Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Polymath257]

Your kind of repeating yourself here without addressing what was posted to you. I think what you have missed here is that the point is that they do agree. This is what I am indeed claiming all these people (reference to christianity) all collectively agree on common basic points in which God has revlealed himself to them personally. Yes there is some variation in regards to scripture doctrines (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.

But restricting to only Christians is unreasonable when a great many other people also claim to have experienced a deity. So, people who are Muslim, or Hindu, or Zoroastrian, ALSO claim to have experienced God and their experiences are counter to those experienced by Christians.

And those differences bring into question the whole category of 'God experiences'. Focusing on just one group is begging the question.

Furthermore, Christians do NOT all agree. From the very earliest times of Christianity, there have been multiple competing doctrines. For example the Nestorians don't accept the Nicene creed.

Once again this is simpy your opinion you cannot prove. You have no evidence that someone has not had an experience with God, you simply do not know. Just because people can train themselves to beleive things does not mean 1/3 of the world's collective witnesses of God have trained themselves to do so or all those those throughout time in every generation since the beginning. Without any evidence you cannot prove your claims. It is simply your opinion. What if your opinion is wrong? For those people that believe God has revealed himself to them it is personal evidence of God that cannot be explained, and then there is the world-wide collective witness, which provides further evidence that this persons experience is not an isolated case.

And once again, given the ways we *know* people can delude themselves and the techniques we *know* work for self-delusion, and the fact that this capability of the human mind universal, we have to ask whether self-hypnosis is a more reasonable explanation that an otherwise un-evienced deity. And, given the metaphysical baggage of a deity, it is clear that almost any natural explanation is preferable to one involving a supernatural.

I am sure you have. As I posted earlier if you cannot test the plausability and assumptions of a mathamatical model it does not mean there is true, but at the same time it does not mean they are not true based on the assumptions that are being used. They are simply a guide nothing more in regards to possible correctness of a hypothesis. Even the multiplication of the numbers within the model not being precise I think is a given but that does not mean the models being used cannot give us an overall view or estimation of probability IMO. It is to this I am refering to.



Perhaps you do and that is your opinion that you have no evidence for therefore a belief that you have faith in. It does not mean your view is true. I would say your view is simply propaganda for somthing you cannot prove because you have no evidence that this is true to the collective. I see a lot of truth in that scripture "the fool says in his heart there is no God" because it is something that cannot be proved by those who believe there is no God despite the evidence of the personal experiences of the collective witness and life.

I'm sure you do. That is your self-training to see such. But, you also have to admit that there is a LOT of foolishness in those who believe in deities.

I am sorry that is not the way to find and know God. According to the scriptures the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness. There is no way to test for God if God does not want to be known yet he reveals himself to those who seek him. Your statemen is also not true in relation to experimentation why can also start with an hypothesis that is either proven or disproven based on scientific experimentation that provides quatified evidence based on statistics. That said even here the outcomes of each experiement and hypothesis is only as good as the next experiement and which can prove the previous experiment and hypthesis wrong at any time. The point being here, how do you test for God. If this could be done I am sure it would have been long ago. The fact remains though this is something that cannot be explained within science and there is no way to test for God or no god. Therefore all that remains are hypthesis that cannot be porven or not proven (scientifically speaking).

And if there is no test for the existence, then the existence has no effect (otherwise there would be a test) and the difference between existence and non-existence is irrelevant.

Why is it that the non-existence of a God is always at least as good of an explaantion of any phenomenon as the existence?

For me I would disagree and argue that the lack of evidence is simply that. A lack of evidence. It does not prove or disprove God only leaving behind theories and beliefs that cannot be proven - faith hence the OP.

I am only one person that has had my experience with God but I a part of the collective witness of those who have had similar experiences with 1/3 of the current worlds population and those all throughout time in every generation since the begining of time. My personal experience your not able to understand as it was given to me personally as all the others of the colelctive witness. No one will ever find God I believe by trying to ask for evidence of God when it is all around you. In the days of JESUS the JEWS always asked him for a sign (miracle) they they may believe he was the Messiah or Son of God. Yet according to the scriptures he was going miricles and signs all around them that they simply choose to close their eyes to in order not to believe because they had no intention of believing no matter what. Even if definitive evidence of God was provided today people would simply find some way to show it is not evidence at all in order not to believe. So it is today and so it will be tommorrow until God chooses the day he will reveal himself to all mankind. At that time however it will be too late to all those who had the chance to seek him and believe but choose to deny him and his Word.

