• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isn't it better to be atheists?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Thank you


How would one defend god exists apart from the people saying he does exist?



Religion aside, culturally, at least in parts of the states, we believe: if you invite me, you pay the tab. You made the offer to pay, so you pay.

In religion, christians as a whole already made the claim both with the sword and others with a smile. They as one made the first claim "god does exists". Roman catholics back up their claim by explaining the nature of the sacraments before taking it aka explaining the factual nature of god rather than sayin "he exists" and thats it. They offered; they paid the check.

1 The claim has already been made first by christians
2. Non christian are "asking" not forcing christians to support their claim. How do you know; whats your experience.

3. The christians already said first "god exists" why and how would an atheist prove something that does not exist, does not exists?

Is that logical to you?

4. Wouldnt we first have to know what we are saying does not exist before trying to prove disprove it?

Please read this a couple if times. Its my point short and in one post.
I am one Christian. I decide what I will discuss, or not. If I am approached by someone who says, you are a Christian, I don't believe God exists., prove he does. As a Christian, I don't owe each and every person, at anytime, any where, including this forum, a recitation of evidences why I believe as I do. I am not a vending machine, where you put in your 50 cents and I am obligated to give you what you want, so you can argue with me.

As a kid I believed in the Loch Ness monster, and followed the research avidy over the years. Many many thousands believe it exists. Sadly, the research has supplied significant evidence that leads me to believe IT DOES NOT EXIST. It is a myth. If God is a myth, those who hold this belief ought to be able to prove it, or give strong evidence for it. Poor Nessie is gone, pretty much proven to have never existed. If this can be done in cryptozoology thin it ought to be able to be done with God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Your first half, not all of us are forcing you to speak of your experience and give concrete facts of gods existence. Thats a generalization and by such, I see more defensiveness as if we are asking you why you love your husband or wife.

From my point of view (not all atheist think alike), god is an experience. Im naturally expressive so if anyone asked me about gods existence I can tell them. I can explain how I know, what brought me to that conclusion, why, and be proud for myself for having that experience and living to express it to others.

You may not be the expressive type; but, that doesnt mean some of us arent asking genuine questions. You would need to have patience to know and not feel you have to defend yourself just because you are in a debate area. Not everyone learns by debate; I am one of them.

It is a myth. If God is a myth, those who hold this belief ought to be able to prove it,

Christian: god exists (your claim)

Me: I say he does not (my claim)

You: How do you know he does not exist (your question)

Me: Because the god Im familar with is not a being but an inner spirit within us all. I know this by experience (my answer)

Now I ask you Smogie

Me: How do you know god exists (my question)?

You: no. You said god does not exist. Prove it.

Me: I cannot prove what does not exist.

You: I will not explain gods existence. You made the claim first.

Me: you made the claim (above) I answered your question (above) now explain what is god to you (your turn)So we can be in the same page.

-

Unfortately, I never get futher from this with christians. Its like they are afraid to talk: "pearls among swine." Makes me wonder why they engage in conversations if they dont want to take a deeper part in it.

Understand?

Edit.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Your first half, not all of us are forcing you to speak of your experience and give concrete facts of gods existence. Thats a generalization and by such, I see more defensiveness as if we are asking you why you love your husband or wife.

From my point of view (not all atheist think alike), god is an experience. Im naturally expressive so if anyone asked me about gods existence I can tell them. I can explain how I know, what brought me to that conclusion, why, and be proud for myself for having that experience and living to express it to others.

You may not be the expressive type; but, that doesnt mean some of us arent asking genuine questions. You would need to have patience to know and not feel you have to defend yourself just because you are in a debate area. Not everyone learns by debate; I am one of them.

Actually I have defended the position many, many times in this forum, at least once with you a year are two ago.

Christian: god exists (your claim)
I made no claim. You are extrapolating based upon what you know I believe.
Me: I say he does not (my claim)

You: How do you know he does not exist (your question)
You made the claim, not I
Me: Because the god Im familar with is not a being but an inner spirit within us all. I know this by experience (my answer)
Then relate your experience, testimony is evidence
Now I ask you Smogie

Me: How do you know god exists (my question)?

You: no. You said god does not exist. Prove it.

