Fooling atheists

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

That's the problem. If it can't be used to discern between a god that does exist and one that doesn't exist then it isn't evidence by its very definition.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

The US has a tendency to think we are always wrong. We blame ourselves before patting ourselves on the back. Its influenced by the idea of inherited sin. Fallible=disabled or so have you. Dont know about other countries.

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

Its percieved error free until I press post reply then find evidence there are errors so I correct them. Whichever I dont within that minute is not intentional.

Theists believe their "spelling" is correct because they go by their own dictionary. Until you convince them their dictionary doesnt match the websters, you can be debating grammar all day and wont get anywhere.

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 troublin

I dont understand.

If I want evidence of the muslim god, I read the Quran.
If I want evidence Im cooking cake correctly, I need the right recipe
If I want to prove there is gravity Id see if my pencil floats.

The criteria to validate god, food, and gravity are different. It would be off to use one set of criteria on something totally different.

Expand a bit. Inconststancy by your (you-universal) criteria or theirs?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The US has a tendency to think we are always wrong. We blame ourselves before patting ourselves on the back. Its influenced by the idea of inherited sin. Fallible=disabled or so have you. Dont know about other countries.

Fallible doesn't mean that we assume we are always wrong. It is just the realization that we can be wrong. Those are not the same thing.

If I want evidence of the muslim god, I read the Quran.
If I want evidence Im cooking cake correctly, I need the right recipe
If I want to prove there is gravity Id see if my pencil floats.

If you want to know if a drug works, do you rely on personal revelation that someone claims came from a deity? Or, do you rely on clinical trials to determine if a drug works?

The criteria to validate god, food, and gravity are different. It would be off to use one set of criteria on something totally different.

You only say that it is different because you lack that evidence.

It is claimed that God exists in the physical realm and that God affects the physical realm. Therefore, the same criteria for evidence should apply.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fallible doesn't mean that we assume we are always wrong. It is just the realization that we can be wrong. Those are not the same thing.

Ok.

If you want to know if a drug works, do you rely on personal revelation that someone claims came from a deity? Or, do you rely on clinical trials to determine if a drug work

The two are two different fields of study.

You only say that it is different because you lack that evidence.

Exactly. A theist has different criteria than what some atheist want. Theist try to explain god by experience. Atheist try to ask evidence by facts. Theist need to develop factual language to describe experiences. Atheist need to bite the bullet because they are asking for something they, themselves, cant describe to confirm the existence of what they ask.

It is claimed that God exists in the physical realm and that God affects the physical realm. Therefore, the same criteria for evidence should apply.

Its claimed god can be experienced by his holy spirit. It is also claimed god is spirit that comes into a person to be born again. God talking and gods love are expressions of experience and internal interaction with their uplifted spirit they call god.

Ask a christian if they knew god existed before they were christian. Its depended on the christian. My mother exist regardless if I know her our not. God is "revealed". He doesnt come into existence until the christian submits to god (the experience beyond themselves; trust)

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The two are two different fields of study.

Why? Because you say so?

Exactly. A theist has different criteria than what some atheist want. Theist try to explain god by experience. Atheist try to ask evidence by facts. Theist need to develop factual language to describe experiences. Atheist need to bite the bullet because they are asking for something they, themselves, cant describe to confirm the existence of what they ask.

Experiences and a lack of independent and verifiable evidence is exactly the evidence atheists would expect for a deity that doesn't exist.

Its claimed god can be experienced by his holy spirit. It is also claimed god is spirit that comes into a person to be born again. God talking and gods love are expressions of experience and internal interaction with their uplifted spirit they call god.

People claim that God heals people in the physical world. People claim that God interacts with the physical universe in very real and detectable ways.

Ask a christian if they knew god existed before they were christian. Its depended on the christian. My mother exist regardless if I know her our not. God is "revealed". He doesnt come into existence until the christian submits to god (the experience beyond themselves; trust)

I would fully agree that you have to believe in God before you can believe in God. That's why atheists are skeptical of religious belief.