I think there is some problem with the bottom sections formatting of your post in the bottom section Poly, just letting you know. Anyhow thanks for sharing your view

That those who do not believe cannot see is, for me, sufficient evidence of self-delusion. In every other area of study, the evidence is used to convince those who disbelieve. If it isn't sufficient to do that, then it is considered to be poor evidence.

It is clear you are convinced of the existence and I am convinced of the non-existence of, at least, the Abrahamic God. Because of the lack of evidence, and the extent to which people can fool themselves, I think the conclusion of non-existence is more likely, by far, than the existence.

Scripture were, as I see it, writings of people trying to promote a certain power structure starting around 800BC. Of course they would criticize anyone who disagreed with them. Of course they would condemn anyone outside of their group. So, of course, they would say what they did about atheists (and pagans, and others). It is all a type of propaganda from what I can see.

You can hold your breath for God to reveal himself. For me, that seems as likely as that the king of leprechauns will reveal himself.

 

[Ayjaydee]

He lost me a few threads ago. The problem is that the fringe produces the most vocal spokespeople with a lot of time and anger on their hands. They appear voracious for attention and often say things that should be addressed in their attempt to get it.

That logic and evidence fail them and their unwarranted dismissal of anything offered is obvious does not impede them in their fanatical zeal.

The part I love is he signs off with a friendly cheerio and a promise to be back soon with another dollop of his thinly veiled bile

 

[Polymath257]

Not at all, apready addressed in the previous post. There are variations in the God reveals himself to us personally. The outcome is still the same though it is to each ones personal experience. This is consistent and verified in the world-wide collective witness. My comments in the post you are quoting from are in relation not to God's revelation to individuals but to variations in the understandings of what somesome scriptures teach.

As someone who believes in Islam if their revelation says the same as yours. And then go to someone who believes in Judaism. And then to someone who believes in Sikhism. I think you will find that world-wide consensus to be sorely lacking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point of the OP appears to be to say that atheists' beliefs are faith-based. Nobody here is being dishonest.



Not to you. It cannot be demonstrated to you that which you don't understand the middle ground between belief and disbelief, by which I mean belief that something is untrue, also a belief. You have been unable to grasp the idea of this middle place between belief and disbelief, which is neither.



Because they don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is. Every once in a while, it seems that you might be able to understand what agnostic atheism is, but then, alas, no. Right back to binary.



No need. Nothing need be disproved to not be believed. You were given the gumball analogy. I need not prove that there are an odd number of gumballs to not believe that there is an even number.

Consider the words proven and disproven, They have the same relationship as belief and disbelief as I have defined disbelief above. They are both proof and disproof are both proof - proof that a statement is true or proof that it is false. I use the words belief, unbelief, and disbelief analogously. Unbelief requires no faith, nor proof or disproof.

But there is a middle ground there as well - unproven, by which I mean neither proven nor disproven. The issue is unsettled, and may eventually turn out to be proven true or disproved (proven false), but for now, we don't know, and neither believe nor disbelieve, an idea that continually eludes you.



Yes, unbelief is different from both belief and disbelief, both of which can be evidence or faith-based, but unbelief requires no faith since nothing is being believed nor disbelieved.

Like many believers, you seem to think that it is impossible to live without faith-based beliefs. Why else would you say that all atheists believe by faith?

But you would be incorrect. It is very possible to train oneself not to believe anything without sufficient supporting evidence. It becomes second nature. No idea is accepted without a compelling evidence-based reason. It's part of learning critical analysis. One is taught to be skeptical of all claims, how to evaluate evidence, and how to go from established premises to sound conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning.

Why? Because believing by faith is a logical error. It's another word for guessing, but forgetting that you guessed and believing that you have knowledge.



