Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[leibowde84]

I have always agreed it is not automatic!!


I would love to see atheism evolve rapidly. But at this time 'Most atheists are Materialists' and I don't think you can find a single expert (atheist or theist) that would not say the same as me.

Can you provide support for your claim?

 

[Robert.Evans]

But there is nothing explicit about the universe that demands that there has be a terminating cause of events in the metaphysical world. Nothing about the metaphysical implies that there must be a beginning or that it must exist.

The universe has an end to its beginning- the big-bang, in itself a singularity. The reason that happens that way is because it follows a print-consciousness. It can only do the same thing going back. There can only be one first thought. Nothing can regress in time always. It has to end. There has to be a beginning. I don't see how you don't see that. What do you think is the cause or source of everything then?

 

[Demonslayer]

That is not a good definition. You should try others. Evidence does not always show something is true. Think of a court case. That is why there are JUDGES, becasue they judge.
You are thinking of proof.

LOL, it's not a good definition? Tell it to Webster, that's the actual definition of evidence, not something you made up because you want it to be true.

I am thinking of a court case. You need a bullet, or a glove, or a fingerprint. Then a judge can judge. You can't walk in and say "I believe with all my heart that this man is guilty!" That's not evidence, and that's all you're doing with your belief in God. You have zero evidence. You can't make up defintions of things based on what you want them to mean.

You think in court you could present what you believe is evidence of God, and actually win the case?

"Your honor I will now present evidence of the existance of Lord Yahweh!"
"OK present your evidence"
"See that beautiful mountain range and this chubby baby? There must be a God!"
"Are you freakin' kidding me, baliff throw this man out of court!"

It would be evidence of God if you understood it just as listening to a German speak is evidence they are German.... though not to someone who does not speak German. To them it is a foreign language and no more.

You think looking at a beautiful mountain range and thinking that's "evidence" of a creator God is the same as hearing someone speaking German and saying that's evidence that they are German is the same thing? You're daft. Hearing someone speak German in a German accent is actual evidence that they may be German. Seeing a mountain range is in no way connected with the idea of a deity. Particuarlly because we know how mountain ranges are formed, and it has nothing to do with Yahweh and his jar of Cosmic Play-Doh.

I'll explain the reason. What if I see the same beautiful mountain range and see it as evidence that ancient aliens created it? You see the mountains and think they are evidence of God creating it. Actual evidence would point to one or the other. The beautful mountains aren't evidence of anything by themselves, you just have a religious framework in your head so you "see God" in everything. There is no evidence whatsoever, other than what you've created in you mind.

In other words, you'd lose that court case immediately if all you had was what you claim to be "evidence." This is why in court any mention of God is immediately thrown out. There has never been one tiny shred of actual evidence for any deity. It's literally all in your head.

 

[leibowde84]

Huh? I wrote sentient beings, non-''object'' gods, /like an idol or such/, classical ideas of gods, and that you could essentially present any argument within those parameters. What exactly is the problem with those parameters?

You still haven't told us which of these you would like us to disprove.

 

[dust1n]

There has to be a beginning. I don't see how you don't see that.

Because this:

The reason that happens that way is because it follows a print-consciousness. It can only do the same thing going back. There can only be one first thought. Nothing can regress in time always. It has to end.

Is not knowable, let alone a given because of this:

The universe has an end to its beginning- the big-bang, in itself a singularity.

What do you think is the cause or source of everything then?

I don't know what the cause or source of everything is. That's just it. No one does.

 

[leibowde84]

That is because it won't help your argument or rather clearly, your lack of an argument. The Biblical G-d is the title that I personally adhere to /I'm not an exclusivist/; however, I'm not going to continually correct mistakes made from poor research, or mistakes in general, and I'm not going to refute pointless appeals to authority.

Appeal to authority? So, you would like us to disprove the Christian god?

 

[leibowde84]

If they are not materialists, what are they?
Are you saying they believe in metaphysical things? Like what? Things they can't see nor hold, BUT not God. Is that it?

Exactly.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is not a good definition. You should try others. Evidence does not always show something is true. Think of a court case. That is why there are JUDGES, becasue they judge.
You are thinking of proof.

LOL, it's not a good definition? Tell it to Webster, that's the actual definition of evidence, not something you made up because you want it to be true.

There are other definitions. Evidence does not necessarily mean proof.

I am thinking of a court case. You need a bullet, or a glove, or a fingerprint. Then a judge can judge. You can't walk in and say "I believe with all my heart that this man is guilty!" That's not evidence, and that's all you're doing with your belief in God. You have zero evidence. You can't make up defintions of things based on what you want them to mean.