 

[Willamena]

Experiences and a lack of independent and verifiable evidence is exactly the evidence atheists would expect for a deity that doesn't exist.

*facepalm* Yes, but that's not a good thing, it's a confirmation bias.

 

[dfnj]

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

Can't atheists be fooled is dumb thing to say. Anyone can be fooled. Being a theist or atheist has nothing to do with being fooled.

Atheist don't think there's no God. Atheists think there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore, atheists have no belief in God or gods. This is very a big difference than what you are saying. You are posting with a premise about atheists. You believe atheists are denying the existence of God. They are not. All atheists claim is they have no belief in God. And most atheists will claim the reason they have no belief in God is because there is no credible evidence.

If I hold an apple in my hand, we both can look at it and say "apple". However, you cannot do the same thing with God. You cannot grab me by the hand bring me over to some old man sitting in a chair and say, "here, meet God." The atheists are absolutely correct there is no evidence for the existence of God. But why does it matter. People have faith in God precisely because there is not a shred of evidence for God's existence.

Any theist commenting on atheism is just expressing their own lack of faith in God. If a theist faith in God were strong then a theist would not care one way or the other about atheism. We only criticize and hate in other people what we do not like about our own character. A theist commenting on atheism is like someone who is outspoken against homosexuality. Isn't funny how people who are the most outspoken against homosexuality turn out to be one in the end. The same thing is true with theists talking about atheists. They will probably become one in the end.

 

[Hawkins]

Atheist don't think there's no God. Atheists think there is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore, atheists have no belief in God or gods. This is very a big difference than what you are saying.

Unfortunately that's exactly how you get fooled. Humans seldom rely on evidence to determine a truth since that's not possible for each the majority to do experiments all the times to get to a truth. We rely mostly on faith to get to a truth. That's why you never need to speculate or examine scientific evidence to "know for a fact" that earth is revolving around the sun. All we have are the reliable scientists we can put faith in what they said.

Yet science is just a specific and narrow kind of truth. Other truths such our history basically has no evidence. Evidence basically is possible for our gathering and examination provided that we can physically go there. This thus usually doesn't apply to history as we can't go back to the past. It doesn't apply to whether we can know something lying ahead in the future. It doesn't apply whether there are something outside our space (such as the gods).

All of the above however are possibly reached by faith. We reach facts such as the existing of black holes simply by putting faith in our scientists instead of examining evidence of black holes. We sit in front of TVs to get to know what are happening in this world by putting faith in our media made of reporters and journalists. We can't reach our past directly, we can put faith in our historians who wrote down the history for us. This makes reaching the past possible. At last but not least, it makes reaching the future possible, which otherwise is completely unreachable to humans.

In a nutshell, faith instead of evidence is the fundamental way for humans in majority to reach a truth of any kind. To say otherwise only means you are indoctrinated by your secular education ever since childhood (childhood is always a good time for brainwashing).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why? Because you say so?

You dont know this????

You dont know the difference between religious views and non religious views????

I gotta. Im shocked.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why? Because you say so?

I despise sarcasm; and, its not a good conversation starter.

If you want to know if a drug works, do you rely on personal revelation that someone claims came from a deity? Or, do you rely on clinical trials to determine if a drug work

One is medical. Its based on tests (clinical trials) etc

The other is religious. Its based on culture, history, testimony, and some communal.

You can test and retest things in science.

Religion is personal and Is in the eye of the beholder

You cannot use, can not, use the same criteria of science on religion and vis versa. Something you either to accept, learn from, discuss differences,

But no sarcasm.

Experiences and a lack of independent and verifiable evidence is exactly the evidence atheists would expect for a deity that doesn't exist.

So. They are both different. Atheist are trying to eat tomato soup with a fork. Religious know this. I know this. Why dont some atheist???

People claim that God heals people in the physical world. People claim that God interacts with the physical universe in very real and detectable ways.

Yes. Its not scientific. Why try to find material evidence for something clearly not based on scientific laws?

Now that. Makes no sense. What'soever.

I would fully agree that you have to believe in God before you can believe in God. That's why atheists are skeptical of religious belief.

