Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Subduction Zone]

Very close now

Obviously not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're just repeating the same nonsense that has already been addressed.

As I said, I don't know how to explain it any differently.

You don't understand the burden of proof.
You don't understand the difference between believing a claim and not believing a claim.
You don't understand the difference between not believing a claim, and making an opposite claim.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Actually I have a feeling that he does understand the burden of proof. He also knows he has no evidence. So he tries to shift it.

 

[night912]

Yep. Not believing in God or the existence of God is still a belief no matter how you want to spin it. Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything. Now if you believe that there is no God and that God does not exist then that is your belief. If you cannot prove your belief and you have no evidence that God does not exist then it is simply your opinion in which you are living by faith

Nope. Wrong again because you've just contradicted yourself. According to you, not believing in anything is believing in anything.

Nope. If you have no evidence for your belief that there is no God then all you have is an opinion that you cannot prove which means your opinion is simply based on faith as you cannot prove it. If you live by evidence then you should be able to prove that there is no God. Yet here you still are with no evidence and simply providing your own opinion you cannot prove.

Hope this helps

I've already gave my evidence. You can keep spinning it which ever way you like, but you've already failed twice. Faith is not required for not believing. And unless you can provide evidence showing that I don't believe myself to not believe a god exist, that will be strike 3 for you.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Nope. Wrong again because you've just contradicted yourself. According to you, not believing in anything is believing

I've already gave my evidence. You can keep spinning it which ever way you like, but you've already failed twice. Faith is not required for not believing. And unless you can provide evidence showing that I don't believe myself to not believe a god exist, that will be strike 3 for you.

Such a simple concept. Hes painted himself in so deep now, he cant find a face saving way out

 

[Polymath257]

If p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. Do you agree with this? If not, then good bye haha.

Yes, of course.

p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

Most likely, a falsehood.

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

Yes, if 'if the universe had a beginning, then God exists' is true, then 'If God does not exist, then the universe had no beginning' is true.

But it is also the case that

If 'if wild monkeys exist, then Shakespeare was a monkey' is true, then 'If Shakespeare was not a monkey, then wild monkeys do not exist'.

In all cases, the p=>q statement is false.

 

[night912]

Hello night912, nice to see you again. You do know right, that mostly everything in the previous posts you thought were my words were quotes from outside sources and not my own words right? They were not me posting my words. Everything you have responded to here are direct quotes in regards to athiesm all linked here to the outside sources from...

No. Majority of the words that I replied to was yours. I only used a few of those outside sources as evidence for why you were wrong. The rest of it were the basically just the same. So what's the point of agruing your outside sources when they agreed with me.

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Merriam Webster dictionary
4. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
5. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
6. Cambridge Dictionary
7. Your Dictionary
8. Dictionary.com
9. Wiki

Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
10. Atheist Merriam Webster dictionary

I already know that I'm an atheist. So I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence that that I'm not one.

So your not responding to anything that I have written here but only to the quotes I provided from the linked sources above. Perhaps if you disagree with them you can take your views up directly with the academics who have written them. So we will have to agree to disagree in this regards but thankyou for sharing your view [/QUOTE]
Sorry it's not my problem if you posted outside sources that ended up proving that you were wrong. But if you disagree with me then that's another problem for you. Perhaps you should take your own advice and take it up with those academics. There's no need for me since they agreed with me.

My advice for you is, before you post links of definitions of atheism from online dictionaries, you should actually look up those words in the definitions so you will understand those words. Because there's no point in posting a definition of a word if you don't know the meaning of the words that are being used in the definition.

I'll be waiting for your evidence. There's no need to rush, you understanding those words are more important.

 

[Polymath257]

But they do all agree. This is what I am indeed claiming all these people (reference to christianity) all collectively agree on common basic point in which God has revlealed himself to them personally. Yes there is some variation in regards to scripture doctrine (this is not shift in evidence) and this is not in reference to the overall basic view in common to the collective witness that God has revealed himself to these people. The disagreements are not in regards to basic belief that God has revealed himself to them but within some doctrines and interpretation of the scriptures. Not to the individuals experience or the collective. This is the point being made.

And having a lot of people beliving that they have been contacted by a being, where they cannot agree on the properties of that being, is evidence that they are mistaken in their belief they have been contacted.

The variation is crucial to evaluating witness testimony. Inconsistencies invalidate it. It isn't just that there is 'some variation'. There are actual strong differences in what they claim to have experienced.

Now, I agree that people can have a 'strong feeling of presence of a being of great intelligence and goodness'. And, in fact, I think many people *train* themselves to have exactly that experience. And that invalidates the experience.

I would argue that those that cannot be tested are meaningless. For example how to you test for the chances of the origin of life which is the context to what we are talking about here? I think generally though I agree with you that there is not enough evidence to simply know one way or the other but the mathamatical models provided for some things that cannot be tested for can give us an idea in regards to the correctness of our theories IMO.

