My journey back to atheism

[Sheldon]

Atheism is a trend. What's wrong with people and they all become atheists?

That's a bizarre claim, given Abrahamic religions are the trend, they didn't exist until primitive humans created them a few thousand years ago.

 

[syo]

Abrahamic religions are the trend

Nope. Abrahamic religions are forced unto kids by parents, teachers, etc. Forced is not a trend.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just a note: "I'm thinking of becoming an atheist because right-wing Christianity sucks" makes zero sense. Whether or not there is a god has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any particular religion is correct or likable.

Rejecting a religious ideology because you disagree with it makes perfect sense. In doing so, one is essentially rejecting that version of god.
If a religion is false, then the god of that religion does not exist, by definition.[/QUOTE]
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Next time, please make an effort to understand my comments before trying (and failing) to respond.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

He has already ready explained this isn't true. He doesn't believe in any deity or deities, because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence, this doesn't infer he makes any assumptions, only that theists fail to meet the most standard of evidencing their belief, but don't care.




Disbelieving a claim that can't be objectively evidenced at all violates no principle of logic. However claiming theistic belief has credence, just because it can't disproved, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so that is irrational by definition.



He has defended the spurious claim, by stating unequivocally his atheism is a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, which is being misrepresented as a belief. Also since claims for an extant deity represent the most extraordinary of claims, it is not unreasonable or irrational to ask what objective evidence supports the belief, when the answer is nil, withholding belief is perfectly reasonably. One wonders on what basis you disbelieve in all the same deities - except one? Since by the rationale you've used here, your belief is blatant bias. Though of course you will never recognise or accept this, yet is clearly the case.

Thank you Sheldon for saving me the time and effort of typing a reply!

 

[KWED]

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Next time, please make an effort to understand my comments before trying (and failing) to respond.

Oh dear...

Whether or not there is a god has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any particular religion is correct.

"If a religion is false [incorrect], then the god of that religion does not exist, by definition."

Also, they said they had become an atheist essentially because they didn't like religion. So my comment "Rejecting a religious ideology because you disagree with it makes perfect sense. In doing so, one is essentially rejecting that version of god." is entirely valid.

Next time, please make an effort to understand my comments before trying (and failing) to respond.

 

[KWED]

Nope. Abrahamic religions are forced unto kids by parents, teachers, etc.

All religions only survive through childhood indoctrination.

Forced is not a trend.

A "trend" is just a discernible and continuous pattern in data. The cause of that data is irrelevant.
"There is a trend of fewer children being forced into religious belief by their parents".
"There is a trend of more refugees being forced into the sex industry by people traffickers"

Hope this helped.

 

[PureX]

It is more ni=uanced than that. If ordinary mortals, like yourself, has come to a conclusion that a God exists, and this is justified whether by faith or by reason, then that mental process can be articulated. If these folks are of sound mind they can easily explain how their decision that a God exists is rational, true, justified, etc.

And people can, and do so all the time. I certainly can, and do, often. That the atheist then wants to argue with and dismiss their reasoning doesn't mean they don't have any, or can't offer it. Nor does it mean their reasoning is somehow "wrong" just because you disagree.

What we skeptics find is that believers can't offer any evidence and no rational conclusion that any God exists.

That's because what you call "evidence" is really proof. There is a mountain of evidence that God/gods exist, but there is no physical proof. So you lot demand physical proof as the only "evidence" you'll accept, knowing in advance that it does not exist unless you accept all of physical existence as that proof. Which of course you have no intention of doing.

We see explanations of faith that are no better than a causal guess. We see no rebuttals to the problems some believers have as a result of the belief in God, like there being birth defects. The beliefs don't add up to rational minds, so what is the real reason believers believe since they can't articulate any rational judgment? The theist certainly doesn't know.

You see what you look for because you look for what you want to see. You demand evidence (proof) that you could not possibly produce for yourself, to support your own beliefs. And yes, you do presume to believe that no gods exist, in spite of the constant onslaught of denials and claims of agnosticism.

Yet believers will assert that their own God exists which means all other Gods by default don't exist.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, even if they assert that it does.

Of course some theists get desperate and try to switch the burden of proof, but this trick never works.