Which -we- have a right to be skeptical; but, we have to be logical in our skeptism. It has to make sense.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One is medical. Its based on tests (clinical trials) etc

The other is religious. Its based on culture, history, testimony, and some communal.

Why shouldn't both be based on the same type of evidence?

Religion is personal and Is in the eye of the beholder

No, it isn't. We are told that there is a very real deity who really exists outside of the mind of the beholder. That is a claim of objective existence, not subjective experience.

You cannot use, can not, use the same criteria of science on religion and vis versa.

Why not?

Atheist are trying to eat tomato soup with a fork.

Atheists can demonstrate that both forks and tomato soup exist by using evidence. It's not the same thing.

Yes. Its not scientific. Why try to find material evidence for something clearly not based on scientific laws?

Why try to find objective evidence of something that is said to objectively exist? That's an easy answer. BECAUSE THAT IS THE TYPE OF EVICENCE YOU NEED.

Which -we- have a right to be skeptical; but, we have to be logical in our skeptism. It has to make sense.

What doesn't make sense about requiring independent and verifiable evidence for the things you believe are true?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You dont know this????

You dont know the difference between religious views and non religious views????

I do. Non-religious views often have evidence to back them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you want to emphasize, you can use italics, color, oh, um, bold. Upper case is yelling and it distracts the conversation.

Why shouldn't both be based on the same type of evidence?

I dont know. Why cant we eat tomato soup with a straw edit. Fork?

Supernatual religions do not work that way. Repeatedly asking isnt going to give you a different answer. If you want to talk about the logic behing it without discrediting their answer, many are willing to do

No, it isn't. We are told that there is a very real deity who really exists outside of the mind of the beholder. That is a claim of objective existence, not subjective experience.

So you think they actually communicate with a casper like spirit?

I live with, around, and in the environment of christians. I have yet to hear a christian "believe" god is an casper-like being floating around talking to people.

If you get pass the flowely language and poetry, it will make more sense. Takes patience and reflection.

It can be done.

It is subjective. Ask three christians to describe god. Ask a catholic. If he trusts you, he'd say the Eucharist. Some say spirit. Others human.

You gotta use your own common sense. What do they have in common. Is it really supernatural or are they, like other god-religions just trying to define something "greater" than themselves.

You must go deeper.

Why not?

Its like eating tomato soup with a fork. You just cant do it. Try seeing if science can detect what you are thinking. Even psychologist dont know. Somethings arent "scientific."

Atheists can demonstrate that both forks and tomato soup exist by using evidence. It's not the same thing.

Reread: atheist are using a fork to eat tomato soup. Its a foregone conclusion.

Why try to find objective evidence of something that is said to objectively exist? That's an easy answer. Because that is the type of evidence you need.

Christianity Is subjective. I mean, Roman Catholics been trying to describe the eucharist for years. I like jews. They dont try to explain god at all. If jews dont describe god, and christians cant figure which description they want to use. What in the type evidence is an atheist looking for???

What doesn't make sense about requiring independent and verifiable evidence for the things you believe are true?

Skepticism 'least have to make sense.

I do. Non-religious views often have evidence to back them.

Doesnt matter. They are different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's the problem. If it can't be used to discern between a god that does exist and one that doesn't exist then it isn't evidence by its very definition.

If there are different types of evidence, not all evidence need to be based on the same criteria. Evidence jesus exist is based on the bible in one view. Historical records in another. The Eucharist proves jesus communion in one view but just taste like bread and wine to another.

If it is not subjective any person will know jesus as the eucharist. Its not objective. Evidence for god is not the same type of evidence as for curing cancer. Very different.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I dont know. Why cant we eat tomato soup with a straw?

That's my point. There is no real reason to demand evidence of one type for something that is claimed to objectively exist and then not demand that same type of evidence for something else that is also said to objectively exist.

So you think they actually communicate with a casper like spirit?

There are plenty of religions which describe exactly that. Didn't Jesus rise from the dead an wander about?

It is subjective.

God doesn't exist outside of your head?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If there are different types of evidence, not all evidence need to be based on the same criteria.

