Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Some Christians have higher ideals.

 

[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.

That whole 'prove me wrong' nonsense to avoid supporting a claim is the basis of creationist/literalst/religious fundamentalist arguments. It is all they must have, since it is used so often.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some Christians have higher ideals.

I believe you are correct, based on the fruit I have seen. But we cannot know if they are Christian or not. No one can.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jimmy Stewart is tall.

Harvey the Pooka is real. Prove me wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Harvey the Pooka is real. Prove me wrong.

How could I? I quite agree.

 

[Heyo]

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

Anecdotal evidence. Roughly 90% of atheists I have met claim non belief. And 100% of agnostic atheists withhold judgement due to lack of evidence for or against existence of gods - by definition.

So let's look at some seeming contradictions, and see how well that other idea stacks up.
[...]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.

Thats why it's called the Mojave desert.

So, I'm sorry to say but you cannot disprove the existence of anything.

Yes, I can.

And you cannot prove your contradictions actually are contradictions, as opposed to standards that you made up

I don't have to make up standards, I can use the definitions that are there. There is no such thing as a married bachelor, a rational solution for x^2 + 1 = 0 or a way to construct a square with the same area as a given circle using only a straight edge and a compass.
Without provable contradiction we wouldn't have logic or mathematics. And without logic we can't communicate. How could I reason with you when you deny reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

, a rational solution for x^2 + 1 = 0

I can give a rational one, but it would be quite "complex".

 

[Heyo]

I can give a rational one, but it would be quite "complex".

Very imaginative.

 

[exchemist]

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

True. But not only them. It is anyone who indulges in dreaming up alternative hypotheses without having the evidence to corroborate them: free energy cranks, electric universe cranks, homeopaths........I was going to add Gwyneth Paltrow but I'm not sure Goop really tries to defend its fraudulent promises that particular way.

The technique is to ask lots of demanding questions, to make the scientists dance around explaining, instead of producing evidence for their own ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Do you believe that Bigfoot, elves, Dracula, werewoves, unicorns, Godzilla, fairies, mermaids, chupacabra and wendigo exist? If you do not have evidence for these things, is not considering them a belief or a logical conclusion from a lack of evidence?

So you would provide evidence for cold deserts and further disagreement of this evidence would require further evidence and sound reasoning in rebuttal from your opponent. That is logical.

Wouldn't your attempt to move the goal posts by redefining what a desert is only serve to support the claim that a wet desert is a contradiction?

You are not really describing a condition of fat, but starving. Fat people can die from starvation. Fat people do get hungry like anyone else. You are only showing that the existence of a distended gut, giving the appearance it is fat, is a result of starvation. You may want to find a better analogy.

Funny you should end on the mention of moving goal posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is c

True. But not only them. It is anyone who indulges in dreaming up alternative hypotheses without having the evidence to corroborate them: free energy cranks, electric universe cranks, homeopaths........I was going to add Gwyneth Paltrow but I'm not sure Goop really tries to defend its fraudulent promises that particular way.

The technique is to ask lots of demanding questions, to make the scientists dance around explaining, instead of producing evidence for their own ideas.

I agree. It is not solely the property of those using it to promote a religious view. They are really persistent with it, but probably no more than some of those you mentioned and others yet to be recognized. Practically any conspiracy theory I have heard of had some proponents using this technique. Politicians are fond of it too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are these two sets of statements equal (the same)?

1. There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, so I see no reason to believe they exist. If significant evidence is found to support unicorns existing, I would accept that they exist.

2. I know unicorns do not exist. They never have existed. I will never believe they exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True. But not only them. It is anyone who indulges in dreaming up alternative hypotheses without having the evidence to corroborate them: free energy cranks, electric universe cranks, homeopaths........I was going to add Gwyneth Paltrow but I'm not sure Goop really tries to defend its fraudulent promises that particular way.

The technique is to ask lots of demanding questions, to make the scientists dance around explaining, instead of producing evidence for their own ideas.

I think it was a 13 year old girl in middle school that came up with valid set of experiments dismissing the healing power of those magnetic bracelets.

 

[exchemist]

Is c

I agree. It is not solely the property of those using it to promote a religious view. They are really persistent with it, but probably no more than some of those you mentioned and others yet to be recognized. Practically any conspiracy theory I have heard of had some proponents using this technique. Politicians are fond of it too.

Interesting that you mention conspiracy theory.