There is no burden of proof because there can be no proof of God/gods, or a lack of God/gods existing. Which is why when atheists keep demanding it, they are being either very stupid or quite disingenuous. Or both.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. Abrahamic religions are forced unto kids by parents, teachers, etc. Forced is not a trend.

A trend is a general direction in which something is developing or changing, it can be also involve influences like force, wouldn't you agree? I'd reason that atheism is our default position, since we are all born atheists, and learn theism and religion. It's hard to see atheism as a trend in that context, or maybe I've misunderstood.

Of course one could argue that atheists being outspoken about their atheism is a new trend, influenced by the increased freedoms of modern democracies.

 

[Sheldon]

That's because what you call "evidence" is really proof.

No it isn't, but even were this correct, there remains no objective evidence for any deity. Especially the intellectually dishonest unfalsifiable generic god concept, which is obviously the most blatant copout, to avoid any intellectual challenge to the superstition.

There is a mountain of evidence that God/gods exist, but there is no physical proof.

No there isn't, just subjective claims, countless theists have of course claimed there is physical evidence, but then run to the intellectual dishonesty of a generic deity when these are demonstrated to be false.

So you lot demand physical proof as the only "evidence" you'll accept, knowing in advance that it does not exist unless you accept all of physical existence as that proof. Which of course you have no intention of doing.

I have not see any any atheists insisting on proof or that only physical evidence be produced, in fact when some theists rush to the dishonesty of hiding being deism, as if they don't believe in a specific god, they are usually asked to produce the best most compelling reasons they have for believing a deity exists, and these are always an epic fail. These threads are littered with irrational arguments of this ilk.

You demand evidence (proof) that you could not possibly produce for yourself, to support your own beliefs.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's also irrational to claim a belief has any credence because it cannot be disproved, like theistic belief for example, and this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

And yes, you do presume to believe that no gods exist, in spite of the constant onslaught of denials and claims of agnosticism.

I started a thread with a poll on here for atheists to express whether their atheism also involved a belief no deity existed, not one atheists voted it was. I think they must know better than anyone else what they do and do not believe. This just appears to frustrate you, as you seem to be aware your position carries a burden of proof, and disbelieving it does not.

There is no burden of proof because there can be no proof of God/gods, or a lack of God/gods.

All claims carry a burden of proof, hiding behind unfalsifiable deities doesn't change this, which is why when theistic claims are unfalsifiable I am agnostic about them, but also of course disbelieve them, since agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, it's idiotically arrogant for anyone to claim otherwise.

Which is why when atheists keep demanding it, they are being either very stupid or quite disingenuous. Or both.

Or they can read a dictionary.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism
noun
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Yerda]

"I think therefor I am" is considered a fundamentally self-evident truth in philosophy, based on the recognition of existential agency. And by this same logic, it becomes evident that you also "think, and therefor you are" because my thoughts do not authorize or negate yours. You are therefor also an existential agency in your own right, like myself.

But just as neither of us is the author or negator of the other, neither are we the author or negator of the place we jointly occupy, and through which we are able to recognize each other. Thus, there is clearly some other agency at work, here, besides you and I.

Whatever that agency is remains a mystery to us. But that it is, literally "here", is self evident.

Ok. I think I've got some idea of what you mean now.

Just for the sake of conversation I would say that, to atheists the "mystery" isn't neccessarily (or likely to be) something we would call god. I speak for myself but I don't think I'm atypical in this matter. We see what appear to be natural processes being carried out throughout our world without requiring any agency. We don't posit God when we explain the rains or stellar evolution. In a similar way we speculate that the process that gives rise to universes or multiverses occur without an agent intending that outcome.

In short, the apparent fact that two accretions of matter happen to have agency enough to be able to exchange symbols with one another is grand but doesn't seem to imply that the place we do it is authored by an agent. Unless I'm missing something, there is indeed a mystery (existence, life, consciousness) but at the centre it doesn't have to be god.

Or put another way, if we proposed that there was some other reason or principle at work that lacked agency we wouldn't be committing a logical error would we?

 

[PureX]

Ok. I think I've got some idea of what you mean now.