But I'll bet that you don't believe them, nor disbelieve them. Your position seems to be in between - maybe they're right, maybe they're not, you don't disbelieve them, but neither do you believe them (unless you do)

Like I said, every now and again you seem to move toward an understanding of that middle place. One more attempt. You meet a person about whom you know nothing? Do you trust him? Do you distrust him? If so, you do so by faith, since you have no reason to take either position yet. Continuing with my use of un- and dis- as above, we could say that you neither trust nor distrust this person, a position we might call untrust, which is also undistrust. It's neither. It's a third position, and no faith is required to hold judgment until more is known about the character and trustworthiness of this person.



That's pretty much the description of a nonexistent thing. Nobody ever finds evidence for any nonexistent thing. You won't find the leprechaun's pot of gold whether you wait for evidence to come to you or you go seek it.



You can drop disbelief from your definition, since disbelieving atheists are a subset of those lacking belief in gods. You can also drop "God," since whatever is meant by that word is a subset of gods. We're left with an atheist being someone lacking a belief in gods.



But you didn't make an argument, and you provided no evidence to support your claim that atheism means the positive denial of the existence of gods. You simply keep repeating that atheism is a faith-based position, faith that gods don't exist, since there is way to rule out the possibility that there exists a god that doesn't want to be found, doesn't know we exist, or can't make itself known.

OK. That's what you believe, by faith, given the mountains of evidence you are ignoring from atheists who tell you that they do not make any faith-based claim about the nonexistence of gods. We exist. You can't understand that.

I think we're all a little dumbstruck that you can't make progress from the errors in your OP. How does that happen?



You've already been told that chimps are apes, and agreed that rather than apes, you should have written gorillas or orangutans.

No, it doesn't mean what you wrote. Mating and producing fertile offspring is the criterion for two organisms being of the same species. Nobody is claiming that chimps and gorillas are even in the same genus. There is no reason that they could not have descended from a different, earlier ape species now extinct.



This has already been refuted as well. You haven't established that if a universe exists, it must have come from a god. If you think that you proved that a god must exist with that argument, try varying it a little. Substitute multiverse for God, and the same argument "proves" that there is a multiverse, not a god.

If you can see why that is wrong, perhaps you can see why your argument doesn't prove that a god exists or anything else. It's merely



No, he doesn't, and it appears that he never will. He seems incapable of conceiving of that middle ground. He doesn't just deny it exists, he never refers to it even as a possibility, or something to reject. He simply cannot conceive of it to deny it.

The analogy with biological conception seems apt. Here, a male sends a seed to a female, and if conditions are right, the seed is planted and a new life begins. This is the psychological analog of that. The thread has tried diligently to plant the seed of an idea in the field of his mind without success. He wasn't able to conceive the idea, so it appears nowhere in his posting. And to extend the analogy, in a sense, our minds are of different psychological species, with none of us able to plant the idea in his head.

I see nothing illogical about a person looking at the available evidence and coming to a conclusion. That is not a position based on belief. Belief is not required to arrive at such a conclusion.

If I had a medical condition that required specialized medical expertise and a review of the evidence that none with required skill existed in my state, I am not taking on belief in subsequent conclusions. This expertise does not exist in my state based on the evidence. This is a reasonable conclusion. It is not a belief based on faith. I will look to other places for what I need. That search would not be based on faith either.

It is unclear from my reading here why some have such a difficult time understanding that. Unless they just don't want to. With the serious effort brought to hear in denying it, the latter is certainly plausible.

 

[Ayjaydee]

I see nothing illogical about a person looking at the available evidence and coming to a conclusion. That is not a position based on belief. Belief is not required to arrive at such a conclusion.

If I had a medical condition that required specialized medical expertise and a review of the evidence that none with required skill existed in my state, I am not taking on belief in subsequent conclusions. This expertise does not exist in my state based on the evidence. This is a reasonable conclusion. It is not a belief based on faith. I will look to other places for what I need. That search would not be based on faith either.

It is unclear from my reading here why some have such a difficult time understanding that. Unless they just don't want to. With the serious effort brought to hear in denying it, the latter is certainly plausible.

