What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[Father Heathen]

Without god, there would be no morals. Unless, of course, there would be.

The suggestion that morals require a cloud surfing wizard never really made any sense to me. Real morals come from reason and compassion, which we have within us (assuming we're psychologically healthy), god or no god.

 

[Willamena]

It would be so funny if he was a bot.

 

[Revoltingest]

The suggestion that morals require a cloud surfing wizard never really made any sense to me. Real morals come from reason and compassion.

Don't forget a sense of fairness.

 

[bhaktajan]

Can anyone here translate this into English? Thanks.

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
a If you are a person ---why is God Not able to avail Himself of Hisown personality?
b It because in our short span of existance we are bereft of a visitation by God?

c Theist says the world is simply and because it is simply and made for enjoyment . . .

d why do we have to go to school?

e 2+2=4 for children and rocket scientists too.

f Cute faces are cute for Humans, animal pups and God too.

g Why hide from Gods face? Because of self-loathing?

Funny thing is that I don't think it need be translated . . . but I'll do it because I am asked to do so:

a We are Persons/Personas . . . and so God too is a person [this is revealed unequivically in the Vedas].

b [as Man of Faith's Quoted in Post 54]:

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.

c The material world and along with those living in it, are indeed meant for the pursuit of enjoyments, by all creatures ---yet THIS IS A WORLD OF DUALITY, there is both pleasure and pain and one must navigate with care to derive the most pleasure with the least pain.

d The Irony is, before pleasure there is pain; ie: The nerd Kid later became the rich doctor with the trophy wife . . . while the cool handsome kid became the tattoed Biker-cop with the beer belly. First painful disciplines . . . then later the rewards of pleasure.
The Theist agrees with this but the theist is regulated in pleasure; and the atheist is seeking pleasure at a break neck speed without regards for lessons that advise restraint.

e Simply laws of nature and mechanics and mathmatics become complicated ONLY WHEN they are superimposed upon each other.
Elementary schooling is simply and basic . . . and only become complicated WHEN they are superimposed upon each other via years of Higher Learning.
For example, the street-sweeper was happy that his new wellpaying job was simply to do--- later he found that he had to sweep all of the cities streets once a week.

f Beauty is the name of God [Krishna, means the all-attractive one]

g Self-hating behavior is part and parcel of anti-social behavior ---and I am drawing a similarity here of "self-loathing**" (anti-socialness) to Atheism (Godhead-loathing).

**IMO, self-loathing is a false-ego construct, and thus is imaginary and thus false.

NOTE: every post here on this subject actually refers to arguments with orthodox Hindu-Monist Impersonlist Atheists ---all the terminology and artistic attempts at poetic license are actually esoteric arguments to pertaining to the maxims found in similar debates between both seemingly opposing orthodox schools of Hindu Philosohy, namely, the "Sunya-vadi" vs the "Vaishnava" schools IOW, the atheist vs the Theist Schools.

The maxims that I employed were all borrowed by traditional & orthodox Hindu (and Buddhist too) schools of thought.

your Hare Krishna maha-mantra chanting cousin,
Bhaktajan

 

[Aopllo]

Can anyone here translate this into English? Thanks.

I cannot. Will not even try.

My Ignore list just got longer.

 

[Father Heathen]

Don't forget a sense of fairness.

Wouldn't that naturally arise from reason and compassion?

 

[gnomon]

I cannot. Will not even try.

My Ignore list just got longer.

But you just got here!

You can't start ignoring people yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you just got here!
You can't start ignoring people yet.

I'll let him know about your comment.
(He won't see it, since you're on ignore.)

 

[ellenjanuary]

I understand the guy. Mysticism - as above, so below - it's the hundred monkey theory.

 

[Penumbra]

g Self-hating behavior is part and parcel of anti-social behavior ---and I am drawing a similarity here of "self-loathing**" (anti-socialness) to Atheism (Godhead-loathing).

Atheism is not Godhead-loathing. It's simply a lack of belief in deities.

