Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Heyo]

Not really an athiest or athiesm according to the Oxford dictionary which is the same as many other dictionary definitions is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if someone does not believe in the existence of God or gods is still a belief just the same as someone that believes in God is a belief. Now both do not have evidence for their belief so the only conclusion is that both beliefs are not based on evidence therefore their beliefs are based on faith (no evidence; unproven) IMO.

Do you believe in sdofvjkoivj?

 

[dfnj]

Do you believe in sdofvjkoivj?

If sdofvjkoivj = God Then Yes

 

[Heyo]

If sdofvjkoivj = God Then Yes

Sdofvjkoivj may be god or it may not be god. At least it shares one feature with god: nobody knows what it is.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hi all some questions for consideration for this OP....

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?.

No. But "god" may as well NOT exist in this case-- for cannot god do ANYTHING? Deliberately and with malice, withholding evidence is EVIL. So if the god in question does, in fact exist?

It is EVIL in nature. Ooops!

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?.

Non-sequitur. #2 does not follow from #1, above. It's a Rabbit Trail, or a Distraction, and does not address #1 in the slightest.

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?.

More of the same Non-sequitur. #3 is just rephrasing #2, which has NOTHING to do with #1, above. (which I showed to be fatally flawed, with respect to the god-question).

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God..

Not all religions can be correct: yes, this is true.

Worse for YOU? They can all be quite wrong. Do you have a reason to claim one over the others? Let's see your reasoning, if any.

Hint: Pointing to an Ancient Bronze Age Book Of Superstition is not reasonable.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not.

Isn't that nice. Do you have a REASON to believe such? No? None at all-- apart from Wishes (faith)?

Gotcha.

Thanks for your thoughts...

You are welcome.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You really should try to learn the difference between a lack of belief and a belief of nonexistence.

Try again, please.

Lack of belief is religious indifference. Virtually every "atheist" I've met instead believes in nonexistence (of deities).

Nonexistence of anything is an article of faith.

You cannot know that something does not exist, without having omniscience and omnipresence yourself. Otherwise, what you assert isn't real could possibly be somewhere else.

Supposedly, there are two ways to disprove the existence of something:
- To assert that its existence is contradictory
-By "carefully looking and seeing"

The problem is you cannot carefully look everywhere at once, you cannot head to other planets in the farthest reaches of the galaxy, in other universes or parallel dimensions, and in the past and future. And all of this is assuming the subject in question does not have the ability of invisibility. If that is the case (elves, unicorns, presumably God) all bets are off. In fact, I daresay that you are unlikely to do any looking for this supposed proof, because actually being earnest enough to look you WILL find God (you just probably wouldn't like him if you weren't want to in the first place).

So let's look at some seeming contradictions, and see how well that other idea stacks up.
Suppose you said that a cold desert did not exist. I would very quickly point out that there are in fact cold deserts. You could also tell me, well, a wet desert would be a contradiction then. Good, except, I could very easily assert that a desert is any place without drinkable water, and with very little rainfall. Much of the lower coast of California qualifies. Okay, then what about fat yet constantly starving? Well, it's a symptom of malnutrition. During the Holocaust, starved people had a condition where their stomach was basically making gas because it didn't have enough food. For that matter, indigestion effectively makes you unable to draw nutrients from food but also unable to get rid of the waste. Chronic indigestion can create the appearance of a gut but one is starving. I can go on with seeming contradictions that aren't.

So, I'm sorry to say but you cannot disprove the existence of anything. You cannot be everywhere and every time (someone saying Dodo birds don't exist, would have to contend with the statement that they once existed but were driven extinct), so you cannot "carefully look and see." Nor do the people wanting to disprove bother looking very hard. And you cannot prove your contradictions actually are contradictions, as opposed to standards that you made up (it is not needed for God to be omnipotent, but even if it were, we've arbitrarily ignored the fact that even humans have the ability to say "no"; without that, God is less potent even than a human). Supposing all of these standards were met? You'd move the goalposts.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Try again, please.

Lack of belief is religious indifference. Virtually every "atheist" I've met instead believes in nonexistence (of deities).

Nonexistence of anything is an article of faith..

Nope. Nice Straw Man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try again, please.

Lack of belief is religious indifference. Virtually every "atheist" I've met instead believes in nonexistence (of deities).

Nonexistence of anything is an article of faith.

You cannot know that something does not exist, without having omniscience and omnipresence yourself. Otherwise, what you assert isn't real could possibly be somewhere else.

Supposedly, there are two ways to disprove the existence of something:
- To assert that its existence is contradictory
-By "carefully looking and seeing"

The problem is you cannot carefully look everywhere at once, you cannot head to other planets in the farthest reaches of the galaxy, in other universes or parallel dimensions, and in the past and future. And all of this is assuming the subject in question does not have the ability of invisibility. If that is the case (elves, unicorns, presumably God) all bets are off. In fact, I daresay that you are unlikely to do any looking for this supposed proof, because actually being earnest enough to look you WILL find God (you just probably wouldn't like him if you weren't want to in the first place).

