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

[SkepticThinker]

The "Establishment" are the sick controlling authorities, they and their lackeys hate Christianity because it's onto all their sly little tricks..

Paul said "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil.." (Eph 6:12)

Do you have examples, or not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The list is as long as my arm and would fill another 50 forum pages..

Then provide it already. Sounds like it should be super easy, and yet you've been doddling through several posts now without citing a single example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that was true, it would be only the theists who start threads about God on this forum, but that is not what I see.

Moreover, atheists are talking about the God they do not believe in all the time. I have to wonder why atheists talk so much about a nonexistent entity, aside from the fact that they like to challenge theists. I would never waste my precious time talking about something I did not believe existed. If I did not believe that God existed I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not on a religious forum.

So the only reason I can think of as to why there are so many atheists on a religious forum is either (a) or (b):

(a) They want to know if God exists, or (b) They want to prove that theists are wrong and God does not exist.

I wish for their sake it was (a) but I see no evidence of (a) so I have ti conclude that it is (b).
I just do not understand why anyone would waste their time trying to prove someone else is wrong, aside from ego.

That's easy.

Because atheists live in a world where we have people like you telling us that there are God(s) somewhere out there that we must defer to in very specific ways, (even though they can't offer convincing evidence for it), and then on top of that, they act in accordance with those beliefs and those actions often have an effect on a multitude of people, including non-believers. Such things effect our lives as well. Look at abortion laws, for example. Or for an even better example, look at human history and how non-believers have been treated by believers, when "The Church" was in charge. We were killed for simply not believing. These beliefs very much affect our lives, hence the reason it concerns us.


Here's a Christopher Hitchens quote that I think addresses this quite nicely:

"Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rational minds would know that there can never be proof of God's existence so they would never expect proof.

Rational minds don't believe in things lacking in good evidence.

Rational minds understand that God beliefs aren't exempt from scrutiny and aren't any more or less special than any other claim someone attempts to make.

 

[Trailblazer]

Rational minds don't believe in things lacking in good evidence.

I agree.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree.

Again, Baha'is are going against centuries of Christian doctrines and dogma. So is it "rational" to think that there is an intelligent design to creation? Sure. But then what do the Born again Christians say? That less than 10,000 years ago God made everything. Then about 4 or 5000 years ago flooded the whole world. Then 2000 years ago Jesus walked on water and floated off into space. Do Baha'is believe any of that? At best, metaphorically. Plus Baha'is believe in evolution. And, in some invisible creative force that has put all this in motion. I think, in some ways, Baha'is have more in common with Atheists than Born again Christians.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, Baha'is are going against centuries of Christian doctrines and dogma. So is it "rational" to think that there is an intelligent design to creation? Sure. But then what do the Born again Christians say? That less than 10,000 years ago God made everything. Then about 4 or 5000 years ago flooded the whole world. Then 2000 years ago Jesus walked on water and floated off into space. Do Baha'is believe any of that? At best, metaphorically. Plus Baha'is believe in evolution. And, in some invisible creative force that has put all this in motion. I think, in some ways, Baha'is have more in common with Atheists than Born again Christians.

You bet we go against the false Christian doctrines, not to mention not interpreting the Bible literally....

I could be an atheist if I did not believe in God.

 

[CG Didymus]

You bet we go against the false Christian doctrines, not to mention not interpreting the Bible literally....

I could be an atheist if I did not believe in God.

And that's where I disagree with Baha'is... I do believe the Bible and the NT were expected to be taken literally. It goes through the people and the places and the things that happened to them, but it was metaphorical? I'd believe that it wasn't accurate history. I'd believe that some of the people didn't actually exist. But it would have had no power to get people to listen to it and obey if the people were told the stories weren't true.

Like the flood. A preacher says that God judged the world and killed all the evil people... sparing only Noah and his family. That's scary stuff. To think an invisible God that knows all is watching your every move, and if you disobey him, he will punish you. But, if the preacher says that the story is metaphorical... that God really didn't do that. Then why would anybody be scared of this God?

Or, if the preacher tells you that Satan is out there trying to deceive you and get you to not believe in God and to get you to do evil. But, in the end, Satan and all evil people will be thrown in hellfire. Very scary. But then the preacher says that the story is not literally true, it's symbolic. Well, then what? There is no Satan? There is no hellfire. Yeah, not so scary.

 

[Trailblazer]

I obviously can't speak for other atheists, but I do listen to what you say.