I have looked into this a LOT. There are no mathematical models that allow for computation of these probabilities. EVERY calculation I have seen is based on the hypotheses that many stages are probabilistically independent, which we *know* is wrong. We also know that simply multiplying a lot of numbers together *consisently* gives the wrong answer in many situation like what we are considering in the origin of life (feedback loop, complex, interconnected chemistry, etc). NO mathematical model of this situation is anywhere close to giving a prediction for the probability of life arising.

I would say according to the scriptures no one ever finds God by waiting for evidence that God exists as he is only ever revealed to those who seek him in his appointed way through faith or by believing and following his Word. The scriptures teach that it is the fool that says in his heart that there is no God so from that perspective at least you do not take this position and your opened to God which is good. If your waiting for your evidence however you will never find God as this is not how he reveals himself. He only reveals himself to those who are open and honestly seek him through prayer and his Word.

And I see this as all a combination of propaganda (the fool in his heart) and promoting self-hypnosis

As to your claim of buden of proof this is simply an athiest saying that I do not believe and is simply nonsense in my opinion.

Sorry, but this is the standard in *every* other area of study. If I want to claim the existence of a subatomic particle, I have to give *detailed* processes for detecting it. And then, belief is withheld until evidence is in.

If I want to claim that some species of frog exists, I have to show good reason for thinking it exists (evidence) and belief will be withheld until a specimen is found.

This is NOT simply an 'atheist saying it'. This is the standard universally, except in theology. I wonder why.

I accept for somethings I do not have conclusive evidence as a "christian". For example I cannot prove if a miracle has happened to me or that God has revealed himself to me but I do not need to because I know my own experience so for anyone to tell me something differently is simply folly IMO. Just as I cannot prove my experience to you and I know it is real. No one can tell prove to me through evidence that my experience is not real of that of the collective witness that is always present throughout the world since the begining of time.

Now I can tell you about my experience but I cannot show you evidence of God so I live by faith and have become a part of a collective witness whicn is in my view evidence in and of it self but I live by faith because I have no deifnitive evidence to prove God. Yet this is no different IMO to those who claim to believe there is no God or do not believe in the existence of God both live by faith because they cannot prove or not prove God through evidence one way or nother. So to my depending on your view (in God or against) burden of proof is on both sides and IMO there is more evidence in a collective witness then those who simply claim there is no God (not speaking of you).

Once again, the lack of evidence is enough to withhold belief. This is true in general.

I'm sure you have had some experiences that you found incredibly moving. Of that, I have no doubt. The question isn't the experience, but the interpretation and origin of that experience.

Much of this is already answered in the previous section. There is no lack of evidence to the person that God has revealed himself to as this is a personal experience. There is only lack of external evidence in being able to prove God to others who do not believe the collective witness. Wheather one believes in God or does not believe in God both beliefs have a lack of evidence for their position therefore both beliefs are one of faith.



Yes I agree with you generally here. Although I disagree at the same time in that if you have 1/3 of the worlds population and people all though time as a collective witness saying that God has revealed himself to them and that is their personal experience that is something that cannot be disproven. Yet your examples and the examples of othere here of individuals believing imaginary things cannot be applied to a collective like that which I have shared with you IMO. You cannot say that every person that believes they have had an experience in God is deluded. If you do the burden of proof is now on you to provide definitive evidence for your claims that every person in the collecive witness (1/3 of the current world population and those all through time) have been deluded in their experience, but you cannot as there is no evidence that can even deny a single persons experience which you no nothing about. So even your claims here are simply an opinion based on faith.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Poly and nice talking to you [/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

Yep I am aware that there is all versions and colors of the spectrum in relation to any belief. However there are core beliefs that are normally held in common across all view points both within religion and outside of it. The core belief of athiesm is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

So? The differences are so much that it makes ALL of the testimony unreliable.

 

[3rdAngel]

Nope and I just illustrated it again in my previous post, when you pretended that "not believing the claim that god exists", is the equivalent of claiming "god does not exist".

Nonsense. If you claim you do not believe in God it means simply you do not believe in God nothing more and nothing less. That is your belief not mine

You have shown nothing but showing that you don't understand the concept of the burden of proof or how saying "I don't believe X is true" is NOT the same as saying "I believe X is false".

As posted earlier to you my faith in God is from my personal experience with God. There is no evidence to show you my personal experience with God. It is simply an experience that I have had that cannot be proven, hence I am at peace in my faith which I can only tell you about and point you in the right direction in order to find God. I am a part of the collective witnessed by 1/3 of the worlds population which is evidence in and of itself. Those who choose not to believe on the other hand or have no belief do so be either not believing in God or having no belief in a God or gods. This does not mean that God is not real as there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore those who do not believe in God simply live by faith and those who have no belief do not know if there is a God which they cannot prove either because they do not know.