There are many different kinds of evidence such an subjective or objective, emperical etc. Witness statements are evidence. If evidence was as absolute as you say, one it would be proof and two we would not need a judge.

You think in court you could present what you believe is evidence of God, and actually win the case?

"Your honor I will now present evidence of the existance of Lord Yahweh!"
"OK present your evidence"
"See that beautiful mountain range and this chubby baby? There must be a God!"
"Are you freakin' kidding me, baliff throw this man out of court!"

It is not only evidence, it is proof. But if you are trying to show the existence of God rather than his accomplishments, that would not be possible. Ignorance is bliss my friend.

It would be evidence of God if you understood it just as listening to a German speak is evidence they are German.... though not to someone who does not speak German. To them it is a foreign language and no more.



You think looking at a beautiful mountain range and thinking that's "evidence" of a creator God is the same as hearing someone speaking German and saying that's evidence that they are German is the same thing? You're daft. Hearing someone speak German in a German accent is actual evidence that they may be German. Seeing a mountain range is in no way connected with the idea of a deity. Particuarlly because we know how mountain ranges are formed, and it has nothing to do with Yahweh and his jar of Cosmic Play-Doh.

You see know connection because you do not understand the theology behind it. Someone speaking German is only evidence to someone who understands what the German language sounds like.

I'll explain the reason. What if I see the same beautiful mountain range and see it as evidence that ancient aliens created it? You see the mountains and think they are evidence of God creating it. Actual evidence would point to one or the other. The beautful mountains aren't evidence of anything by themselves, you just have a religious framework in your head so you "see God" in everything. There is no evidence whatsoever, other than what you've created in you mind.

As I have said, evidence can be many things. No one will see something of evidence they don't understand. Who saw evidence of evolution before it was understood?

In other words, you'd lose that court case immediately if all you had was what you claim to be "evidence." This is why in court any mention of God is immediately thrown out. There has never been one tiny shred of actual evidence for any deity. It's literally all in your head.

It is not. It is everything that is, was, will be and you and me. You are looking for something metaphycial in a physical world. You can't do that. You need to understand the argument better. It is not an easy task, as any disipline isn't. You are taking a sterotypical view point that fits your own ideas

 

[Yorutenchi]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.
I'm an honest person, not religious, this isn't a ''trick'' question. Non atheists can answer to

/fun thread

To first address your "theism" lets look at the reasons you are a theist. What is your supporting structure to your belief? What is it based on?

Is it faith? Pure faith? If so why? What reason do you have with faith other than you were told to be that way? If it is true or it is not true you would never know if all you relied on was faith. There must be something more. Or is there?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is not a good definition. You should try others. Evidence does not always show something is true. Think of a court case. That is why there are JUDGES, becasue they judge.
You are thinking of proof.

LOL, it's not a good definition? Tell it to Webster, that's the actual definition of evidence, not something you made up because you want it to be true.

I am thinking of a court case. You need a bullet, or a glove, or a fingerprint. Then a judge can judge. You can't walk in and say "I believe with all my heart that this man is guilty!" That's not evidence, and that's all you're doing with your belief in God. You have zero evidence. You can't make up defintions of things based on what you want them to mean.

You think in court you could present what you believe is evidence of God, and actually win the case?

"Your honor I will now present evidence of the existance of Lord Yahweh!"
"OK present your evidence"
"See that beautiful mountain range and this chubby baby? There must be a God!"
"Are you freakin' kidding me, baliff throw this man out of court!"

It would be evidence of God if you understood it just as listening to a German speak is evidence they are German.... though not to someone who does not speak German. To them it is a foreign language and no more.

You think looking at a beautiful mountain range and thinking that's "evidence" of a creator God is the same as hearing someone speaking German and saying that's evidence that they are German is the same thing? You're daft. Hearing someone speak German in a German accent is actual evidence that they may be German. Seeing a mountain range is in no way connected with the idea of a deity. Particuarlly because we know how mountain ranges are formed, and it has nothing to do with Yahweh and his jar of Cosmic Play-Doh.

I'll explain the reason. What if I see the same beautiful mountain range and see it as evidence that ancient aliens created it? You see the mountains and think they are evidence of God creating it. Actual evidence would point to one or the other. The beautful mountains aren't evidence of anything by themselves, you just have a religious framework in your head so you "see God" in everything. There is no evidence whatsoever, other than what you've created in you mind.

