What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[sniper762]

you say: None? No evidence at all? Well, let's start with your mother's statement--that's evidence. Then you have your physical resemblance. And your birth certificate. And your blood type. And your DNA. And the testimony of anyone who was present at your birth. And your experience of your mother's veracity, as we say in the law. Aren't all those things evidence?

i said that i have not SEEN any evidence, yet i still believe...faith, i guess in someone elses word

many of the so called PROOFS that you posted are nothing but heresay (someone elses belief) believe it if you may. just as we discussed on another thread; scientist have presented proof of things existing long before (throuhg carbon dating) the biblical creation. this evidence, though convincing to me, is concidered rubbish by creationists

proof convinces one that something is true. atheist claim that if there is no proof that god exists, then he must not. i say; if atheist cant prove that god does not exist, then he must.

 

[gnomon]

Who are you talking to?

 

[sniper762]

im continuing a debate with autodict

 

[Autodidact]

you say: None? No evidence at all? Well, let's start with your mother's statement--that's evidence. Then you have your physical resemblance. And your birth certificate. And your blood type. And your DNA. And the testimony of anyone who was present at your birth. And your experience of your mother's veracity, as we say in the law. Aren't all those things evidence?

i said that i have not SEEN any evidence, yet i still believe...faith, i guess in someone elses word

First, evidence can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched, don't you agree?
Second, some of those things are seen, aren't they?
Such as say, your blood type.
Third, no, it's not just someone's word. It's someone's word plus DNA plus physical resemblance plus someone else's word.
Fourth, you're someone's son, right? So it's only an issue of figuring out who's, which is a much easier problem.

You're just wrong. Believing that you are your mother's son is nothing like believing a magical man can cure you of sin if you believe in him hard enough. It's completely different. The main way it's different is, it's based on evidence.

many of the so called PROOFS that you posted are nothing but heresay (someone elses belief) believe it if you may

. I didn't post a proof, nor did I call anything proof. I posted evidence--the same kind of evidence as would be admissible in court: eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and so forth. And none of it was hearsay. Not a single bit. I don't think you know what hearsay is.

just as we discussed on another thread; scientist have presented proof of things existing long before (throuhg carbon dating) the biblical creation. this evidence, though convincing to me, is concidered rubbish by creationists

Yes, well the world is full of crazy people who prefer superstition to science. Are you one of them?

proof convinces one that something is true. atheist claim that if there is no proof that god exists, then he must not. i say; if atheist cant prove that god does not exist, then he must.

I thought we were talking about evidence. That's different than proof. If that's your position, then you must also believe in all other gods, fairies, elves, sprites and demons that you cannot prove do not exist. I think it's a silly way to live, but it's your life.

 

[gnomon]

im continuing a debate with autodict

OK. I thought maybe you were responding to my last post and it just wasn't making sense to me.

Never mind me.

 

[sniper762]

autodict, it is YOU thats always demanding evidence to PROVE a belief in god.

so YOU must concider evidence as proof.

again, i have seen none of your posted proofs, yet i still believe....did evidence convince me or faith?

 

[Debunker]

First I want to state that I am a theist.
But I undMadhuierstand the atheist argument and I'm sympathetic of it.

You said: "We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere."

I disagree. If God, which represents all these things (love, consciousness etc) can exist without a cause then these things can exist without a cause.

You said: "The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it."

I disagree. There are many factors that influence the percentage of people who are theistic. Most people in the world are blind believers, adopting the faith of their ancestors. As the world is becoming more educated, more and more people are turning away from religion.

You said: "The earth and life is the evidence."

I disagree. The earth and life is evidence of the earth and life, not of a God. Like I said, if God can exist independently of a cause, than so can the things he represents (like life).

Sir, you are a very smart man and I enloy reading you comments very much, It is my opinion, however, your agreement with the atheist point of view is not an agreement with the atheist at all. For example, you ask the question as to whether love coulld not exist without a creator. The OP failed to point out that in most religions that love was God. The same is true of reasoning, logic, science, etc. all these exist independent of man and are elements of God. The oldest definition of God comes from dagar (Hebrew) which is translated as logos (Greek) In the English translation of the Bible, dagar reqires over 2500 different usages to express this one definition of God. The point being, God is so omni in his existence that one can not speak of pre-existence of any universal thing, like love, or self evident fact, without referring directly to God. In this case, God is love. It is semantics. To say there is truth is to say there is God. To say there is no God, the atheist must say there is no absolute truth. If they give up this point, at that point they can not argue there is no God, not logically at least.