Me: I cannot prove what does not exist.
Here is your problem. You make the claim, then say prove me wrong. I have given examples of how you might prove you right.
You: I will not explain gods existence. You made the claim first.

Me: you made the claim (above) I answered your question (above) now explain what is god to you (your turn)So we can be in the same page.

-

Unfortately, I never get futher from this with christians. Its like they are afraid to talk: "pearls among swine." Makes me wonder why they engage in conversations if they dont want to take a deeper part in it.

Understand?
Yes, I understaand. You engaged in a conversation with me, from a post I made that said I wouldn't discuss the issue of God's existence.You further stated you knew he didn't exist. I haven't changed my position on discussing the matter. A year or so ago I took on all atheist comers , and spent days with them discussing the evidences of Gods existence, the futility of answers from their god science, on and on and on. I won't do it again, at least for a while. Circular discussions are a waste of my time.
Edit.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are logical assertions, i.e. evidence, for both sides. Logic is a discipline with rules that allows one to test propositions, again, not to be confused with, "my opinion is logical".

No, in reality there is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God(s). Pretty much all the arguments require philosophical/theological assumptions that cannot be objectively verified.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member

Eh. Ive met many christians who did not feel they were proving to me there is a god. We actually has good talks since I didnt prove my "postion" either (didnt know I had one till RF. Go figure.). I did not care. Rather, we discussed the bible and we spoke of things Id thought theyd be uncomfortable with.

They were JW and we became friends. Another JW met me at the bus stop. I didnt know her. We talked snd she asked my faith. She said she would look it up and we talked about that.

I use JW because their views are a sharp difference than mine; but, them and catholics were the only two christian denomoni' I spoke with who were nice. I went to a baptist church and the whole sermon was about me.

Evidence is not about anything physical (you got the Wroooong atheist if youre thinking that :( ) Its an inner conviction and sense of peace and wellbeing. It makes you Want to talk about "evidence" because it becomes your life. You cant help it. It is not seperate.

It isnt science. It isnt something you can test.

Interestingly enough on RF Ive had a few good convo. One with WW, one LDS, and another Hindu. They have completely contrary beliefs but we talked to learn despite our differences.

Not all atheist want the type of evidence you may be thinking of. Thats why I dont get into evidence-conversations. Atheists get sarcastic. Christians get defensive. Maybe its internet but we are not all the same.

Edit.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I understand what you mean, but it is difficult for us humans to think in terms of a Almighty Being who does not do anything. :( Even as a Baha'i I would like to know what God is doing even though I know I can never know... It is a human frailty. :rolleyes:

I do not want God's itinerary, just a general idea of what God does, besides sending and speaking to Messengers every so often... o_O

What I referred to is 'God does not do anything from the human perspective,' and it does not mean God does nothing. It avoids the anthropomorphic view that God does this and that.

"God is not a chess player
With the white pieces
God is the sea
, , , and we are the fishes."
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No, in reality there is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God(s). Pretty much all the arguments require philosophical/theological assumptions that cannot be objectively verified.
Logic is neither philosophical or theological, it simply is a method of reasoning. OBJECTIVE verifiable evidence. Who determines both ? Is their an objective worldwide body who is tasked with verifying objective evidence ? We agree that proof, does not exist either way.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I am not a vending machine, where you put in your 50 cents and I am obligated to give you what you want, so you can argue with me.
I am still laughing... :) It has been a long day, too long, and I am so tired that I am kind of loopy.

But don't you know? God has a great big vending machine in the sky where can fly up to and you put your money in, and you can get whatever you want, because God is obligated to deliver... and none of it had better be evil... :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: Logically speaking, just because you believe the deity is nonexistent does not mean it is nonexistent. Beliefs do not create reality. A deity either exists or not.

Exactly. And belief also does not mean the existence of the deity. I am convinced enough in the non-existence to not be afraid of threats by that entity.
I am convinced enough to have a healthy fear of the deity, which in the Baha’i Writings translates to respect and reverence, not fear of what the deity might do to me…

According to my beliefs, the deity is not making any threats. If people do not believe the deity exists and they live according to the teachings of the Prophets, the deity is not going to “do” what most Christians believe it will “do” to them. Those days are over…

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

He is talking about a religious cycle and comparing the present cycle (that began with the Bab and Baha’u’llah) to the previous religious cycle (the one that began with Adam and ended with Muhammad). The previous cycle was a cycle of justice, so the deity gave people what they deserved, so they were punished for bad behavior. That explains the Old Testament deity. In this “new” religious cycle, however, the deity has changed its tune, and the deity has lightened up. Deeds are very important; gone is the concept of being “saved” by the blood of Jesus and not having to do anything else, not that Jesus ever taught that, but the Church did.