Indeed, it seems to me that creationists, like other pseudoscience cranks, must either believe they have a unique insight that the whole of science has somehow missed (the free energy and electric universe cranks are often in this category - "They laughed at Galileo" etc.), or they must believe that there is worldwide conspiracy to suppress "the truth". I find it can be interesting to put these alternatives to creationists and ask them which one they subscribe to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting that you mention conspiracy theory.

Indeed, it seems to me that creationists, like other pseudoscience cranks, must either believe they have a unique insight that the whole of science has somehow missed (the free energy and electric universe cranks are often in this category - "They laughed at Galileo" etc.), or they must believe that there is worldwide conspiracy to suppress "the truth". I find it can be interesting to put these alternatives to creationists and ask them which one they subscribe to.

I support the global science conspiracy, but I can't get any of them to talk about it so I can join up. I guess rule one is not to talk about it.

It would be interesting to see how it is answered. I suspect there will be some that will go with both. They are Just Waiting for the end before they tell us.

 

[exchemist]

I support the global science conspiracy, but I can't get any of them to talk about it so I can join up. I guess rule one is not to talk about it.

It would be interesting to see how it is answered. I suspect there will be some that will go with both. They are Just Waiting for the end before they tell us.

The Intelligent Design crowd seem to have a defined position on this (cf. Wedge Document). They think there is a tacit worldwide conspiracy, to promote what they call "materialist science", i.e. what you and I would call "science". They see it as their goal to put God "back" (?) into science teaching in US schools and thus combat materialism in society.

What they've done is to confuse the methodological naturalism demanded by the scientific method with philosophical materialism. In common with other creationists, the root of their problem is that they do not really understand what science is - and that there is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Intelligent Design crowd seem to have a defined position on this (cf. Wedge Document). They think there is a tacit worldwide conspiracy, to promote what they call "materialist science", i.e. what you and I would call "science". They see it as their goal to put God "back" (?) into science teaching in US schools and thus combat materialism in society.

What they've done is to confuse the methodological naturalism demanded by the scientific method with philosophical materialism. In common with other creationists, the root of their problem is that they do not really understand what science is - and that there is nothing to be afraid of.

I see them as intent on putting literalist interpretation of the Bible into science and education. But for them, biblical literalism and God are the same thing.

Some Christians need persecutors so badly they have to invent them. They take no notice of the shift in position they have taken in doing so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most theists ideas about God are much bigger than the narrow-minded view of God atheists have. .. Atheist reject this argument and dismiss it out of hand and do so for very specific reasons.
"Just give us one free miracle..."
All belief systems are built on a set of premises or axioms that are considered to be true without any proof.

- For what reason you term atheists as narrow-minded? There is a contradiction in the sentence that follows. If the atheists reject God for very specific reasons then you cannot say that they have rejected God out of hand.
- What is wrong with that? God wants 24x7x30x12 worship, remembrance, subservience from us, should he in these thousands of years give us a concrete proof of his existence or proof that he has sent us prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis?
- No. That is not correct. There is no premise or axiom in Advaita Hinduism. It is built up from zero ground up. You are talking of Abrahamic religions.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

There is no evidence for God as well, so their disbelief is reasonable.

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?

No. Maybe there are some atheists who go about their atheism as though it were a religion, and some who have a religion but simply disbelieve in God, but the disbelief in God in itself is not a religion.

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?

I'm sure there are some. But with a lack of evidence and some of the rather absurd aspects of the scripture, many atheists are fairly confident in their disbelief.

In fact, given the cruel nature of the God of the Bible, many atheists would not feel comfortable worshipping it anyway.

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.

I study religion, philosophy, science, the humanities, and am introspective. I seek patterns and decide what appears useful or inspiring.

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

Thanks for your thoughts...

Not definitively enough to convince you. Good luck!

 

[Aupmanyav]

God is a God of unconditional love. No matter what sins human beings commit against each other God sits back and continues to love everyone equally.
Besides, in my mind a God who is to be feared is not a God worth worshiping. My faith in is a God of unconditional love. Everyone is loved. Everyone is sacred. Everyone is saved.

That is untruth. For a being who threw out Adm and Eve just for eating an apple, or who unashamedly threatened people that he will punish the children for the sin of parents to the third and the fourth generation who hate him, or who sent the flood which destroyed all things other than four people and whatever they could load in their thousand-oared (?) boat.

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

No. I would say two features. Just as Sdofvjkoivj is non-existent, God too is non-existent.