Of course they don't want to
The " oh yeah well so are you" reaction is imprinted in childhood

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The part I love is he signs off with a friendly cheerio and a promise to be back soon with another dollop of his thinly veiled bile

I love that too. He is a kinder, gentler apologist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course they don't want to
The " oh yeah well so are you" reaction is imprinted in childhood

I grew up in a small town community dominated by fundamentalism. I suppose my parents should be credited for injecting rational inquiry and diversity into my growing mind. Some are not so fortunate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As someone who believes in Islam if their revelation says the same as yours. And then go to someone who believes in Judaism. And then to someone who believes in Sikhism. I think you will find that world-wide consensus to be sorely lacking.

Oh nose! The cracks in the absolute keep forming. My experience is different than his too. Still Christian no matter what he says. In fact, his opinion on the matter has never been revealed to have any bearing on whether a person has belief in God.

 

[Ayjaydee]

I grew up in a small town community dominated by fundamentalism. I suppose my parents should be credited for injecting rational inquiry and diversity into my growing mind. Some are not so fortunate.

I could have used more injection I suppose but they gave me enough for the seed to germinate
Later than I'd wish but they did their best

 

[james bond]

Can you prove this statement is true? From what I can tell, it is false, so I would like to see how you justify it.

All I can do is provide the evidence. You have no evidence that it is false. It's based on a being who is all powerful who is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, eternal, as there could have been nothing then, called the void in the Bible. Instead, you believe in universe ex nihilo which is universe from nothing and a contradiction to what God said. We had to have universe from creation ex nihilo. Prior to this your side believed in an eternal universe. That was wrong. Thus, we start with God as eternal. We would not know of this all powerful being if the Bible wasn't discovered. Next, we had the discovery of the CMB and this meant the universe had a beginning. From it came the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is what I stated was if p -> q, then God exists.

ETA: If you want proof for yourself, then the only way I know is for atheists to repent. If one becomes an atheist, then one has already fallen under the influence of Satan and has committed sin (evidence for Satan -- Is This Evidence Of Satan? Did He Write An Antibible? Is It Evolution?). It's similar to what happened to Adam and Eve. Thus, they have to repent first instead of an agnostic. Repent means to change one's mind. Then if you sincerely pray to God to reveal himself, then he will. This is the beginning of your journey. It is written in the Bible, too.

The Bible states that God already knows who will be saved. Thus, he knows which of the chosen will be saved and be true believers. Thus, all I can say is what I believe is required to save an atheist. An agnostic may not have sinned and thus may just be able to do the following. From experience, I know it doesn't work for atheists:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could have used more injection I suppose but they gave me enough for the seed to germinate
Later than I'd wish but they did their best

Better late than never. Some people cannot get passed their dogmatic indoctrination. This thread has several examples.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Better late than never. Some people cannot get passed their dogmatic indoctrination. This thread has several examples.

Right above! Lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I can do is provide the evidence. You have no evidence that it is false. It's based on a being who is all powerful who is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, eternal, as there could have been nothing then, called the void in the Bible. Instead, you believe in universe ex nihilo which is universe from nothing and a contradiction to what God said. We had to have universe from creation ex nihilo. Prior to this your side believed in an eternal universe. That was wrong. Thus, we start with God as eternal. We would not know of this all powerful being if the Bible wasn't discovered. Next, we had the discovery of the CMB and this meant the universe had a beginning. From it came the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is what I stated was if p -> q, then God exists.

ETA: If you want proof for yourself, then the only way I know is for atheists to repent. If one becomes an atheist, then one has already fallen under the influence of Satan and has committed sin (evidence for Satan -- Is This Evidence Of Satan? Did He Write An Antibible? Is It Evolution?). It's similar to what happened to Adam and Eve. Thus, they have to repent first instead of an agnostic. Repent means to change one's mind. Then if you sincerely pray to God to reveal himself, then he will. This is the beginning of your journey. It is written in the Bible, too.

The Bible states that God already knows who will be saved. Thus, he knows which of the chosen will be saved and be true believers. Thus, all I can say is what I believe is required to save an atheist. An agnostic may not have sinned and thus may just be able to do the following. From experience, I know it doesn't work for atheists:

I seriously doubt if you understand the concept of evidence. Especially when the sciences are involved. If you want to play the video game I can find videos from far more reliable sources that refute the Kalam.