Unlike Christians, Baha’is do not believe in a “being” called satan; any references to satan mean the lower materialistic selfish nature of man, the satanic self. So what he is saying is that a nonbeliever who has good morals and deeds is better than a believer who does not have good morals and deeds.
Trailblazer said: I always wonder, why do nonbelievers talk so much about a non-existent deity? I would never waste my time talking about a deity I do not believe exists. If I did not believe in the deity, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not 24/7 on forums.
C:\Users\Susan2\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png


Well, we are surrounded by people who *do* believe in this entity and give a variety of inconsistent answers to questions about such an entity. If you found yourself surrounded by people that not only believe Sherlock Holmes to exist, but base their morality and politics on the statements of Holmes, wouldn't you engage in conversation with these people about that belief?
So I guess what you are saying is that you are curious why people have such disparate beliefs that they base their morals and politics on, so you are kind of like an investigator trying to solve a mystery.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: Show me where the deity did any evil.

Negligence is evil. But, for example, childhood cancer is a wonderful example of something that is due only to whatever deity exists (if such exists) and would be preventable.
Cancer is potentially preventable, by scientists who do research and find cures. I really do not understand how some atheists think. :confused: Why do they think an ineffable deity can just materialize on earth and do things? This is strange. The fact that the deity is omnipotent just means it has All Power, that does not mean it can intervene in human affairs and fix things. But for the sake of argument let’s just say it could… Why should it?

As jmt09 so aptly put it:

“So you might think of some particular instance of suffering—a child with brain cancer. It’s understandable to ask why a “good” God would allow such a thing. Yet, if God is all good then there must be a morally sufficient reason for allowing it. The atheist would need to argue that there is no such sufficient reason for allowing it. But how could the atheist rationally defend such a view? What makes us think we could know what that sufficient reason might be? For all we know it could be something that doesn’t get realized for years into the future. It seems like a significant burden of proof for the atheist to show that God does not likely have a good reason for allowing the instance of suffering.”
Trailblazer said: Why is the deity responsible for the evil that humans do?

Because that deity has the power to prevent such evil and doesn't do so?
Humans also have the power to do so. Why should the deity act like a babysitter for adult humans?
Trailblazer said: How would the deity act to prevent the evil humans do?

By using the aspect of being all-powerfulness to stop any evil intent (which would still allow free will) from actually causing harm.
No, it the deity intervened to stop evil intent that would be taking over someone’s mind and thus their free will to think and choose what to do. You cannot have it both ways. Either the deity is at the helm of the ship or man is.However, the deity can and might intervene at times, at its discretion and when it is to our benefit, we just cannot know if when or what the deity is doing because it is unknowable.
Trailblazer said: Why should the deity act to prevent what humans do?

Prevention of preventable suffering is a good thing.
What is preventable suffering, all suffering? Why is it good to prevent suffering, just because some people do not like to suffer? There could be a reason for suffering you do not understand, a benefit reaped from that suffering. You might not see the benefit right away, but you do not see the college degree until you have put in the four years.

If you want that perfect world where there is no suffering you should have been a Christian. That is what they believe it will be like when Jesus returns, the Garden of Eden restored in a flash. Baha’is do not believe in any divine intervention except the Messengers God sends with the instruction manual we need to do it ourselves. We have been given the blueprint instructions to end the suffering in the world ourselves but it is going to take a long time. The world did not get this way overnight, it took thousands of years. But the more people read the instructions and follow them, the sooner the Kingdom of God on earth will be built.
Trailblazer said: Because the deity is omnipotent and omniscient is not an answer.

But being omniscient, omnipotent *and* omnibenevolent is an answer.
Why is it an answer? Why should the deity intervene to prevent suffering? Why is suffering always bad? That is a value judgment you are making, but if the deity is indeed omniscient, don’t you think it knows more than you do about what is good for the humans it created?