"He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with 106 the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

So in your opinion, in regards to proving to yourself that what he is saying is true, what can you use these statement to? And for me as a skeptic what can I use them for when it comes to establish whether its true or not?

To be honest, I never read these passages before I became a Baha'i. I am only presenting them now because I came across them and atheists have been asking me for proof of Baha'u'llah. Before I became a Baha'is i never thought in terms of proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God since that is not what attracted me to the Faith. I was drawn to the teachings such as the oneness of mankind, the oneness of religion, the nature of the soul and the afterlife. I was also drawn to the underpinning theology, progressive revelation from God and the promise of universal peace and a new world order. I never thought much about God back then; I just assumed that God existed but I did not really believe like I do now. It was only after intensive study of the Writings of Baha'u'llah that I came to believe in God like I do now.

I would recommend to a skeptic that these passages be used as general guideline in order to know what Baha'u'llah said about the evidence that establishes the truth of His claims: "the The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth.

No you are not forced to demonstrate anything, but if you want anyone to take the statement "I know" seriously you have to. Personally, I don't understand this way of thinking, it is very foreign to me, sort of like a person putting a finger in each ear and just going "lalalala" whenever someone tries to talk to them.

I honestly don't know how to explain it.

I understand what you are getting at but I do not care if anyone takes me seriously because I am not trying to convince anyone of what I believe since I know that is impossible and I don't think it is my job. Moreover, I cannot explain how I know because it is an inner sense of knowing, not an outward kind of knowing that is dependent upon factual proof.

Maybe the problems is with the religious beliefs and how they fail to make use of evidence and not everyone else?

I don't think it is the evidence that fails, I think it is people who fail to recognize the evidence as evidence for what it is evidence of.

Yes, that is part of what it means to believe in these things, if they weren't convincing to religious people they would be atheists.

True, and if they were convincing to atheists they would be believers.

I would disagree with that, evidence are evidence. Either they confirm something or they don't, there are varies degrees of evidence, meaning weak or strong. Religious evidence can be just as strong as scientific evidence. Lets say we found the Ark on the mountain? or the original tablets that Moses got from God or some other evidence removing any doubt that this weren't true. The problem is we haven't found any such thing.

I agree that religious evidence can be as strong as scientific evidence but that is just from my own perspective because I see strong evidence for religion, and mostly for the Baha'i Faith. However, there is no evidence for religion that I see atheists convinced by.

So let's say we found the original tablets of Moses. How could we ever verify that a man called Moses wrote them? Even if we could verify that why would that be more convincing than the original tablets of Baha'u'llah that have already been verified to have been written by Him?

Why is Moses being a Prophet of God more believable than Baha'u'llah being a Prophet of God, because of the Bible? The Bible is not verifiable and it is not historically accurate, and it was not written by any Prophets or Messengers of God; it was written by unnamed authors. So why is the Bible more believable than the original writings of Baha'u'llah?

We don't know that, first we have to even demonstrate that the supernatural exists to begin with.

How can we demonstrate that anything supernatural such as the soul or the spiritual world exists from the material world vantage point?

So there is no need to include anything other than the first part to his statement:

If the bible is true God exists

The other part of his statement is not needed, it doesn't add anything at all.

I am glad you caught that, I also caught that later.

If the bible is true God exists, is valid even though it is circular, but if God exists the bible is true is not valid or sound because God could exist even if the Bible is not true, and God existing does not mean that the Bible is true.

It doesn't matter if its religious or not assuming that its using the same setup, if the "IF's" can't be proven it nothing but speculations. Exactly as when scientists talk about multiverses, they have no clue what happened before the big bang. But if we assume that multiverses are true, then that could explain how our universe could come into existing. But again, it completely depends on the "IF".

The biggest difference between religion and science, is that science have no problem saying that they don't know, because the evidence simply aint there or they are not good enough. Which is in complete contrast to religious claims, like when you say that you know that it is true, yet are unable or see no need to demonstrate it.

That is a very legitimate point. If the IF cannot be proven then a sound argument cannot be made, whether it is science or religion that we are making an argument for. I also understand your other point and it is well taken. Scientists will say they don't know if they have no proof but religious people sometimes say they know even though they have no proof. This is where faith enters in, I know because I have faith, faith supported by evidence but not proof. I can see how this would be annoying to atheists because they cannot understand where the faith comes from. I don't know either, although I believe God has some part to play, according Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that's where I disagree with Baha'is... I do believe the Bible and the NT were expected to be taken literally. It goes through the people and the places and the things that happened to them, but it was metaphorical? I'd believe that it wasn't accurate history. I'd believe that some of the people didn't actually exist. But it would have had no power to get people to listen to it and obey if the people were told the stories weren't true.