It is just a fancy argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy) that fools the gullible.

You do not appear to understand that all of the arguments that you apply to the universe can be applied to your god. That means if you accept the Kalam you accept that there had to be a creator for god, and a creator for that and so on and so forth. It is better to simply say "We know this but nothing really beyond it". We know that the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. Was there anything before it? Some will argue yes, some will argue no and many will say "we don't know.". Not knowing is never evidence for a god and that is all that you have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right above! Lol

Ahem, erm, muffled voice, 'Yes indeed'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I seriously doubt if you understand the concept of evidence. Especially when the sciences are involved. If you want to play the video game I can find videos from far more reliable sources that refute the Kalam.

It is just a fancy argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy) that fools the gullible.

You do not appear to understand that all of the arguments that you apply to the universe can be applied to your god. That means if you accept the Kalam you accept that there had to be a creator for god, and a creator for that and so on and so forth. It is better to simply say "We know this but nothing really beyond it". We know that the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang. Was there anything before it? Some will argue yes, some will argue no and many will say "we don't know.". Not knowing is never evidence for a god and that is all that you have.

I am going to have to take a closer look at it. Not being on the front lines in the Big Bang arguments, my education is notably lacking in some of the more prominent ID arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to have to take a closer look at it. Not being on the front lines in the Big Bang arguments, my education is notably lacking in some of the more prominent ID arguments.

The Kalam is not even an ID argument. It is a favorite argument of David Lane (I think) Craig. Once you see the huge hole you will be face palming.

 

[3rdAngel]

I never claimed that God does not exist. You are still guilty of black and white thinking in a color universe try again.

Really SZ are you being truthful? You told me in your own words more than once now that you do not believe in God and you do not believe in the existence of God. Here they are again........

3rdAngel said: ↑ You were the one who said to me you do not believe in God or the existence of God not me

Your response...

I never made that claim. Poor reading comprehension might lead one to think that. In fact that is one of the main reasons I concluded that may be a problem of yours. It is also reportable if you continue to make that claim.

Are you being honest now my friend? These are your words not mine in context...

3rdAngel said: ↑ So if you do not believe in God and you are an Athiest how can you believe in the existence God?

Your response...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight". and again...

3rdAngel said: ↑ Sure but it was you that said you did not believe in God not me.

Your response...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ Right I do not believe in God. Or god. Do you believe in Allah? I don't. Is there a burden of proof upon you to prove that Allah does not exist? You might get this right.

From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight". There are others but I these will do could not be bothered chasing them. Seems you are not being honest and simply digging a hole for yourself . Maybe you do not know what you believe or you changed your mind since this conversation? I did ask you those questions for a reason. You denying what you said does not help our conversation IMO and it is not being truthful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Kalam is not even an ID argument. It is a favorite argument of David Lane (I think) Craig. Once you see the huge hole you will be face palming.

Sounds like I need to check into it then. Thanks for the info.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really SZ are you being truthful? You told me in your own words more than once now that you do not believe in God and you do not believe in the existence of God
Here they are again........

Yes, I am being truthful. You do not seem to realize that not believing in God is not claiming that he does not exist. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?

Your response...

Are you being honest now my friend? These are your words not mine in context...

Just because you cannot understand someone does not mean that they are not being honest.

Your response...

From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight". and again...

Your response...

From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".
There are others but I these will do could not be bothered chasing them. Seems you are not being honest and simply digging a hole for yourself . Maybe you do not know what you believe or you changed your mind since this conversation? I did ask you those questions for a reason. You denying what you said does not help our conversation IMO and it is not being truthful.

All that you have demonstrated is that you cannot think rationally even at a high school graduate level. This is rather disturbing. Once again, not believing in God is not saying that God does not exist. Repeatedly claiming that someone is not honest because you cannot understand rather rudimentary logic is not wise. Do you remember complaining improperly of an ad hom? What yo have posted is far closer to an ad hom, largely due to the fact that your claims are falsehoods. And you know what that means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder why some Christians are so afraid of atheists or different knowledge, understanding and conclusion? Is it just plain old fear that their dominance is slipping or are they trying to convince themselves of something deep down that is fragile and cracking is really solid and absolute?