Fooling atheists

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

It means that our models of how gravity works could be wrong. There is also the fact that there are at least two models of gravity in science today, so at least one of them has to be wrong, and possibly both.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Yeah. I think both "common" opposing arguments make me scratch my head.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It means that our models of how gravity works could be wrong. There is also the fact that there are at least two models of gravity in science today, so at least one of them has to be wrong, and possibly both.

Do you understand my point?

Is it 1% possible tbe computer (types irrelevant) you're using is actually a shoe given there is a 1% chance we can be wrong?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Is it 1% possible tbe computer (types irrelevant) you're using is actually a shoe given there is a 1% chance we can be wrong?

I guess it is possible, but there is no real reason to consider it to be true.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Because the religious insist there is evidence; because their whole argument is based on this alleged evidence. The whole dispute hinges on the evidence/no evidence question.

 

[Valjean]

The bible

And is this "Bible" an authoritative, evidence-based, tested, peer reviewed source?
Is it more authoritative than the Quran, the Gita, or Le Petit Prince?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

No one can expect God to leave evidence of his existence if that’s not what he wants to do.
Sherlock Holmes has met his match.
Or was that inspector cluesaw?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess it is possible, but there is no real reason to consider it to be true.

I think if we kept saying what-ifs, we forget that we only know whats around us. Instead of saying we dont know (you know something I dont know and vis versa) use to our advantage what we do.

Its not egotistic. Just means youre firm in your values and position in life. How do you build a foundation when you (people) keep questioning and never firm minded on whether you hold bricks or sand?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Luke (to ObiWan): "How did you get them to ignore us like that?"

ObiWan: "The Force has a powerful influence on weak minds."

Luke (dazed): "The Force has a powerful influence on weak minds."

ObiWan: <rolls his eyes and sighs... again...>

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And is this "Bible" an authoritative, evidence-based, tested, peer reviewed source?
Is it more authoritative than the Quran, the Gita, or Le Petit Prince?

Doesnt matter. The bible just says satan can nask as light. So just as athiesy could be fooled (pretending its true to make a point) so can god(s) believing theists.

Just I only read the bible. Thats what it says.

 

[Valjean]

No one can expect God to leave evidence of his existence if that’s not what he wants to do.
Sherlock Holmes has met his match.
Or was that inspector cluesaw?

If God doesn't care to leave evidence for His existence, then He can't expect anyone to take his ___________ (insert holy book here) seriously. He can't expect us to believe in Him or follow any of His rules.

If He leaves no evidence, clearly he wants us to be atheists.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Oh, sure-- atheists can be fooled. But:

If it's true that this godbeast deliberately and with willful intent, "fools" atheists into not accepting the 100% lack of any evidence for gods, as reasonable?

Then, I submit that the godbeast in question is pure evil-- what is it trying to hide, here? To what end, does it only and ever permit the gullible and the too-quick-to-believe to recognize it?

It would seem that this godbeast is only interested in the ..... more gullible sort, to be it's followers.

Why? What else will it put over onto these people?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No matter our opinions, we only fool ourselves.

Maybe.

It seems possible to fool other folk at least some of the time. Else no politician would ever get elected...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How do you build a foundation when you (people) keep questioning and never firm minded on whether you hold bricks or sand?

The foundation is built on evidence. Do you have evidence that you are holding a brick? Yes. Therefore, you move forward with the conclusion that you hare holding a brick until evidence emerges that shows otherwise.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Hint: It is quite possible to be both..... in fact, nearly all atheists I've asked about this, are both..... atheists are willing to entertain evidence in support of a godbeast-- it's just that nobody is willing to rise to the challenge.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No one can expect God to leave evidence of his existence if that’s not what he wants to do.

God wouldn't leave evidence if God doesn't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because the religious insist there is evidence; because their whole argument is based on this alleged evidence. The whole dispute hinges on the evidence/no evidence question.

So. If you believe theres no evidence, the discussion would be more of a debate than a personal argument. Support ones side without personally attaching oneself to the topic.

Also, each theist defines god differiently. Yall would need to have a single definition of god. Theist give evidence all the time just ya'll not on the same foundation to take each others argument into consideration.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The foundation is built on evidence. Do you have evidence that you are holding a brick? Yes. Therefore, you move forward with the conclusion that you hare holding a brick until evidence emerges that shows otherwise.

Why consider you may not be holding a brick and evidence that youre not unless the claims are so important you need to ask what you already know is false? Assuming you know you are holding a brick even if someone tells you sand.

Philosophical questions are cool. Just online seems more personal. Very different in person in my experience.

 

[Valjean]

So. If you believe theres no evidence, the discussion would be more of a debate than a personal argument. Support ones side without personally attaching oneself to the topic.

Also, each theist defines god differiently. Yall would need to have a single definition of god. Theist give evidence all the time just ya'll not on the same foundation to take each others argument into consideration.

What's a "personal argument," some sort of aesthetic disagreement?

Don't pretty much all definitions of God describe a magical, intentional personage?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Why consider you may not be holding a brick and evidence that youre not unless the claims are so important you need to ask what you already know is false? Assuming you know you are holding a brick even if someone tells you sand.

The possibility that I am not holding a brick was already considered as part of the process of gathering evidence.