That's a good point, the Bible would have had no power to get people to listen to it and obey if the people were told the stories weren't true. It does make sense that the Bible and the NT were expected to be taken as literally true, but that does not mean that everything in the Bible and the NT are literally true. Please bear in mind that the Bible and the NT were written thousands of years ago, and since people living in those days did not have science
and all the other information we have today it would be easier for them to believe those things were literally true.

Most people living in this age know better, except the fundamentalists who stick with the literal understanding. Moreover, some of the Christian beliefs such as in Satan and the resurrection were passed down over many generations so children were raised to believe them without question. As adults, some Christians now reject these beliefs but many also continue to believe them.

 

[rational experiences]

As just a human first formed in human parent sex I live I learn I think I question.

I also get told.

So I looked at the history do what I say not what I do and said really!!!??

I looked at all my sick family extended family. As I love humans.

I saw very sick people.

I hence said in the only place a human questions spirit....if you are real and I exist after death then prove it.

As no way could I believe in any human pre taught story.

In my mind heard I got an answer. Not mine. Nor what I wanted to hear. It said I had to live the spiritual life myself to prove it.

So I did. And spirit proved its teachings to me.

The one and only place where creation fell away from...the eternal.

The only place we came from....the eternal only after god O the earth filled in the thin empty plane of space.

From a spiritual.being.
As a spiritual being whose entry at the ground body changed by water and oxygen.

Why we have it inside of us. We spiritually bodily converted.

Father told me all first earth life had been eradicated.

Our human life spirit came back out after the ice age. Proof we came direct from spirit all earth life had been destroyed.

All the information given I applied research was always real. So I learnt to trust

My own proof.

 

[Nimos]

So let's say we found the original tablets of Moses. How could we ever verify that a man called Moses wrote them? Even if we could verify that why would that be more convincing than the original tablets of Baha'u'llah that have already been verified to have been written by Him?

Why is Moses being a Prophet of God more believable than Baha'u'llah being a Prophet of God, because of the Bible? The Bible is not verifiable and it is not historically accurate, and it was not written by any Prophets or Messengers of God; it was written by unnamed authors. So why is the Bible more believable than the original writings of Baha'u'llah?

That we found the tablets wouldn't in itself be a smoking gun, I agree with you. But every evidence that could confirm the biblical account. And you are correct, that the stories in the bible doesn't make them more believable than that of Baha'u'llah. The only thing is that Baha'u'llah is rather new in that regard, meaning that our communication is better, yet he haven't been able to provide any better evidence. Its merely his claims which can't be verified.

That is why when we talk evidence we look for things that is simply not written stuff, like stuff in the bible. And why the tablets, the ark etc. would be interesting. If other scriptures at the same time period talked and confirmed the story of the bible, that Moses and the Jews wandered around, that a Jesus an his disciples healed and raised the dead. That would be very useful as well.

How can we demonstrate that anything supernatural such as the soul or the spiritual world exists from the material world vantage point?

We don't know, very little to no effort have been made by those that believe in these things to find ways to demonstrate it. Every time something have been assigned to being supernatural, we have found natural explanations. Like ancient people that thought they could bring rain if they did certain rituals, or that lightning came from gods etc.

So its no easy task that is for sure, but that doesn't mean that we should simply assume that it exist then. Which is exactly why we need evidence or demonstration, so we don't repeat the same mistake as those before us.

This is where faith enters in, I know because I have faith, faith supported by evidence but not proof. I can see how this would be annoying to atheists because they cannot understand where the faith comes from. I don't know either, although I believe God has some part to play, according Baha'u'llah.

Also why you will often see atheists react to religious people saying that we have faith in scientists, which is not the case, we are well aware that they might be mistaken. And that a lot of the things they say are merely assumptions. Just because we are atheists doesn't mean that we also automatically believe that the multiverse idea is correct.

 

[CG Didymus]

Most people living in this age know better,

Yes, and Atheists have been extremely important in getting people to challenge and question those beliefs. That's why I think the Baha'is should be grateful to Atheists. Trouble is... They reject the Baha'i Faith too. But I think threads like this are to blame. You know they're going to want and expect the types of evidence you can't provide.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and Atheists have been extremely important in getting people to challenge and question those beliefs. That's why I think the Baha'is should be grateful to Atheists.

