Fooling atheists

[Subduction Zone]

If you focused it on christianity, what other source of evidence would some atheist look for outside their scripture? I mean, I "experinced" god in the Catholic Church. What -I- personally know of him. How I talk about the trinity is understood but foreign language to catholics. My figuring out the mystery of the eucharist seems to belittle them. But the evidence is there. Youre using the wrong criteria to confirm it.

What type of god does a atheist want to see?

Do they have an idea of what they want to see so when a theist finally tells them, theyd finally believe it?

Their consistancy is the bible. Think Muslims the same. Jews most definitely. Its a cultural thing. All theree have a "if you'r not apart of us you want understand it." Spiritual ego. I had one jew basically insulted me because his view on christians as if all americans are christians. Online, they have more issues of mentioning their name than a christian does.

So, guess it depends on what atheists mean by the god they want to see. If its not logical, and they believe god doesnt, unless agnostic, what exactly are they looking for and why the christian god?

There are different sorts of evidence. The evidence that you refer to is personal evidence and only amounts to confirmation bias by any outsider. What I would like to see is independent evidence. That is evidence that exists independent of observer or presenter.

And if the Bible is your source then you appear to be confused. It is far from consistent.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Evidence is asked for new ideas or for ideas that run counter to the ideas that one currently accepts. Therefore if someone claimed to "prove gravity wrong" I am going to demand some fairly hefty evidence. If he says "this rock will drop when I release it" I tend to accept that since that goes along with my current understanding of the world. If one makes a claim one should be ready to defend it. Otherwise why should anyone accept it? That is why atheists quite often that atheism is not an outright denial that gods exist. It is simply a lack of belief, as one does not believe in Sasquatch. Give me some strong evidence, not a video of a man in a monkey suit, and I will probably change my mind. The same applies to the existence of a god. No one is being "fooled" since there is no evidence that could fool us.

wait.... what are you trying to say, here? Bigfoot was .... fake? Dammit, man you just ruined my childhood....

I really got a fright, when I was in Jr High, and watched the movie The Legend Of Boggy Creek.

 

[Subduction Zone]

wait.... what are you trying to say, here? Bigfoot was .... fake? Dammit, man you just ruined my childhood....

I really got a fright, when I was in Jr High, and watched the movie The Legend Of Boggy Creek.

Shh! I lied. I have seen Sasquatch in real life, and more than once. Click on the spoiler to see him in action:

Spoiler

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 I understand you correctly, you're saying that God has *not* left evidence of his existence and even Sherlock Holmes would be justified in concluding that God doesn't exist. Is this right?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do you ask yourself that and ask for evidence when someone else says something opposing what you believe (Im holding a brick) or do you acknowledge it is true (I could be wrong) giving credits to the probibility and other people telling you it is not regardless your original belief?

The question is why consider the possibility not that there is none.

If someone told me I was not holding a brick I would probably look at what I was holding in my hand. Your point?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am fascinated by the demand for physical evidence of non-physical phenomena.

Do you have anything else besides "Because I say so"?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I mean, I "experinced" god in the Catholic Church.

How did you determine this?

I could probably dig up testimonies from many people who experienced other gods or spirits, but would you find those testimonies to be convincing?

What type of god does a atheist want to see?

Whatever god exists, if a god does exist. It is rather interesting that you think what type of god exists depends on what humans wish to exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are different sorts of evidence. The evidence that you refer to is personal evidence and only amounts to confirmation bias by any outsider. What I would like to see is independent evidence. That is evidence that exists independent of observer or presenter.

The problem with that is religion is based on personal evidence and experience. Its all throughout history. Its either communal and/or individual. Its been mythology to imagined stories that comfort and make sense to the believer. You cant keep asking a child to prove santa is actually his father. By the childs logic, thats just not possible. Then, when you poke a hole in that childs world, some children, it may disettle them because they had been taught that their entire childhood. They knew nothing else.

How I got "evidence" of gods non existence is talking to people about Their testimonies. Reading Their books. Looking at common sense, history (a lot of it!), and the relation of how we see ourselves and others and our place in things. There are many common threads (since we are all human). We ideally have the same senses. We all have the ideal ability to experience the same thing. No one is an alien to each other.

I understand religious views but not atheist ones. I understand how a child can believe in santa. I dont understand why an another adult would ask the child to prove santa is real. How can you prove something exist by your definition when their reality is totally different?

Youd probably have to talk with a convert. Even then, like trauma victims, they probably repressed their former religion in light of their present (those religions that scrutinize any religion but itself).

And if the Bible is your source then you appear to be confused. It is far from consistent.

It is their source of accurcacy. I dont believe in the bible at all. A lot of history is there and a lot of mythology. Christian bible is in part greek and roman influenced. Outside the Torah, its a smorgasborg; but, if Im finding "religious" evidence, I need to use the religious' criteria. Id get nowhere trying to find gods with beards and people walking on water.

 

[WalterTrull]

Do you have anything else besides "Because I say so"?

I have stated my reasoning several times here on the forum. I have also pretty much stopped arguing proofs that are not recognized by others. Ah well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If someone told me I was not holding a brick I would probably look at what I was holding in my hand. Your point?

The question is why consider the possibility not that there is none?

Why consider the probability there is no brick when there is one in your hand?

If you are sure of yourself there is a brick, why say you can be 1% wrong?

God works the same way. Why would an atheist think there is a one percent probibility they could be wrong if they believed what they believe to be the truth?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am fascinated by the demand for physical evidence of non-physical phenomena.

LOL You made my day!

Gotta eat. Ha.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have stated my reasoning several times here on the forum. I have also pretty much stopped arguing proofs that are not recognized by others. Ah well.

Then you can hardly blame us for being unconvinced by proofs that we are not shown.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The question is why consider the possibility not that there is none.