Also, the deity’s love has to be tempered by justice. Sometimes people get what they deserve and suffer for wrongdoing. If people suffer through no fault of their own, there is recompense in the afterlife, especially for children. The deity has it covered because it is All-Knowing and All-Wise as well as benevolent. :)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: God is in no way responsible for the evil that humans do just because God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful. There is no connection whatsoever.

if God is all powerful and all knowing, then God not only knows about the evil, but can prevent it without harm to free will. That makes any neglect in doing so evil.
No, God cannot prevent it without interfering with free will. That is impossible. The minute God stops a human from doing what he intends to do, God is interfering with free will. If there is an important purpose for free will, something we gain by having it, the God that created us with it is the only one who knows what that purpose is, unless He reveals it to a Messenger in which case we can know what it is.

If God is All-Knowing, then God knows more than you do about the purpose of both free will and evil.
Trailblazer said: One can think of this world as a chess board that God made for us to play on. God, the Maker of the chess board is not responsible for how the players play the game.
C:\Users\Susan2\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png


That is called passing the buck.

But he is responsible for the rules of the game. And those rule lead to preventable evils that are not simply the result of human actions (childhood cancer, for example). So the rules themselves are a demonstration of evil.
How can you know that the rules should be different, given you are not All-Knowing? That is the crux of the issue. God knows more than any human about how to create and oversee the world. If that does not sit well with you, you have the free will to choose to be a nonbeliever.

Diseases such as cancer are part of the natural order of creation. This mortal world is a storehouse of suffering by its very nature, it was never intended to be a paradise. But there is also happiness. Why should it be happiness all the time? That will come after we die if we live according to the rules of the game. This mortal life is just a very small part of our total existence.

Moreover, because God gave man free will and an innate intelligence, in the future diseases such as cancer can be fully eradicated. Man has that potential.
Trailblazer said: This idea that God is omnipotent so God should prevent humans from doing evil is completely illogical, because there is no reason to think God should ever intercede, just because He can. If God interceded every time people want do anything wrong, there would be no point for humans to even live on this earth. Of course it always helps to know the purpose of this physical existence, why good and evil exists.

The reason to intervene is to prevent unnecessary suffering. An all powerful and all knowing entity that *doesn't* intervene is simply evil.
Fine, if you want to believe that. I have made my case so I see no point in arguing about it. But please note, by saying the deity should intervene when it doesn’t normally do so, what you are saying is that you know more than the deity, which is logically impossible.
Trailblazer said: It also helps to have the instructions on how to play chess before you play the game. Those instructions come from the Messenger of God in every age. If people do not read the instructions and follow them it is unjust to blame God for their failure to lead a good life.
C:\Users\Susan2\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png


Well, that is a claim. It is a claim without any serious evidence in support of it however. Once again, the actual evidence is that the world is filled with preventable suffering that is NOT the result of human action. That alone shows an all powerful, all knowing, and all good entity does not exist.
Fine then, you have made your decision. It is a childlike way of thinking because it is so simplistic, but I am not going to try to talk you out of whey you believe. I have been down this road before on other forums and it leads nowhere, unless you have an interest in knowing why there is suffering in the world.

The best source of information for anything deity-related is the Messengers of the deity. Other than the Book of Job, I do not know if the Bible addresses this but the Baha’i Writings have quite a bit of information on suffering that is straightforward and much easier to understand than the Bible, which is mostly allegorical. We cannot know all the reasons for suffering, but we can know enough to be able to maintain a belief in a benevolent deity. We will surely know more after we die.

Also, it might occur to you to ask those people who have really suffered how they can still believe in a benevolent deity. They would be another source of information.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What I referred to is 'God does not do anything from the human perspective,' and it does not mean God does nothing. It avoids the anthropomorphic view that God does this and that.

"God is not a chess player
With the white pieces
God is the sea
, , , and we are the fishes."
Thanks. That makes sense. It is good to know God is not just sitting around. ;)
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I always wonder, why do nonbelievers talk so much about a non-existent deity? I would never waste my time talking about a deity I do not believe exists. If I did not believe in the deity, I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not 24/7 on forums. ;)

Why do psychiatrists talk about mental diseases? Why to oncologists talk about cancer? Why to police talk about criminals?