I love atheists and I agree with them on many points but how does getting people to question Christian beliefs help the Baha'is? It is not as if the Baha'i Faith is in competition with Christianity so we do not need the help of atheists to knock down Christianity.

Trouble is... They reject the Baha'i Faith too. But I think threads like this are to blame. You know they're going to want and expect the types of evidence you can't provide.

Oh no, threads like this are not to blame for why atheists reject the Baha'i Faith. They reject it just as they reject all religions, because they do not see any evidence that proves that God exists in any religion. My telling atheists what the evidence is is not what causes them to reject the Baha'i Faith, as they would discover that for themselves even if I never told them.

 

[samtonga43]

You quoted me out of context so it misrepresents my position.

The context has no bearing whatsoever on these words said by you:
"Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing".

People here are not stupid, they can figure things out.

Yes, you got that right!

 

[night912]

I am defensive at all. There is no evidence of me being defensive.

There's plenty of objective evidence of you being defensive.

Answering a post is not being defensive.

Except for when the response is being defensive.

Why do you feel a need to point out flaws in other people, does it make you feel superior?

Actually, pointing out flaws in other people is the opposite of that. Helping others improve themselves is actually treating them as equals because it's acknowledging that we as human beings are not perfect and should help each other improve humanity as a race. How I see it, someone who is unwilling to help others and/or accept help from others, is the person who is acting as if she's superior. Someone acting superior won't help and/or accept help from them, is the person who is treating others as if they are beneath yourself. This is exactly like how your god and his messengers treat everyone else. Deliver the message by using a "superior" method and if they're not able to understand it through that method, then oh well. It's their fault for being inferior and can't understand the message. That's what you've been preaching all this time in RF.

You sure like to criticize me and other people. I wonder if you can see that you have any faults of your own.

I don't see anything wrong with critiquing someone's ideas using logical arguments and evidence. What I do see as being wrong is telling someone that they are wrong and you are right, and that's that. And if counter arguments are presented and/or pointed out that your arguments and/or claims are illogical, you go and treat RF members as if they are too incompetent to know how to look at your previous posts that clearly shows your fallacious and/or dishonesty. Then to only pile up more evidence of your dishonesty, you go on to play the innocent victim and accused others of attacking you personally. And in that accusations, it goes along the lines of, "you're the only who does, nobody else here in RF does what you are doing," only for you to move on to the next person and say the exact same thing to them.

 

[night912]

I agree and I never thought of it that way, but that is not what is happening on this forum. On this forum "some" atheists are making believers into enemies. Atheists are not my enemies but some atheists cannot see believers as anything but a enemy. They always have to be right so that means believers have to be wrong. I did not need to get an MA in psychology to figure this out. It is basic psychology.

And I didn't need to take one course in psychology to see that you are doing some psychological projection. And it's safe to say that not everyone needs to take a course in Logic 101 to see that you don't understand logic. It is just that obvious.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's a good point, the Bible would have had no power to get people to listen to it and obey if the people were told the stories weren't true. It does make sense that the Bible and the NT were expected to be taken as literally true, but that does not mean that everything in the Bible and the NT are literally true. Please bear in mind that the Bible and the NT were written thousands of years ago, and since people living in those days did not have science
and all the other information we have today it would be easier for them to believe those things were literally true.

Most people living in this age know better, except the fundamentalists who stick with the literal understanding. Moreover, some of the Christian beliefs such as in Satan and the resurrection were passed down over many generations so children were raised to believe them without question. As adults, some Christians now reject these beliefs but many also continue to believe them.

Yes, now we should know better. And that's a strong point of the Baha'i Faith... to not believe and follow the superstitious beliefs of the past religions. So it's such a fine line for Baha'is to say that they "believe" in the manifestations and the Scriptures of the old religions, but not the interpretations and the doctrines and dogmas of the old religions. And the problem is that we don't have the original teachings. All we know is what the Scriptures say. So, for me, if those religions have some things wrong in them, they started with the Scriptures themselves. Like with the gospel stories saying that Jesus resurrected. Very easily can be called a "superstitious" belief. But then, I'd do the same with the virgin birth story. So sometimes I agree with what the Baha'is believe and sometimes I don't.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
Facts, of which there are none.

His image on burnt toast, signed.

 

[Trailblazer]

The context has no bearing whatsoever on these words said by you:
"Anyone can "believe" that God did x or y, but that does not prove a thing".

Yes, you got that right!

Yes, people CAN and DO egotistically believe they are smart and have figured things out but that does not mean what they believe they have figured out is true....