Just for the sake of conversation I would say that, to atheists the "mystery" isn't neccessarily (or likely to be) something we would call god. I speak for myself but I don't think I'm atypical in this matter. We see what appear to be natural processes being carried out throughout our world without requiring any agency. We don't posit God when we explain the rains or stellar evolution. In a similar way we speculate that the process that gives rise to universes or multiverses occur without an agent intending that outcome.

Atheists invariably assume that God = "magic". And that "magic" = some unnatural or supernatural process. I think because that assumption is the easiest for them to dismiss. And most atheists are not really atheists so much as they are a-religious. Because they see religion as promoting "magic". And certainly there are plenty of religious representatives promoting a belief in divine magic.

But ultimately this is a semantic issue. Is God by definition magical, or supernatural? Is God usurping the laws of nature to further some cause or agenda? Many would define God that way, but many would not. And none could prove it. So it seems a weak argument, to me, to insist on conceptualizing 'God' in that way, whether theist or atheist. I would think it far more logical and effective to conceptualize God as that ultimate existential mystery. That mysterious agency being expressed as the universal "here".

In short, the apparent fact that two accretions of matter happen to have agency enough to be able to exchange symbols with one another is grand but doesn't seem to imply that the place we do it is authored by an agent. Unless I'm missing something, there is indeed a mystery (existence, life, consciousness) but at the centre it doesn't have to be god.

"God" is just a word we use to refer to an agency that is not you, and is not me, but that gives us both a mutual field of expression. The agency of our 'being here'. Because you didn't do that, and neither did I. Yet it has been done, and it continues.

Or put another way, if we proposed that there was some other reason or principle at work that lacked agency we wouldn't be committing a logical error would we?

You would, because nothing can occur that is not an expression of agency.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists invariably assume that God = "magic". And that "magic" = some unnatural or supernatural process. I think because that assumption is the easiest for them to dismiss.

Who are these mysterious atheists making all your...sorry their assumptions? I am an atheist and I never make them. I do respond when theists make claims for the supernatural though, but this doesn't satisfy the need some theists seem to have to misrepresent atheists and atheism.

Semantically there is no difference between supernatural and magic, they're obviously synonymous since magic has the word supernatural in it's definition. Also if a deity exists that is natural, then the constant whining by many theists that it is beyond the scope of science, and thus does not need to be scientifically evidenced, is clearly bovine doo doo.

It seems some theists want to have their imaginary cake, and eat it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What is "Fiat Lux" if not an incantation? So, yeah, magic.

 

[Dogknox20]

Atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Many atheists don't make a positive claim no deity exists, they simply disbelieve theistic claims for an extant deity(s) as they don't find any objective or compelling evidence or reason to believe such claims.

Sheldon The atheist does NOT believe in a god! He still has a belief or he would not be human! Pigs do not believe, chickens, dogs etc!
You can say: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods... BUT... They BELIEVE they don't need a god!

 

[Dogknox20]

Do you think adding inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity reduce those odds, how bizarre. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?

FACT: Occam's razor All things have a beginning; Including the unaverse!

Something had to start the ball rolling!

Occam's razor There is order in Chaos!
Nothing is random.

Occam's razor For us to be here is greater then random chance!
Too many things had to fall into place in the right order and at the right time!

 

[Dogknox20]

No I don't. I have made no such claim. You are imposing this claim onto me, and switching my rejection of what theists claim is true as me asserting their many gods do not exist. Get it correct. Be accurate.

Plus, no atheist can declare anyone's version of God doesn't exist UNTIL theists are very concise and clear about what they believe exists. Theists avoid this, either because they have no idea what their God is, or from fear of describing it and be unable to defend the idea as true.


It's more accurate to say that beliefs are uncertain. They can range from being complete false, to being highly likely. It depends on the evidence.


What's a god?

Jesus is a character in Bible stories. It's not known if he was an actual person or a fiction, so irrelevant. Christians can fight over this issue. As it is they disagree over this, and many other crucial concepts in their religion. Some say Jesus is God. Others disagree. Some Christians believe in the Trinity, others disagree. It's got nothing to do with atheist that Christians are this confused about their own religion.
No, I speak for their wisdom in not being confused theists.