Some deities seem nice, others seem ridiculous. Whether they exist or not is another matter entirely.

 

[Eliot Wild]

You know, I think the guy was trying to insult me and I should probably be offended. But seriously, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the dude is saying.

It reminds of me of when I first arrived in Italy where I lived for three years. The very first Italian words I learned on the night I landed was 'insalada mista' or 'mixed salad', which I picked up at a local restaurant in Naples. So, for the next week or so, whenever someone would cut me off in traffic or if I were just joking with my friends, I would call people an 'Insalada Mista'. It sounded cool to me, but probably lacked the derisive punch that I thought I was leveling. So it goes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't that naturally arise from reason and compassion?

It seems an independent quality to me.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

I think that we theists have to realize that what convinces us... usually a deep spiritual experience or connection to deity is not something that everyone shares, or can be understood by others.

Even between theists we can't agree what is or is not evidence of creator.

wa:do

 

[Noaidi]

I think that we theists have to realize that what convinces us... usually a deep spiritual experience or connection to deity is not something that everyone shares, or can be understood by others.

wa:do

I, as an atheist, can understand this. Religious belief is something deeply subjective and personal and dependent on experience. But this is the problem. If it is so personal and subjective, how can anyone provide reliable evidence for it to others?

I'm happy to concede that people have such experiences which are real to them and which would count as evidence to them. I have had plenty of what could be described as 'pantheistic spiritual' experiences in Nature, but I couldn't cite them as evidence to others, so I keep them to myself.

 

[crocusj]

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.

Basically what you are saying is that "I am alive and perceive myself and the universe to be so and therefore there must be a god" which presumably means that before I was born there was no universe (if that is the evidence you are presenting as QED)... Or at least "i don't understand, therefore God".
You should not presume to suspect what an "atheist" means unless you stop at you're first sentence, in which case you have answered it yourself.
Don't get the evolution bit at all. Was not aware that it was a belief system. Was not aware that it was atheistic. Was not aware that most atheists "believe" in it. Are you suggesting that evolution should not be accepted as science's best theory for the diversity of life on the planet? Does it not add up? If evolution as a theory collapsed tomorrow would your idea of a supernatural creator being gain any credence from this? He has to stand on his own and the fact that we are here talking about it is not good enough.

 

[crocusj]

You know, I think the guy was trying to insult me and I should probably be offended. But seriously, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the dude is saying.

It reminds of me of when I first arrived in Italy where I lived for three years. The very first Italian words I learned on the night I landed was 'insalada mista' or 'mixed salad', which I picked up at a local restaurant in Naples. So, for the next week or so, whenever someone would cut me off in traffic or if I were just joking with my friends, I would call people an 'Insalada Mista'. It sounded cool to me, but probably lacked the derisive punch that I thought I was leveling. So it goes.

Love going to Italy and love doolally Italians. Am learning Italian but you have caused me a bit of a rethink on the insult front. "Insalada Mista"....I like it!!!

 

[Wombat]

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

There is a fundamental confusion and conflation between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’...they are not the same thing and yet are often treated as if they are.
While ‘evidence’ may exist (for a scientific theory, possible crime or existence of God) the evidence may not be sufficient to constitute ‘proof’.
Proof is the conclusion drawn from ample, consistent and irrefutable evidence.
We may have evidence, we may have lots of evidence, we may still fail to establish proof.
When atheists say “there is no evidence for God” they are usually confusing evidence and proof and/or assuming the absence of proof of God means/implies the absence of any evidence of God.

 

[bhaktajan]

Atheism is not Godhead-loathing. It's simply a lack of belief in deities.

I agree that it is not the case for the Atheist themselves --since they don't recognise God's existance. That's okay, espicially becuse it's an age old paradymn.

The Vedanta Literatures esp, the Upanisads, are explicitly directed toward enlightenment of "ENLIGHTENMENT**"
.
The Upanisads, are explicitly, dissertations on the impersonal (formlessness) aspects of the Ultimate Truth.