You said: "We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere."

What the OP should have said was that these things were God qnd not came from God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean?

Generalize much? Not all Atheist say this. I'm an Atheist because I as well as everyone on the planet is born Atheist. I just so happen to be born into a family of Muslims and Christians but am the only one who stayed true to myself and remained an Atheist.

We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

But it doesn't mean it came from a god. See how this circular reasoning is starting out for you? Look, we can't help it if you don't know the answer thus imposing a god. That's on you....

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

No it doesn't. It just means people are believers for whatever reasons and evidence isn't one of them.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

Only if you've been hiding under a rock for the last few thousand years. The natural world is being explained everyday and "God" is not one of those explanation...

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening,

Seriously, is this gonna be another one of those Religion vs. Evolution threads where we dole out all the testable evidence, you present nothing and 500 pages later you'll still be spouting your unfounded circular reasoning...?

they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God?

Understanding Evolution: Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution

Evolution: Sex: Sex and the Single Guppy

There you go. I just gave you two examples. Give me your testable evidence for a god.....:beach:

The earth and life is the evidence.

Yes...of evolution.....duhhhh...!!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

autodict, it is YOU thats always demanding evidence to PROVE a belief in god.

Please quote a post where I asked for proof of anything.

YOU said you believe in God with no evidence.

so YOU must concider evidence as proof.

No, evidence is not necessarily proof.

again, i have seen none of your posted proofs, yet i still believe....did evidence convince me or faith?

Faith, meaning belief without evidence.

And according to you, it is your habit to believe things without evidence. btw, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.

 

[Tristesse]

you say: None? No evidence at all? Well, let's start with your mother's statement--that's evidence. Then you have your physical resemblance. And your birth certificate. And your blood type. And your DNA. And the testimony of anyone who was present at your birth. And your experience of your mother's veracity, as we say in the law. Aren't all those things evidence?

i said that i have not SEEN any evidence, yet i still believe...faith, i guess in someone elses word

many of the so called PROOFS that you posted are nothing but heresay (someone elses belief) believe it if you may. just as we discussed on another thread; scientist have presented proof of things existing long before (throuhg carbon dating) the biblical creation. this evidence, though convincing to me, is concidered rubbish by creationists

proof convinces one that something is true. atheist claim that if there is no proof that god exists, then he must not. i say; if atheist cant prove that god does not exist, then he must.

And once again, the atheist does not say that a god doesn't exist, the atheist simply rejects the premis that a god does exist. That doesn't mean that he necessarily accepts that a god doesn't exist. Do you understand the differnce?

 

[Autodidact]

sniper: Here is a couple who believed, without evidence, based on faith, that prayer would cure their child's pneumonia. They were wrong. Their child is dead, and they're in jail. Was this a good idea, or should they have based their treatment on the evidence, and given anti-biotics?

What about you? If you were diagnosed with cancer (heaven forbid), do you think it would be smart to rely on tea made from boiled galoshes, with no evidence of that working, or to rely on the treatments best supported by the evidence? If you car starts making a screeching noise, do you think it's a better idea to perform a sacred dance around the hood, with no evidence that will help, or to rely on the evidence your mechanic shows you as to what's wrong and how to fix it?

The evidence seems to indicate that you cannot fly. Should you have faith, and jump off a bridge anyway?

Personally, I find it most prudent and effective to rely on evidence. YMMV.

 

[Autodidact]

sniper: Say you're accused of a crime. Would you like the jury to make its decision based on the evidence, or by some process of spiritual divination? Which do you think is more likely to be accurate?

 

[sniper762]

Double talk, tristesse

 

[sniper762]

sniper: Here is a couple who believed, without evidence, based on faith, that prayer would cure their child's pneumonia. They were wrong. Their child is dead, and they're in jail. Was this a good idea, or should they have based their treatment on the evidence, and given anti-biotics?

What about you? If you were diagnosed with cancer (heaven forbid), do you think it would be smart to rely on tea made from boiled galoshes, with no evidence of that working, or to rely on the treatments best supported by the evidence? If you car starts making a screeching noise, do you think it's a better idea to perform a sacred dance around the hood, with no evidence that will help, or to rely on the evidence your mechanic shows you as to what's wrong and how to fix it?