Jewish evidence for Jesus
Josephus was born to a wealthy family in the year A.D. 37 and led the Jewish revolutionary forces in Galilee against the Romans. When his troops were decimated in battle, Josephus switched sides and claimed God had prophesied through him that the victorious Roman general Vespasian would become emperor. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened, and Josephus was allowed to serve in Vespasian’s court. Josephus’s historical writings include The Jewish Wars and a history of the Jewish people known as the Antiquities of the Jews. The latter document mentions Jesus in a short phrase and in another longer section. The shorter reference is in Book 20 and describes the stoning of law breakers in A.D. 62. One of the criminals is described as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”

F1fan why do you lack belief!?
Is it you aren’t capable of holding belief?.
Or you never thought about belief?
Or you see no reason to think belief is true.
Or you see reasons to think belief is false.

You the atheist will say; I do not believe that God exists.
F1fan Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s). I am an atheist because there is no reason to believe.”
Theists at least claim there are good reasons to believe in God, so you the atheist needs to show, at least some evidence as to why those aren’t actually good reasons.
Atheism says; There is no God because there are good reasons to believe that God does not exist.

Question Does Evil exist?!

 

[Dogknox20]

Rejecting a religious ideology because you disagree with it makes perfect sense. In doing so, one is essentially rejecting that version of god.
If a religion is false, then the god of that religion does not exist, by definition.

.
KWED good to meet you...
I say.. There is TRUTH! Because a religion is proven false it does not mean there is no religion that is true!

 

[Dogknox20]

Did you only read the first 4 words of the definition you provided?
Why are you ignoring the rest which states;
Come on, say it along with me……QUOTE="Dogknox20, post: 7777750, member: 68557"]lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You have proven yourself to be dishonesty portraying my position.

For the final time:
Yes, I reject the notion of ghosts.
I have a body….I do not believe I have a “spirit” (meaning a supernatural, incorporeal being that extends beyond the life of my body).

By this logic, you must believe in the Hindu gods, since Hinduism pre-dates Christianity by about 2000 years and there are currently more than 1.2 billion followers of it today…..

Is that correct…do you believe in the Hindu gods?

Actually no.
Why would I have to prove there have never been miracles?
Do I need to prove there has never been a monster in Loch Ness?
Do I need to prove there has never been a Santa Claus?
Do I need to prove there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

Now, what do those 4 questions have in common?… The fact that they are all unfalsifiable!
Go ahead and look up “Russell’s Teapot”.[/QUOTE]
.
Dao Hao Now you reject the notion of ghosts. Does not mean there is no Ghosts! You reject the idea of having a spirit.. Does not mean you do not have a spirit!

You BELIEVE there is no Ghosts!
You BELIEVE you do not have a spirit!

You asked.. Is that correct…do you believe in the Hindu gods?
I reply: YES people BELIEVE in Hindu gods... These gods are still gods of some sort! PROVING AGAIN... People have always believed in a God or gods!

You said..
Do I need to prove there has never been a monster in Loch Ness?
Do I need to prove there has never been a Santa Claus?
Do I need to prove there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

I reply... IF you BELIEVE there is NO Loch Ness then you need to show why; There are good reasons to believe Loch Ness does NOT Exist! Or Santa Claus or a Tea Pot! Your BELIEF needs a reason to give you this belief! Cows do NOT have belief. Rocks do not need belief!

Dao Hao Now There is no God because>>>> there are good reasons to believe that God does not exist. That are these reasons!?

Question: Does EVIL Exist?! Can you see Evil? Can you see the air?! Do you believe air exists!?

 

[F1fan]

Jewish evidence for Jesus
Josephus was born to a wealthy family in the year A.D. 37 and led the Jewish revolutionary forces in Galilee against the Romans. When his troops were decimated in battle, Josephus switched sides and claimed God had prophesied through him that the victorious Roman general Vespasian would become emperor. As it turns out, that is exactly what happened, and Josephus was allowed to serve in Vespasian’s court. Josephus’s historical writings include The Jewish Wars and a history of the Jewish people known as the Antiquities of the Jews. The latter document mentions Jesus in a short phrase and in another longer section. The shorter reference is in Book 20 and describes the stoning of law breakers in A.D. 62. One of the criminals is described as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”

Josephus is not considered a reliable historical source since he often just repeated stories without verification of them being true. This is one reason why Jesus is not known to be a historical figure, the lack of contemporary reports or evidence.