The Upanisads, are dissertations of Ultimate Truth ---as an impersonal & formless & primordial state that 'the soul' may deign to re-merge into so as to extinguish the soul's individality ---aka, 'brahman-nirvana'.

I am such a former impersonalist well read and informed of the contents of the Upanisads ---I am now a thiest and, ironically, my faith is predicated on my studies of the Upanisads ---it is basis from which my Thiesm is contrasted against; that's the status Quo.

The Impersonal aspect of Godhead as addressed in the classical Hindu metaphysical terminology explains "The source of the material Cosmos & all the living Souls" as a "Wholelistic Unified Entity without a GodHead" ===> this philosophy is NOT the conclusion of the Veda's revelation, Godhead in the final revelation.

The popularity of "Yoga . . . et al", that started in the west in the 1960's was usually watered down and relegated to hatha-yoga exercises and other such Pop-Fad notions that the western Host would promote Health & an aura of mystic knowledge ---"Kitchy Fad for health-nuts & new agers"

So, esoterically speaking, The theist school of Vedantists, indeed concider their cousins, the 'impersonalist Vedantists' to be hiding or running or even competing with the very concept of a 'God' and thus, the 'impersonalist Vedantists' are prone to self-declaring themselves, Godhead.

So "loath" is wrong, for 'impersonalist Vedantists' because there is no God to serve.

Again, this is esoteric because I am referring to the classical, age-old musings of renounced Yogis and their daily ashram itinerary of yogic austerities & studies. Same goes for the Buddhist cannon.

The belief in Deities, suffice to say, are a family/provincial tradition that must/should stem from antiquity to be bonefide ---initiations into such groups may vary but the underlying common denominator is: Devotional muscial prayer envoking the 'Feelings of seperation' of the beloved from the yearning lover. ---just like Pop-Music Love songs on the Radio.

We are spirit souls in the material world seeking out . . . a Persona!

a poster at REF,
Bhaktajan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**[[ in contra-distinction to enlightenment of "GOD" ---for the theist! ]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{Re my postings, I am writting on the run & I am indeed trying to write with some sort of POV --yet, and also with my unrestrainable some personal glibness ---so a hard POV & a flair for irrevence cross paths along w/Typo errors too ---I usually writing within a short time span at a frantic rate while trying to capture my thoughts to writting . . . and I'm a terrible typist. But I will continue to serve you all as best I can! Thank and God Bless all. Until next November!!!}}

 

[Autodidact]

There is a fundamental confusion and conflation between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’...they are not the same thing and yet are often treated as if they are.
While ‘evidence’ may exist (for a scientific theory, possible crime or existence of God) the evidence may not be sufficient to constitute ‘proof’.
Proof is the conclusion drawn from ample, consistent and irrefutable evidence.
We may have evidence, we may have lots of evidence, we may still fail to establish proof.
When atheists say “there is no evidence for God” they are usually confusing evidence and proof and/or assuming the absence of proof of God means/implies the absence of any evidence of God.

I assert that there is little, if any, evidence for God, and what evidence there is is better explained without God.

 

[Wombat]

I assert that there is little, if any, evidence for God,

Your "assertion" is noted.

Nelson asserted "I see no ships"....but then again...he had his telescope up to his blind eye

... what evidence there is is better explained without God

Perhaps...perhaps not. Depends on what kind of God we are talking about, depends on what kind of evidence and methodology of examination we are using and who is examining the evidence. i.e. evidence may be scriptural/historical examined in the light of mathematical probability and (like any two juries) one group may find the evidence persuasive/conclusive while another may be dismissive.

While maths/science may play a role in the consideration of evidence it is not a scientific experiment with hard science ('proof') outcome...it is a jury trial in which each individual has the oportunity to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion.

I respect and share the conclusion that there is no 'proof' of God.

To say that there is no 'evidence' is to assume one has exhaustively examined a vast vast domain with impartial eyes wide open...and even from a scientific perspective examining the physical domain we need conceed we are near blind.