Why not?

The only reason I see for claiming this is that you don't want those beliefs challenged.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's my point. There is no real reason to demand evidence of one type for something that is claimed to objectively exist and then not demand that same type of evidence for something else that is also said to objectively exist.



There are plenty of religions which describe exactly that. Didn't Jesus rise from the dead an wander about?



God doesn't exist outside of your head?

I use common sense to see pass the claims. If I took claims as facts of their belief, Id be just as off as an atheist claims of a theist. I mean, how can I know there is evidence for god when I dont believe in a creator? Claims are just that. Claims. If there is no support behind them, and it cannot be scientifically tested, what "instruments" can you use to know what god is in the first place?

You have to go beyond the claims.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why not?

The only reason I see for claiming this is that you don't want those beliefs challenged.

I can care less. Youre too invested in this convo.

I just know the difference between god of christians and god of atheists. If you go beyond claims and indoctrination THERE/got it spelled right, and investigate it, you develop your own understanding of faith independent of a persons claim.

If I know I cant get an answer from a christian, I look into it myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the difference between:

1. a universe in which God exists but has setup anything and everything to completely hide His existence
2. a universe in which God does not exist

It's actually a very easy question to answer.

Yes, it is easy to answer.
There is a HUGE difference. In 1, God exists and in 2, God does not exist.

It does not matter if God is hiding. Whether God is hiding or out in the open, the implications of God existing are exactly the same; All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise God who is in complete control of everything.

Why anyone would want to see God is beyond my comprehension. If I ever saw God I would know that it was not God, because God is supposed to be a Mystery.

“Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, it is easy to answer.
There is a HUGE difference. In 1, God exists and in 2, God does not exist.

But what would be the implications to a human life on Earth at any given moment? Since we cannot discern ANY such implications/differences, can't know for sure what God does do and what He doesn't do, what He had a hand in and what He didn't, I would argue that there is no difference between scenario 1 and scenario 2. That "God exists" becomes entirely irrelevant in scenario 1. The fact that you really only have this one point of difference to make should make one stop and think. And no, the addition of the smiley face does not add to the strength of your position.

It does not matter if God is hiding. Whether God is hiding or out in the open, the implications of God existing are exactly the same; All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise God who is in complete control of everything.

There is one huge, fantastic, glaring reason why it very much DOES matter if God is in hiding. And that is that we get no feedback (except the reaction of our fellow humans, or the discomfort of our own feelings of guilt/empathy) when we do something "wrong" or "against the rules." This is huge. If I gave my kids a list of rules to follow, and then when they broke those rules I did nothing, what would you think? And EVEN WORSE - if instead I DID punish them, but never let them know that what I was doing was punishment or even what they were being punished for, how would that look to you? Anything on Earth you can point to as punishment being doled out by God for anything anyone has done cannot truly be directly linked to the crime/sin, because we are never told explicitly that that's what's happening. Not to mention that sometimes the "bad guys" get away with the exact same crimes that others are "punished" for all the time. What would you think of me as a parent if I only ever punished one of my two children, but let the other get away with the SAME broken rules without punishment? This is exactly how people purport that God operates. "God works in mysterious ways" is a load of crap. He operates in completely inadequate, negligent ways. In fact... it's almost like he's not even there.

Why anyone would want to see God is beyond my comprehension. If I ever saw God I would know that it was not God, because God is supposed to be a Mystery.

Who says God is supposed to be a mystery? Is that a pre-requisite of being a God? That no one can know whether or not you actually exist? Sounds like a good pre-requisite for a "myth." Also - what about God "revealing" himself to people of times past? Why do we not all get the same chance? Did he "love" those people more? How can the case be made otherwise? I know how you would feel if your father had multiple children, and only ever interacted with your siblings but NEVER ONCE with you, personally. Is that "love?" Nope... that's garbage.

“Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

Funny how God would inspire people to write that God is a mystery, and transcends what we can know, or should know, etc. Isn't that so very convenient? Convenient for those who inform you what you should believe, but know they can't back it up with verifiable reasons WHY you should believe it.