Even if a Jesus did exist that would not mean the fantastic and implausible stories about him are true. Embellishment was common in that era.

F1fan

why do you lack belief!?
Is it you aren’t capable of holding belief?.

I don't lack belief. I believe in many things. I am not willing to believe in ideas that lack evidence or are implausible. I am a skeptic. I certainly see no evidence of any sort of supernatural existing. Theists can't provide any, so I'm not convinced.

Or you never thought about belief?

Yes, I have examined and studied the nature of belief since 1996. I've gone as far as studying the psychology of belief, and this area of psychology examines why humans believe in anything, including ideas that not only have no evidence, but are contrary to fact and evidence. Much of the motivations for people to believe in irrational and non-rational ideas is subconscious and tied to social compliance. People have an evolved trait to belong to a tribe, and to be accepted many humans accept the tribal ideas to belong. We see theists as an exelent example of this phenomenon.

Or you see no reason to think belief is true.

Belief is a judgment we humans make, whether consciously and deliberately or subconsciously and involuntary. Many adopt cultural beliefs in the same way we acquire language. It happens as a consequence of social interaction and social learning. We don't think about acquiring language, it just happens. People can become Christian or racist in much the same way, all without any consideration of what the ideas mean.

Or you see reasons to think belief is false.

Belief can be false. It can be true. How we determine this is the degree of evidence for or against an idea. Look at a jury that has to consider evidence for the guilt of an indicted person. They hear both side and make a judgment of guilt. If there is reasonable doubt then the jury found the evidence insufficient to conclude guilt.

All belief is uncertain. We believe in ideas because we are not certain if it's true. We can look at evidence and make assessments and determine if the idea is false, likely true, probable, improbable, etc. The irony of those who insist they believe God exists admit they are uncertain God exists, but in their judgment they have decided God exists. And with b believers being fallible and prone to errors of judgment, well, that's not very good.

You the atheist will say; I do not believe that God exists.

So far. I've yet to hear a believer explain why it is reasonable to decide a God exists. They offer no sufficient evidence to compel me to agree with them.

Theists at least claim there are good reasons to believe in God, so you the atheist needs to show, at least some evidence as to why those aren’t actually good reasons.

But theists DON'T back up their claim that there is a good reason to believe. They offer NO credible evidence. So theists being the claimants, if they fail to make their case, then the atheists has nothing to prove. No one has to prove ideas not known to be plausible or true AREN'T true.

If a theist had a mundane claim like "I ate a ham sandwich for lunch." well that is plausible and believable. Ham sandwiches exist, and people eat them for lunch, these are facts, so plausible. yet we have theists who believe is all sorts of different Gods, and provide no evidence that any of them exist, in a universe that functions without any sort of observed supernatural phenomenon, and we are supposed to be convinced? Believers can't even convince each other that their specific gods are true and exist, why try to convince atheists?

Atheism says; There is no God because there are good reasons to believe that God does not exist.

Straw man, so untrue and irrelevant.

Question

Does Evil exist?!

In psychology the word "evil" isn't used. This is an emotional word that doesn't have any real substantive use in science. It is fine for religion or philosophy because they have a lot of attitude for emotional appeals.

What does exist is mental health problems and dysfunctions, and these natural phenomenon affect our lives.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You have proven yourself to be dishonesty portraying my position.

For the final time:
Yes, I reject the notion of ghosts.
I have a body….I do not believe I have a “spirit” (meaning a supernatural, incorporeal being that extends beyond the life of my body).

By this logic, you must believe in the Hindu gods, since Hinduism pre-dates Christianity by about 2000 years and there are currently more than 1.2 billion followers of it today…..

Is that correct…do you believe in the Hindu gods?

Actually no.
Why would I have to prove there have never been miracles?
Do I need to prove there has never been a monster in Loch Ness?
Do I need to prove there has never been a Santa Claus?
Do I need to prove there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

Now, what do those 4 questions have in common?… The fact that they are all unfalsifiable!
Go ahead and look up “Russell’s Teapot”.