The evidence seems to indicate that you cannot fly. Should you have faith, and jump off a bridge anyway?

Personally, I find it most prudent and effective to rely on evidence. YMMV.


YOU QUOTE "EXTREMISTS" VIEWS, not even in the same ballpark as faith in god......and you know it.

 

[Autodidact]

sniper: Here is a couple who believed, without evidence, based on faith, that prayer would cure their child's pneumonia. They were wrong. Their child is dead, and they're in jail. Was this a good idea, or should they have based their treatment on the evidence, and given anti-biotics?

What about you? If you were diagnosed with cancer (heaven forbid), do you think it would be smart to rely on tea made from boiled galoshes, with no evidence of that working, or to rely on the treatments best supported by the evidence? If you car starts making a screeching noise, do you think it's a better idea to perform a sacred dance around the hood, with no evidence that will help, or to rely on the evidence your mechanic shows you as to what's wrong and how to fix it?

The evidence seems to indicate that you cannot fly. Should you have faith, and jump off a bridge anyway?

Personally, I find it most prudent and effective to rely on evidence. YMMV.


YOU QUOTE "EXTREMISTS" VIEWS, not even in the same ballpark as faith in god......and you know it.

In what way is it different? Is it not belief without evidence? And isn't that the problem?

Actually, it is a faith in God. That's exactly what it is. But that's not the point. The point is that it's belief without evidence. I agree with you, I think belief without evidence is extreme, and extremely unwise. Do you agree, or disagree?

 

[Debunker]

I don't believe in your god because all the evidence in the natural world indicates he does not exist, at least not as described by your religion, not because there is "no evidence". There's tonnes of evidence that the magical deeds you ascribe to divinity have arisen naturally, and I am the inquisitive sort so I have gotten to know it quite well.

As
I started on this thread kinof late. To this point most of the arguments against God have not addressed an omni type God which theist commonly say does exist. This post is a good example. The OP said none of the things that he is accused of here. He could not possibly be expected to defend these many illogical statements.

 

[Tristesse]

Double talk, tristesse

Double talk? what do you mean by that?

 

[Autodidact]

sniper: Are you going to quote a post of mine asking for proof of God, or are you going to retract your claim and apologize, or are you going to sacrifice any shred of credibility you might have here on an altar of pride?

 

[gnostic]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere. The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it. For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

Do you understand what evidence is, MoF?

If God did some of the things he has claim, then there should be evidences of his involvement.

Ignoring the creation and the flood found in the Bible (Genesis 1-2, 6-7), God have made ridiculous claims what he has done, none of which is proof that he did anything of these things. I am referring to Job, where he boast that he did many things, or so he say in Job 38-39

1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

Do find any of these verse to be relevant explanations?

• In verse 8, where are the "doors" that supposedly shut the sea in? And what the hell is he talking about "womb" where the seas come from?
• How do you think clouds are formed (9)?
• Can stars actually "sing" (v 7)?
• Is there any evidence of "orders" being made (12) to when morning or dawn arrive?

Every single claims God made that he "did it?", just sounds more and more ridiculous when you read the rest of the chapter (and chapter 39). Can you prove anything God say in Job 38-39.

There are many good scientific explanations for the earth, sea, clouds, sky, etc without a single reference to God.

Read these verses to a bunch of scientists, and they will think either (a) you are joking or (b) you are scientifically ignorant fool. Persist that God did all these things, then they would likely you are (b).

 

[Looncall]

proof convinces one that something is true. atheist claim that if there is no proof that god exists, then he must not. i say; if atheist cant prove that god does not exist, then he must.

You are overlooking the third possibility which is to admit that one does not know.

If there is not convincing evidence for either the existence or the non-existence of a god, then one does not know whether there is a god or not, and one is unjustified in holding either opinion. In this case, however, one still does not believe that a god exists, but could be convinced if satisfactory evidence were forthcoming.

That strikes me as a much more honest position than dogmatic belief either way, in the absence of evidence.

My own opinion is that the notion of god is due to a collection of category errors, and is neither true nor false, but meaningless. However, it has been found useful by people who desire power over other people.