Fooling atheists

[Cacotopia]

What I don't get is why you think there needs to be a reason for things happening the way they happen. You assume there is this master plan. Maybe there isn't one, but I don't think you ever catered the thought that there possibly isn't a reason. It just is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Has the universe fooled atheists into thinking there is no God?
Or can’t atheists be fooled?

Atheists can fool some of the atheists, some of the time.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Let’s take an example.........
I don’t know the actual figures, but let’s say malaria kills 10,000 children a year.
This example could encourage 10,000 people to become atheists.
So could this example fool the atheists into thinking there’s no God.
Couldn’t it be part of God’s plan for malaria to kill innocent children?
The universe is as is!!!!!!!

Let’s take another example............
Again I don’t know the true figures, but let's Say Revoltingest kills 1 pig a week.
That could encourage you to become vegetarian/vegan.
Revoltingest, who has a choice, continues on the path of destruction.
Revoltingest’s taste for bacon fools him into thinking there’s no God.
But could it be part of God’s plan to entice Revoltingest with the temptation of satisfying his taste buds.

What to do, what to do........
The universe is as is........
What will become of the people........
Is evolution, on the whole, a good or bad idea? (For what it is)

I think on average, evolution is a good idea. Otherwise why have children?

 

[Valjean]

It is not the universethat has fooled anyone, it is Satan. God has left much evidence of His existence but has allowed Satan to cloud people's minds so that only a few really faithful can see the truth. Atheists do not see the truth so the say God does not exist. It is not their fault but they have fallen under the influence of Satan who they also cannot see so they will of course deny that this is the way it is.

If God had left much evidence He would be universally accepted today. Science is very good at picking up even the subtlest evidence, yet has found none.
What is this abundant evidence of God? What evidence do you have for Satan? and what for his intent?
Some atheists say God does not exist. Most merely reserve judgement pending evidence. It is not reasonable to believe in something without evidence.

Let’s take an example.........
I don’t know the actual figures, but let’s say malaria kills 10,000 children a year.
This example could encourage 10,000 people to become atheists.
So could this example fool the atheists into thinking there’s no God.

I don't see the connection. Atheists lack belief for the same reason you lack belief in the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal -- no evidence.

If the universe was fooling atheists into believing there’s no God,
Perhaps they should become agnostics.

There's an awful lot of overlap between the two. How are you defining agnostic so as to exclude atheist?

 

[Valjean]

I suppose what i’m Saying is.....
Just because the Universe works in a certain way,
This doesn’t say anything about whether there’s a Creator or not.
That seems logical to me.

Even if physicists came up with a theory of everything....
And explained the universe with an equation....
Again this doesn’t rule out God,
He might have his own equation of explanation.

The universe can’t fool the agnostic,
For he doesn’t know and admits it.
But both atheists and theists are open to foolication.
I rest my case!!

Your concept of agnostic applies to most atheists.

So an agnostic atheist knows what he believes could be wrong?

Most atheists are agnostic. We withhold belief pending evidence.

Atheists can fool some of the atheists, some of the time.

Atheists aren't out to proselytize or fool anyone. You're thinking of religious evangelists.

Let’s take another example............
Again I don’t know the true figures, but let's Say Revoltingest kills 1 pig a week.
That could encourage you to become vegetarian/vegan.
Revoltingest, who has a choice, continues on the path of destruction.
Revoltingest’s taste for bacon fools him into thinking there’s no God.
But could it be part of God’s plan to entice Revoltingest with the temptation of satisfying his taste buds.

The primary reason we lack belief is lack of evidence, not because we disagree with how things are being run.
You have the wrong idea.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Has the universe fooled atheists into thinking there is no God?
Or can’t atheists be fooled?

No. How can a universe fool someone???? Is it a person?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Some atheists say God does not exist. Most merely reserve judgement pending evidence. It is not reasonable to believe in something without evidence.
I don't see the connection. Atheists lack belief for the same reason you lack belief in the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal -- no evidence.

Why would a God create a disease?
Some might say this is evidence of no God.
This is the connection.

There's an awful lot of overlap between the two. How are you defining agnostic so as to exclude atheist?

How can one make up their mind concerning:-
1. The natural evolution of the malaria virus in a universe created by the Creator
&
2. The natural evolution of the malaria virus in a universe with no Creator

Because either is possible given that no one knows anything about the creator.
I understand though, atheism is lack of evidence in God so they don’t believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's said that Satan's greatest trick was convincing people that he did not exist.

Not to be outdone by his arch nemesis, God quickly followed suit.

It also says satan can mask as an angel of light.

 

[Valjean]

The universe has both good (wine) and bad (malaria) aspects.
The universe even tries to convince us it’s non-conscious.

How does it try to convince us of this, by leaving no evidence? If there is no evidence of something isn't the reasonable default position to withhold belief? Otherwise you'd have to believe in everything -- till it was specifically disproven. This would get ungainly pretty quickly, no?

This says nothing about whether a creator exists.

Exactly!
Welcome to the dark side.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not quite. An agnostic accepts that they don't know everything, so there could be evidence they are missing. An atheist lacks a belief in deities because they have yet to see evidence for deities. An atheist isn't wrong in saying that they have yet to see convincing evidence for the existence of deities. If at a later date there is convincing evidence then they are not proven wrong since up until that point they did not have that evidence.