.
Dao Hao Now you reject the notion of ghosts. Does not mean there is no Ghosts! You reject the idea of having a spirit.. Does not mean you do not have a spirit!

You BELIEVE there is no Ghosts!
You BELIEVE you do not have a spirit!

You asked.. Is that correct…do you believe in the Hindu gods?
I reply: YES people BELIEVE in Hindu gods... These gods are still gods of some sort! PROVING AGAIN... People have always believed in a God or gods!

You said..
Do I need to prove there has never been a monster in Loch Ness?
Do I need to prove there has never been a Santa Claus?
Do I need to prove there is not a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

I reply... IF you BELIEVE there is NO Loch Ness then you need to show why; There are good reasons to believe Loch Ness does NOT Exist! Or Santa Claus or a Tea Pot! Your BELIEF needs a reason to give you this belief! Cows do NOT have belief. Rocks do not need belief!

Dao Hao Now There is no God because>>>> there are good reasons to believe that God does not exist. That are these reasons!?

Question: Does EVIL Exist?! Can you see Evil? Can you see the air?! Do you believe air exists!?[/QUOTE]

You are proving to be a dishonest interlocutor.
Is there are reading comprehension issue?

Please stop trying to tell me what I believe.
Instead perhaps listen to what I am telling you.
Just as I’m certain that YOU have a more accurate understanding of YOUR beliefs than I can possibly,…..the same is true in reverse.
I have a more accurate understanding of MY beliefs.

But, there’s hope!

You said;

Dao Hao Now you reject the notion of ghosts. Does not mean there is no Ghosts! You reject the idea of having a spirit.. Does not mean you do not have a spirit!

You are correct!
And by the same principle;
You accepting the notion of ghosts does not mean there are in fact ghosts.
Your accepting the idea of having a spirit, does not mean that you in fact have a spirit.

Here we have an example of the concept of the rejection and acceptance of an idea or belief.

Now since you accept the idea and I do not accept the idea…..there must be a reason for the discrepancy.

You have been convinced (presumably by some evidence or deduction?) and have therefore come to accept and believe in an idea as being factual.

I have not been convinced (due to lack of credible evidence and deduction) and therefore came to reject and NOT believe in the idea as being factual.

So you BELIEVE in the idea.
I DO NOT BELIEVE in the idea.
It’s really that simple!

Now, I have answered all your questions to me as honestly, accurately, directly and succinctly as possible. (If I missed any let me know and I’ll rectify it.)
Can you do me the same courtesy?

As example, I asked:

By this logic, you must believe in the Hindu gods, since Hinduism pre-dates Christianity by about 2000 years and there are currently more than 1.2 billion followers of it today…..

Is that correct…do you believe in the Hindu gods?

You replied:

I reply: YES people BELIEVE in Hindu gods... These gods are still gods of some sort! PROVING AGAIN... People have always believed in a God or gods!

I asked if YOU believe in the Hindu gods…..
not whether PEOPLE believe in Hindu gods.

I had pointed out that Hinduism had over 1.2 billion followers after approximately 4000 years, to see if your reasoning that:

Jesus was NOT a myth he was alive on earth 2000 years ago!
If Jesus was not true his movement his followers would have disbanded long ago!

would be just as true if applied to Hindu gods.

The concept being that if I should accept your reasoning that Jesus is the true god based on the idea that his movement and followers hadn’t disbanded after 2000 years…..
Do you accept that the Hindu gods are the real gods since their movement and followers hadn’t disbanded after 4000 years?

So can you do me the courtesy of answering this question as honestly, accurately, directly, and succinctly as possible……

Do you believe in the Hindu gods in the same way you believe in Jesus?

Now, to answer your questions:

Question: Does EVIL Exist?! Can you see Evil? Can you see the air?! Do you believe air exists!?

As far as evil goes you can see my full answer to this in @The Hammer’s thread titled
“Good vs Evil”….post #10
No I don’t see evil as an objective “thing”, but as a subjective judgment. Thus it can not been seen.

I don’t get what air would have anything to do with this conversation, but for what it’s worth….
Yes, I believe in air.
As to whether it can been seen…..
In the colloquial sense; generally no
In fact; yes there are times and conditions where it can be seen. For example I grew up around LA in the 60’s….. you could see the air!