responsible for convincing atheists?

 

[Trailblazer]

If your posts don't demonstrate what your standards are then you are not sharing the truth of what you think and believe.

If you are being truthful, then we can easily assess your stands by your thinking process.

No, you cannot know my standards because you run what I say through your own filters and thus you misunderstand what I mean by what I say. Just as you know your own standards better than anyone else can ever know them, I know my own standards better than anyone else can ever know them.

You do not know what my 'thinking process' is, only I know what it is.

If you want to know what someone is thinking it is best to ask them and then believe them when they answer.

 

[F1fan]

You're missing the point. What difference does it make to you what anyone else "believes in"? It's what they assert to be true, and what they do about it that matters.

How often do Christians assert Hindu beliefs are true? Or Hindus asserting Islam is true? How often do conservatives in the USA assert Climate Change and healthcare is a priority? Do any creationists argue for evolution?

Can you cite any case in which someone who believes something argues for some other option?

Do you assert atheism is true? have you ever? If not, then your claim above has no examples, thus not true.

And the same goes for you. I don't get the point of this obsession with what people "believe", particularly on the part of atheists who keep endlessly proclaiming what they DON'T believe.

We believe theists have no evidence, nor justifications for their claims and beliefs, even though they wield a lot of influence in the world. Is there a problem examining whether our beliefs are correct or not?

 

[F1fan]

As a Buddhist, you've rejected Jesus, so good luck with that..
Jesus said:- "Whoever rejects me rejects God" (Luke 10:16)

No, I reject the claims made by christians that their dogma is true and factual.

Your poor example as a Christian indicates the religion is a fraud, as even you don't care to follow Jesus.

 

[F1fan]

No one has any control over what anyone else "believes in" or chooses to invest their time and effort in. NOR SHOULD WE. What matters is whether or not their concept of reality would benefit us, if we could understand it, and how their behaviors (regardless of their beliefs) effect us. So again, I see not reason at all to be concerned with anyone else's 'beliefs', or for anyone else to be concerned with mine (or yours). And should I encounter anyone who is concerned with my 'beliefs' (I don't really have any) I would certainly ask them why. But no one ever is.

Sounds like big sales pitch. But you seem to be overcomplicating it all. Atheists know their way around these issues. Most theists know what they believe but not why they believe, and they do their best. Some folks are looking for truth and are confused. But in any event we come here for fun. People don't play poker to share the meaning of life, it's fun.

That never happens. And even if it did, so what?

It would and should, because Christian theology is objectively absurd. Few abandon their religious beliefs once they are conditioned to believe, unless they face a huge crisis.

Is this some kind of mind game we play with each other to prove who's mind is stronger than who's? Some sort of intellectual pissing contest, to feed our ego? I could find you ten people who claim that "Jesus saves", and every one of them would be saying it meaning ten very different things. Different things about what "Jesus" is, and what gets "saved", and how. So you win your verbal pissing contest, but what have you learned about how any of these people experience existence? Zippo. And what have they learned from you? Zippo.

I've learned science and reason. Most theists have little to teach others.

BUT, you can walk away feeling all superior, and smarter than them, I guess.

If a person has the advantage of facts and reason as they debate those with dogma, it is a superior position, yes?

They give you a better pissing contest, I guess, sure.

What, do you want RF to close down, or just be about sharing pictures of cats? This is a debate forum. Why problem do you have with it, after all, you're here too? You could close your account, right? Or better yet, provide facts that your religious beliefs are true.

But you never actually win the game. And no one ever actually learns anything about how the other experiences the gift of being. ... But as long as that ego gets stroked ... who cares, right? (By the way, serving their ego is the reason they're trying to win the game, too.)

Actually when someone posts a valid debate answer that is factual and has sound logic, it's a Winner. There are many Winners who are atheists. There are even some who are theists. But winning a religious argument is very, very difficult, if not impossible.

Why is it impossible? The lack of facts, the life blood of logical arguments.

The "battle of beliefs" is nothing but a battle of egos. It has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth of knowledge.

Are you referring to yourself right now? You're part of this forum that you despise. Explain. Use logic.