Why consider the probability there is no brick when there is one in your hand?

Because humans are fallible. That's why we always consider the possibility that we are wrong. However, when the evidence piles up on one side then we follow the evidence.

God works the same way. Why would an atheist think there is a one percent probibility they could be wrong if they believed what they believe to be the truth?

That's just it. Atheists know that they are fallible so they don't make claims of having absolute and dogmatic truths. What we do believe is tentative and based on evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because humans are fallible. That's why we always consider the possibility that we are wrong. However, when the evidence piles up on one side then we follow the evidence.

I only consider something wrong if Im solving a math equation, Im doing something I havent done before, Id check if if it were correct. But I usually dont check if Im wrong typing on my phone or that Im listening to music. Inherited sin, perhaps, always thinking we are wrong one way or another. We find it hard to pat ourselves on the back.

If evidence piles up, and you confirmed it, why ask (in general) outside of getting new information and philosophical talk?

That's just it. Atheists know that they are fallible so they don't make claims of having absolute and dogmatic truths. What w

It works both ways. The criteria for, we'll stick to christians, christianity is different than mathematical logic. It cant be in the same boat when discovering right and wrong. Both if you have claims of truth. Both of you use different criteria. Theist know this. Some atheists dont.

As for dogmatic, Im mainly talking about god(s) believers. Dogmaticism is besides the point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is an experience not a man in the sky

How did you determine this?

Ask any believer to discribe god. They'd always use an adjective or adjective that acts as an noun. God is love. god is grace. God is just. You wont hear "god has two fingers, african american, with a sinister smile."

I could probably dig up testimonies from many people who experienced other gods or spirits, but would you find those testimonies to be convincing?

If I compared it to mathematical language, Id say its psychological. Some people do actually hear voices (those who have some mental health conditions). It makes sense how. We see the effects. And, it isnt true. Everything "depends" and has its own criteria for truth. We wouldnt use the DSM to cure cancer.

I only experienced the sacraments. Catholics usually dont give private testimonies. So, I just go off of what makes sense rather than whats convincing.

Whatever god exists, if a god does exist. It is rather interesting that you think what type of god exists depends on what humans wish to exist.

Youd have to explain what god you are looking for. Christians have yet to explain the fathers actual nature apart from jesus; so, I have no clue what an atheist is trying to get evidence for.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The problem with that is religion is based on personal evidence and experience.

That is also the type of evidence we would expect for a god that doesn't exist.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I only consider something wrong if Im solving a math equation, Im doing something I havent done before, Id check if if it were correct. But I usually dont check if Im wrong typing on my phone or that Im listening to music. Inherited sin, perhaps, always thinking we are wrong one way or another. We find it hard to pat ourselves on the back.

How did sin get into this? We are simply fallible, and I don't see what sin has to do with it.

Have you never checked what you write for spelling and grammatical errors? Do you think that whatever you right is true, no matter what?

If evidence piles up, and you confirmed it, why ask (in general) outside of getting new information and philosophical talk?

Because I could be wrong.

It works both ways. The criteria for, we'll stick to christians, christianity is different than mathematical logic. It cant be in the same boat when discovering right and wrong. Both if you have claims of truth. Both of you use different criteria. Theist know this. Some atheists dont.

As for dogmatic, Im mainly talking about god(s) believers. Dogmaticism is besides the point.

I fully agree that theists don't have evidence as defined by atheists. The thing is that you demand that same type of evidence for every other claim that isn't about gods, so the inconsistency is a bit troubling.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that God has *not* left evidence of his existence and even Sherlock Holmes would be justified in concluding that God doesn't exist. Is this right?

All I’m saying is if God exists and didn’t leave evidence,
Sherlock Holmes might come to the wrong conclusion and conclude God doesn’t exist!
So in this example, the universe has fooled Sherlock Holmes.
I’m not sure if God intended to fool Sherlock Holmes......
God isn’t obligated to leave evidence, if he exists.
I think the problem lies with Sherlock Holmes......
It’s in his nature to look for evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is also the type of evidence we would expect for a god that doesn't exist.

Yes. Its one of those accept or not. Dont beat a dead horse

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that is religion is based on personal evidence and experience. Its all tbroughiut history. Its either communal and/or individual. Its been mythology to imagined stories that comfort and make sense to the believer. Youbcant keep asking a child to prove santa is actually his father. By the childs logic, thats just not possible. Then, when you poke a hole in that childs world, some children, it may disettle them because they had been taught that their entire childhood. They knew nothing else.

How I got "evidence" of gods non existence is talking to people about Their testimonies. Reading Their books. Looking at common sense, history (a lot of it!), and the relation of how we see ourselves and others and our place in things. There are many common threads (since we are all human). We ideally have the same senses. We all have the ideal ability to experience the same thing. No one is an alien to each other.

I understand religious views but not atheist ones. I understand how a child can believe in santa. I dont understand why an another adult would ask the child to prove santa is real. How can you prove something exist by your definition when their reality is totally different?

Youd probably have to talk with a convert. Even then, like trauma victims, they probably repressed their former religion in light of their present (those religions that scrutinize any religion but itself).

Yes, that is why I do not like to say "no evidence of god", but I will say "no reliable evidence of god". Testimonies are not reliable evidence since they tend to contradict each other. They depend too much on the "believe me" claim.

It is their source of accurcacy. I dont believe in the bible at all. A lot of history is there and a lot of mythology. Christian bible is in part greek and roman influenced. Outside the Torah, its a smorgasborg; but, if Im finding "religious" evidence, I need to use the religious' criteria. Id get nowhere trying to find gods with beards and people walking on water.

Correction noted. Yes it is their source. It still fails for the given reasons.