The mistake you seem to be making is in not understanding the difference between a lack of belief and a belief that something doesn't exist. Those are two different things. I don't believe that Bigfoot exists, but I also happily admit that there is an extreme outside chance that Bigfoot does exist. Do you understand the differences between the two?

What would you call a person who doesnt believe in, I dont know, talking elephants?


Edit.

Are they keeping an open mind that elephants might talk one day or do they have a firm valid justification to say there are no talking elephants based on the logic of the function and differences in animal communicaton compared to humans says otherwise?

Why would we accept someone who says people cant fly but consider people agnostic or ignorant when it comes to god?

Logically, whats the difference between the two scenerios?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

No. How can a universe fool someone???? Is it a person?

No it’s not a person....it’s more like an optical illusion (kind of).
An optical illusion can fool you into thinking it’s one thing for one moment,
And another thing for another moment.
Knowing and understanding a little of the universe could lead even the brightest minds to make a mistake and believe one thing when in fact, the opposite is true.
Opposite of atheism is theism.
(The opening post applies to theists as well as atheists)
Opposite of theism is atheism.
(Either view could be mistaken in equal measure)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No it’s not a person....it’s more like an optical illusion (kind of).
An optical illusion can fool you into thinking it’s one thing for one moment,
And another thing for another moment.
Knowing and understanding a little of the universe could lead even the brightest minds to make a mistake and believe one thing when in fact, the opposite is true.
Opposite of atheism is theism.
(The opening post applies to theists as well as atheists)
Opposite of theism is atheism.
(Either view could be mistaken in equal measure)

Thank you. Id say some theists are fooled. If the natural world is all there is, what reason would we assume there is a god/etc if only going by the outside world?

I mean, beliefs, culture, etc are a product and cause of humanity. To place these things as if they are inheritedly connected to nature or the universe is our illusion. Everything just is. Gods have nothing to do with it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Has the universe fooled atheists into thinking there is no God?
Or can’t atheists be fooled?

Gosh, that would make the universe considerably more intelligent than we are.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I honestly dont like the "we dont believe because there is no evidence."

Id say some dont believe because there is no logic and reason consider that there is any evidence to show. Why ask or want evidence when there is none?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What would you call a person who doesnt believe in, I dont know, talking elephants?

Sane.

Are they keeping an open mind that elephants might talk or do they have a firm justification to say there are no talking elephants because of the logic of animal communicaton compared to humans says otherwise?

The lack of evidence for talking elephants would be a strong justification for not believing that there are talking elephants. I am sure that if someone claimed to have evidence for talking elephants they would be very open to seeing that evidence. I would be open to that evidence, and I don't believe there are talking elephants.

Why would we accept someone who says people cant fly but consider people agnostic or ignorant when it comes to god?

Logically, whats the difference between the two scenerios?

The difference is tentativeness. It is about having a bit of self awareness and humility to the point that you realize you don't know everything. As soon as you say that X doesn't exist, then you are claiming universal absolute knowledge, knowledge that you just don't have.

Even in common parlance there is an implied tentativeness to the statements people make, at least in my experience. If someone says "people can't fly" there is an implied "as far as I know" at the end of it.

 

[Valjean]

Why would a God create a disease?
Some might say this is evidence of no God.
This is the connection.

But this is not why most atheists lack belief in God. We don't reject Him cause we have creative disagreements. We lack belief cause He's left no evidence of His existence.
There are well understood biological explanations of disease that don't involve any malevolent entities.

Either He doesn't exist or He's chosen to remain hidden. It pretty much comes to the same thing, ergo, we withhold belief pending evidence.
If He existed and cared to be known, I'm sure the omnipotent creator of the universe would have no trouble planting convincing evidence of his existence.

How can one make up their mind concerning:-
1. The natural evolution of the malaria virus in a universe created by the Creator
&
2. The natural evolution of the malaria virus in a universe with no Creator

Because either is possible given that no one knows anything about the creator.
I understand though, atheism is lack of evidence in God so they don’t believe.

Now you're catching on.
1. There's no good evidence for a God.
2. The works attributed to Him are explainable through ordinary, natural processes -- making His existence unnecessary or, at best, irrelevant.

 

[Valjean]

It also says satan can mask as an angel of light.

What is this "it?"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sane.



The lack of evidence for talking elephants would be a strong justification for not believing that there are talking elephants. I am sure that if someone claimed to have evidence for talking elephants they would be very open to seeing that evidence. I would be open to that evidence, and I don't believe there are talking elephants.



The difference is tentativeness. It is about having a bit of self awareness and humility to the point that you realize you don't know everything. As soon as you say that X doesn't exist, then you are claiming universal absolute knowledge, knowledge that you just don't have.

Even in common parlance there is an implied tentativeness to the statements people make, at least in my experience. If someone says "people can't fly" there is an implied "as far as I know" at the end of it.

That would mean things like gravity can be 1% false ? If leaving an open mind?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The bible

What is this "it?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

I honestly dont like the "we dont believe because there is no evidence."

Id say some dont believe because there is no logic and reason consider that there is any evidence to show. Why ask or want evidence when there is none?

That would be the obvious venue of approach. Can't really say something's there, when it isn't.

Could never figure out exactly why people think otherwise.