Let's have another analogy (courtesy of Matt Dilahunty) that you can dismiss with a handwave.... Let's say there is a giant gumball machine with a bunch of gumballs in it. Nobody knows how many gumballs are in there. Now, the amount of gumballs is either even or odd. It has to be one of both, correct? Someone makes the claim "there are an even amount of gumballs in the machine" I reply with "I don't accept your claim as true". Meaning, I have no rational reason to commit to the idea that there is an even amount in it, because I have no way of assessing that. So I don't accept the claim as a true-ism. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WOULD ACCPEPT THE CLAIM THAT THERE ARE AN ODD AMOUNT OF GUMBALLS IN THE MACHINE.
Which is what you are claiming....You are saying that if I don't believe the claim that god exists, it must mean that I believe god does not exist. That is simply not the case. Just like not believing the claim that there are an even amount of gumballs, does not mean that I believe there is an odd amount of gumballs. So I ask again... Do you understand now that saying "I don't believe X is true" is NOT the same as saying "I believe X is false"?

This is already addressed in the previous section of this post and is not relavant to the discussion as we are talking about those who believe in God and those who do not believe in God or those who have no belief in God - see previous section which answers this in detail and shows why your example of gumballs is not relevant and simply a distraction.

I have no use for faith. And I certainly do not require it to not accept a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.

If you have no evidence of your belief you are simply living by faith wheather you believe so or not as you cannot prove there is no God or existence of God.

 

[3rdAngel]

As I said, if you wish to learn about our positions on the claims of theism, you should ask us and then accept what we say, instead of pretending that you know better.

Thankyou but I already understand the position of athiesm as already posted elsewhere and here below...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Merriam Webster dictionary
4. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
5. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
6. Cambridge Dictionary
7. Your Dictionary
8. Dictionary.com
9. Wiki

Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
10. Atheist Merriam Webster dictionary

As said in the post you reply to, I've told you what my position is. You an either deal with my actual position, or you can continue to play semantic games and argue strawmen.

What strawman and what semantics? Your position is that you do not have a belief in God right? What evidence do you have for your belief?

It's upto you. If you actually wish to learn what our position is about, then accept what we say and then we can discuss our actual position.
If on the other hand you insist on trying to tell us what our position is, as if you know better, then just say so right now and then we can stop the conversation, because then this nonsense of "yes it is , no it isn't , yes it is, no it isn't ,..." is just going to continue indefinatly. And obviously that's just a waste of valuable time. So what will it be? Are you ready to have an honest discussion, or are you going to continue to argue semantic strawmen?

Your just repeating youself again. Already answered above.

My compelling evidence of what my stance and position actually is, is me telling you what it is.

You haven't provided any evidence that there is no God. If you did you might be famous. All you have provided in your opinion that you cannot prove. Another words your faith.

I haven't made any claims. I have only shared my stance on the claims of theism.

Your only playing semantics you simply do not believe in God yet you will not say so. The evidence of this is that you want to try and prove there is no God because that is your belief.

It doesn't sound like it, as you do nothing but pretend as if you know better then me what my views are. Don't you see how utterly and reprehensible dishonest that is?

Already addressed in the first section see linked definitions.

 

[3rdAngel]

I repeat myself because you keep making the same mistake.

Nonsense. You are simply repeating yourseldf without addressing my posts contents that have already adressed what your repeating.

When I tell you what my position is, the honest thing to do is to accept it, instead of trying to argue it.

I have not argued against what your position is. I have only shown that it is faith based.

To repeat once more: Theism claims a god exists. This claim has a burden of proof. The burden of proof has not been met (as per your own acknowledgement since it requires "faith" to be believed).

Once again if you believe that there is no God and your trying to argue a case for no God then you have a shared burden of proof. You have not met your burden of proof because you have no evidence for this view. I have already shared with you elsewhere that my faith in God is from my personal experience with God. There is no evidence to show you my personal experience with God. It is simply an experience that I have had that cannot be proven, hence I am at peace in my faith which I can only tell you about and point you in the right direction in order to find God. I am a part of the collective witnessed by 1/3 of the worlds population which is evidence in and of itself. Those who choose not to believe on the other hand or have no belief do so be either not believing in God or having no belief in a God or gods. This does not mean that God is not real as there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore those who do not believe in God simply live by faith and those who have no belief do not know if there is a God which they cannot prove either because they do not know.

As a result, I don't accept the claim as true, due to no sufficient evidence. So I don't believe the claim "god exists" That makes me an atheist.

Agreed your do not believe God exists. Yet you have no evidence that God does not exist. Therefore your belief is based on faith.