So let's look at some seeming contradictions, and see how well that other idea stacks up.
Suppose you said that a cold desert did not exist. I would very quickly point out that there are in fact cold deserts. You could also tell me, well, a wet desert would be a contradiction then. Good, except, I could very easily assert that a desert is any place without drinkable water, and with very little rainfall. Much of the lower coast of California qualifies. Okay, then what about fat yet constantly starving? Well, it's a symptom of malnutrition. During the Holocaust, starved people had a condition where their stomach was basically making gas because it didn't have enough food. For that matter, indigestion effectively makes you unable to draw nutrients from food but also unable to get rid of the waste. Chronic indigestion can create the appearance of a gut but one is starving. I can go on with seeming contradictions that aren't.

So, I'm sorry to say but you cannot disprove the existence of anything. You cannot be everywhere and every time (someone saying Dodo birds don't exist, would have to contend with the statement that they once existed but were driven extinct), so you cannot "carefully look and see." Nor do the people wanting to disprove bother looking very hard. And you cannot prove your contradictions actually are contradictions, as opposed to standards that you made up (it is not needed for God to be omnipotent, but even if it were, we've arbitrarily ignored the fact that even humans have the ability to say "no"; without that, God is less potent even than a human). Supposing all of these standards were met? You'd move the goalposts.

I have to correct you. Most atheists will gladly refute specific versions of God. Most that I know of simply lack any sort of belief in deities due to the lack of evidence for deities. The difference between not having a belief and believing nonexistence is huge. In the former it is relatively easy to change one's mind if sufficient evidence is supplied. In the second a person may not be convinced no matter how much evidence is supplied. For example look at some of the foolish beliefs of some theists. Though disproven long long time ago they still hang onto these beliefs since they think that accepting their errors would mean that "God had been disproved". Now that is not the case, but it is what atheists are accused of endlessly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Nice Straw Man.

To the point and correct!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really an athiest or athiesm according to the Oxford dictionary which is the same as many other dictionary definitions is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if someone does not believe in the existence of God or gods is still a belief just the same as someone that believes in God is a belief. Now both do not have evidence for their belief so the only conclusion is that both beliefs are not based on evidence therefore their beliefs are based on faith (no evidence; unproven) IMO.

What about the 'no evidence for giant, invisible, white rabbit' crowd? Is that a belief or just a reasonable conclusion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank down the ages. It does not work like that. It is the person making the claim that has to be prepared to justify it.

Creationists and literalist hate having a burden of proof and spend extensive efforts to avoid it and hand it off as often as possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about the 'no evidence for giant, invisible, white rabbit' crowd? Is that a belief or just a reasonable conclusion?

How tall? Do you know when he grew a few inches taller and why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really an athiest or athiesm according to the Oxford dictionary which is the same as many other dictionary definitions is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if someone does not believe in the existence of God or gods is still a belief just the same as someone that believes in God is a belief. Now both do not have evidence for their belief so the only conclusion is that both beliefs are not based on evidence therefore their beliefs are based on faith (no evidence; unproven) IMO.

You have not relieved yourself of the burden of proof for your claims. So yes, really.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How tall? Do you know when he grew a few inches taller and why?

Above average height giant, invisible, white rabbits. Big healthy lads. 20 stone or more.

Regular health exams through Giant Invisible White Shield require weight, height and vision tests. Carrot consumption is huge with these guys. Prove me wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Above average height giant, invisible, white rabbits. Big healthy lads. 20 stone or more.

Regular health exams through Giant Invisible White Shield require weight, height and vision tests. Carrot consumption is huge with these guys. Prove me wrong.

Jimmy Stewart is tall.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was addressing your claim: "I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not"

He has had more than enough time to address this, but seems more intent on bullying @Subduction Zone instead. Since I am unaware of any person proving the reality of what they believe based on faith, I conclude he is not going to either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jimmy Stewart is tall.

Jimmy Page is awesome on guitar.

Tall invisible white rabbits on guitar are earth-shattering. They do a pretty good 'Immigrant Song' too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How does this relate to you when you have already told me you do not believe in God or the existence of God? This is a belief is it not?

What hobby is not collecting coins? Where can I join a not collecting stamps club. Do you think they have a not playing baseball team? That would be great, though I personally would prefer a not playing rugby team for the lack of vigorous activity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He has had more than enough time to address this, but seems more intent on bullying @Subduction Zone instead. Since I am unaware of any person proving the reality of what they believe based on faith, I conclude he is not going to either.

Sometimes when one is nice to someone they think that they can bully you. I have been a bad boy here a few times to many so I really cannot bully back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes when one is nice to someone they think that they can bully you. I have been a bad boy here a few times to many so I really cannot bully back.

I mentioned it more for the fact that I have seen it happen to others and thought it important to say something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes when one is nice to someone they think that they can bully you. I have been a bad boy here a few times to many so I really cannot bully back.

I do not expect to see your level of honesty from other quarters. I have seen a few attempts at semantics to justify it though. Not a Christian ideal for which I am aware.