If religious people would quit insisting that others "Respect My Authority!" when it comes to their unprovable god-claims?

And worse-- they expect a free ride on the backs of tax payers?

Or pass laws based on their hateful books that deny Civil Rights of certain groups, because some bronze age author thought those groups were "icky"?

As soon as they quit doing those things? We will cease and desist.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
No, God cannot prevent it without interfering with free will. That is impossible. The minute God stops a human from doing what he intends to do, God is interfering with free will.

100% false. Here's how: A human is about to commit some horrific crime, which will usurp the free will of the people he's about to harm.

And this ALL KNOWING GOD IS WELL AWARE OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO GO DOWN.

So god inspires a cop to change his beat, *just* a wee bit-- such that the police person notices the shady behavior of the would-be criminal, and the **human** interferes.

Crime is prevented. At NO TIME is free will prevented by god-- just by people instead.

BUT CLEARLY YOUR DO-NOTHING GOD WOULD PREFER TO WATCH Instead. Likely it enjoys watching the pain and suffering?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Look there were these three women, who were close friends, and two of them being religious and the other one being an atheist.
Then one day their friend the atheist died, and upon the other two went to their friends funeral and standing there looking at her, that one said to the other, Look she has your hair all done up, has her makeup on, has her new dress on, But has no where to go ?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Look there were these three women, who were close friends, and two of them being religious and the other one being an atheist.
Then one day their friend the atheist died, and upon the other two went to their friends funeral and standing there looking at her, that one said to the other, Look she has your hair all done up, has her makeup on, has her new dress on, But has no where to go ?

An egocentric religious perspective judging where others go who believe differently.

God is not a chess player
with the white pieces
God is the sea
. . . and we are the fishes.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
An egocentric religious perspective judging where others go who believe differently.

God is not a chess player
with the white pieces
God is the sea
. . . and we are the fishes.

Well it's true, atheists have no clue, what happens when they die, all they say is nothing happens when we die, Just how exactly do they know this for sure ?

When there is no proven evidence to give proof in and about the unknown.

I would rather believe there is God, and cross over into the unknown and find there is God, Than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Yeah, and what if I cross over and find there is no God. What do I have to lose, nothing to lose.

But what if Atheist cross over and find there is God, I win you lose Atheist.

I win either way, I would rather believe there is God, than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well it's true, atheists have no clue, what happens when they die, all they say is nothing happens when we die, Just how exactly do they know this for sure ?

When there is no proven evidence to give proof in and about the unknown.

I would rather believe there is God, and cross over into the unknown and find there is God, Than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Yeah, and what if I cross over and find there is no God. What do I have to lose, nothing to lose.


But what if Atheist cross over and find there is God, I win you lose Atheist.

I win either way, I would rather believe there is God, than believe there is no God and cross over into the unknown and find there is God.

Pascal's Wager is a spinless coward's choice to decide what and why one believes.

If Judaism is true, you would be a heretic.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Pascal's Wager is spinless coward's choice to decide what and why one believes.


So you say, but it's evidence,
that it stands as is, as evidence, which no one can refute. All because no one has been dead for a long period of time of a week. Month, a year to come back to explain by evidence in and about what lies over in the unknown.

I like to ask you, where's the evidence to provide what exactly lays over in the unknown exactly.

Therefore I would rather believe that there is God, than to believe there is no God, and get there and find there is God.

So the unknown stands there as the unknown, unless someone has the evidence to bring forward to show what exactly lays over in the unknown exactly. After a person has been dead for a week,Month or a year ?
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So you say, but it's evidence,
that it stands as is, as evidence, which no one can refute. All because no one has been dead for a long period of time of a week. Month, a year to come back to explain by evidence in and about what lies over in the unknown.

Where is the objective verifiable evidence? The justification of your belief is highly subjective and anecdotal. Both Theism and Atheism require philosophical/theological assumptions not verifiable by the evidence.

I like to ask you, where's the evidence to provide what exactly lays over in the unknown exactly.

Therefore I would rather believe that there is God, than to believe there is no God, and get there and find there is God.

So the unknown stands there as the unknown, unless someone has the evidence to bring forward to show what exactly lays over in the unknown exactly.

The highlighted justifies my response that there is no objective verifiable evidence to provide any certainty either way.
 
Top