I don't require "evidence" for that position. I don't require "faith" for that position. Believing the claim is what requires faith. I don't have faith. So I don't believe the claim that requires faith.

Sure you do otherwise your belief is one that is only your opinion based on faith.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ To me, faith is a belief that does not have definitive evidence for that belief.

Your response...

Exactly. And we are telling you that that is irrational.

Indeed you are as I am saying your claims are irrational as you cannot prove someone's excperience that you know nothing about. Just the same as you cannot prove there is no God. It is simply your opinion that you cannot prove because you have no evidence for that opinion so just like the person you are accusing of being irrational so are you because your opinion is not based on fact or evidence. It is based on faith.

Why would you believe anything without sufficient evidence?

I have answered this a few times already but not directly relating to this question so happy to answer this again. Who says there is no sufficient evidence? As posted a little earlier, my faith in God is from my personal experience with God. There is no evidence to show you my personal experience with God. It is simply an experience that I have had that cannot be proven. It is my personal evidence I have from God. Hence I am at peace in my faith which I can only tell you about and point you in the right direction in order to find God. I am a part of the collective witnessed by 1/3 of the worlds population which is evidence in and of itself.

This is why I said that faith is gullibility. When you believe things without sufficient evidence, you are being gullible.

So if someone believes there is no God or in the existence of God and these people have no evidence for their belief are they also being gullible?

Faith is not a pathway to truth. I don't believe claims that require faith to be believed.

It really depends what that faith is in. Those who believe there is no God require faith because they have no evidence. TIme will tell who is right and who is wrong. If you do not believe in God according to the scriptures you better hope you are right. If you cannot prove there is no God then there is always the possibility that your simply wrong right? If you are wrong does it not bother you? It should according to the scriptures. If you reject God's calling.

Exactly. Gullibility. To believe because "it feels good", because "it sounds nice" (=hoped for), and all that without evidence.

Yet here you still are with no evidence for your faith. Are you also being gullible? It is not about feeling God. It is about something you do not know of have no experience in.

If there is no evidence, then there is no way to determine if it is based on truth. So really, faith is always bad, since, by your very own acknowledgement earlier in this post, faith is never based on evidence as it is what you need to accept a claim when you have no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, there is no definitive evidence though for those who do not believe in God. This is the same as those who fo not believe in God not having evidence that God does not exist. Therefore your belief is also based on faith

 

[3rdAngel]

Disbelief is not a belief, by definition.
It is exactly the opposite: and absence of belief. You're not making any sense at all.

An abesnse of belief does not prove there is no God or something is not real

 

[3rdAngel]

"If someone does not play football, he is practicing the sport of not playing football" Right back at ya.

Non sequitur therefore not relevent. If you have evience then prove there is not God if not it is only your opinion and therefore faith.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Yep. Not believing in God or the existence of God is still a belief no matter how you want to spin it. Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything. Now if you believe that there is no God and that God does not exist then that is your belief. If you cannot prove your belief and you have no evidence that God does not exist then it is simply your opinion in which you are living by faith

Your response...

Nope. Wrong again because you've just contradicted yourself. According to you, not believing in anything is believing in anything.

Nonsense. Where did I post in what you are quoting from as you say "not believing in anything is believing in anything" when I posted "Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything" Are you telling the truth. I am not sure what is more amusing you trying to claim I am saying things I am not of your friend @Ayjaydee giving you a winner for saying things I never said

I've already gave my evidence. You can keep spinning it which ever way you like, but you've already failed twice. Faith is not required for not believing. And unless you can provide evidence showing that I don't believe myself to not believe a god exist, that will be strike 3 for you.

Not really. You simply gave your opinion for which you have no evidence. Therefore your faith which is not mine but yours.

 

[3rdAngel]

@Everyone thanks guys for the discussion. I know I am still behind in trying to catch up but late my time and have been on here long enough today. Thanks for the discussion everyone. I will try and catch up more latter 99

 

[Ayjaydee]

@Everyone thanks guys for the discussion. I know I am still behind in trying to catch up but late my time and have been on here long enough today. Thanks for the discussion everyone. I will try and catch up more latter 99

I dont consider that a discussion

 

[night912]

Such a simple concept. Hes painted himself in so deep now, he cant find a face saving way out

Well, that's the problem. One will not attempt to find a way out if they've already acomplshed deceiving themselves as being correct. That's what happens when you live your life by faith. They will use faith to make themselves believe that the sources they post up are saying the things they believe it is saying.

 

[night912]

@Everyone thanks guys for the discussion. I know I am still behind in trying to catch up but late my time and have been on here long enough today. Thanks for the discussion everyone. I will try and catch up more latter 99

Take your time. I already know that even if I can conjure up the amount faith that you you have, I won't be seeing your evidence any time soon.

 

[McBell]

If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

A bold empty claim.

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

Another bold empty claim.