In other words, you'd lose that court case immediately if all you had was what you claim to be "evidence." This is why in court any mention of God is immediately thrown out. There has never been one tiny shred of actual evidence for any deity. It's literally all in your head.

By the way, your wrong:

ONE EXAMPLE of evidence in court:

• Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence.htm

 

[Demonslayer]

There are other definitions. Evidence does not necessarily mean proof.

I'm not saying evidence = proof. Hearing someone speak German in a German accent is evidence that person could be German. But the person could also be Irish, and simply have studied German in Germany.

But hearing the speech is evidence. Having a gut feeling based on your indoctrination is not evidence to anyone other than you. Otherwise I can say the beautiful mountains are evidence that Horus is real.

Would you accept that evidence?

 

[Robert.Evans]

There are other definitions. Evidence does not necessarily mean proof.

I'm not saying evidence = proof. Hearing someone speak German in a German accent is evidence that person could be German. But the person could also be Irish, and simply have studied German in Germany.

But hearing the speech is evidence. Having a gut feeling based on your indoctrination is not evidence to anyone other than you. Otherwise I can say the beautiful mountains are evidence that Horus is real.

Would you accept that evidence?

Can you not use the quote feature? It would be easier to know when you reply to someone specific.

I am not indoctrinated. I did not believe as a child. Your preconceived ideas are a big problem to you accepting what is true.

It has nothing to do with a gut feeling. It is, however, intuitive, but then all things are. Even observing something has to be accepted in the mind.

Find the argument as much as you want, but you are left with 'luck' if you dismiss are 'intelligence'

 

[Demonslayer]

ONE EXAMPLE of evidence in court:

• Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.

Of course testimony can be accepted as evidence, but to be accepted the statement the witness makes must actually include something concrete.

Example of valid testimony that would be accepted in court:
- I saw the defendant fleeing the scene with blood dripping from his hands
- I heard a scream and a gunshot

Example of testimony that would get you laughed out of court
- God told me that man is guilty
- I have a really strong feeling that when I look at that man, he's guity

 

[Demonslayer]

Can you not use the quote feature? It would be easier to know when you reply to someone specific.

I'm trying to figure it out...I'm new here.

 

[Demonslayer]

I am not indoctrinated. I did not believe as a child. Your preconceived ideas are a big problem to you accepting what is true.

Poppycock, you weren't raised in a church going family?

 

[Robert.Evans]

ONE EXAMPLE of evidence in court:
Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.
Of course testimony can be accepted as evidence,

that is not what you just said.

but to be accepted the statement the witness makes must actually include something concrete.

Example of valid testimony that would be accepted in court:
- I saw the defendant fleeing the scene with blood dripping from his hands
- I heard a scream and a gunshot
[/QUOTE]
One would assume that they were connected with the particular court case, yes.

Example of testimony that would get you laughed out of court
- God told me that man is guilty
- I have a really strong feeling that when I look at that man, he's guity

That would be subjective evidence. It would no doubt be followed up with Why do you think that. Either way, I said that a witness statement in a court was evidence, and it is, even you are admitting it now. Perhaps you misunderstood looking at the last example you gave
I suppose that shows a superstitious element to atheism

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm trying to figure it out...I'm new here.

Okay. Welcome. Now back to the fighting

I use this [/QUOTE] which I copy. It goes after the part you are quoting. I past it then after my answer and take out the forward slash. Then i put more of the quote. If I want to answer, I paste again, answre again, and then after my answer, paste and take out /

I hope I got that right!

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

I am interested in how you have reached your position of atheist, then. If you mean atheism in a broad sense, but admit that a broad argument cannot be presented against theism,... does this put into question, the surety of your atheistic position?

Hello everyone.

I apologize for jumping in and answering a question which was not addressed to me, as well as being late to the party.

Theism is impotent in terms of explanatory power, predictive power, etc. with regard to varying phenomena which affect my life. Viz, I lack theistic belief. It is not a position of surety, but an absence. I am no more against theism in general than I am against an individual being kind enough to inform me that next Tuesday will smell yellow. If, of course, this kind individual begins to make various ontological claims about next Tuesday's olfactory hue, and attempts to support those claims with causal ancestries which either contain or are dependent upon supernatural whosits and whatsits, well; I'm certain I'll object.

 

[Demonslayer]

Okay. Welcome. Now back to the fighting

Awesome, I hate when people are thin-skinned and I'm glad you can "fight" without getting bent out of shape about it. Good stuff.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Poppycock, you weren't raised in a church going family?

Why would I lie? In England most don't believe...least it seems that way