What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[bhaktajan]

To understand how much of the spectrum of light we do not perceive

I agree with you totally . . .

But I do not agree that there is such a thing as a "super-consciousness" ---that can precieve beyond the norm.

Yet, ESP and the mystic-yoga "siddhis" are achievable ---, respectively, by grace; and, via ancient no-longer available Gurus.

IMO, it suffices to apply the notion of a "super-conscious Awareness" ---as similar to Kung-fu masters and even gymnasts.

The being in the Zone state of Zen-awareness achieves mastery of Kinesologic & mental focus ---which a state of high-awareness that is predicted of Focus of attention/Avoidance of distractions whilst in pursuit of the 'goal'.

The far-reaching amazing fact is not the limited awareness of the extent of World/Cosmic Consciousness ---what's amazing is that Complete knowledge [micro-consciousness] that smart nerds, that design the valuable mechanisms that make for Modern comforts ---ie: microprocessors in hand-calculators vs "old-School 'Long-Division' math".

Have you noticed that technological advances are hardly ever described as "Sublime".
That's because technological advances are "mundane".
Knowledge of "What is Spirit-Soul"?, is sublime.

And whenever we find ourselves intellectually "sublimating" ---be assured we will find ourselves physically refraining from the supra-mundane.

 

[Autodidact]

Your "assertion" is noted.

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



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.

Not "no evidence." There is some evidence. But those facts are explainable without resort to supernatural beings. Meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence of how people come to believe in Gods, and a lot of evidence that seems inconsistent with specific Gods that people believe in.

What seems clear is that there is no personal God who answers prayers or takes any role in individual human lives. That God is actively disproved.

 

[Autodidact]

i am a christian but i will admit that is NO evidence to prove my belief......only my faith

This one. I want this one for my sig. Can I have this for my sig, sniper?

Now, sniper, in all other areas of your life, do you find it prudent to believe things with NO evidence, or only this one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not "no evidence." There is some evidence. But those facts are explainable without resort to supernatural beings. Meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence of how people come to believe in Gods, and a lot of evidence that seems inconsistent with specific Gods that people believe in.

And I was trying to point out before, there's evidence against gods/Gods as well.

For instance, if, say, an apparition of Mary is "evidence" of God, then the inefficacy of prayer is evidence against this same God.

 

[Wombat]

But those facts are explainable without resort to supernatural beings.

Again...possibly, possibly not.
Problem is that humans have the capacity to look at any given set of facts, events and circumstances and draw different/opositional conclusions. Some will see randomness and chance...others will see purpose, design or conspiracy.

The persuit of the God question is not conducted in the Lab...it is conducted by juries of 'one' on the basis of a multitude of factors...some reasonable, some dubious. But I would suggest most people make mug punter assesments of 'evidence' to establish 'probability' and subsequently lay bets of belief/certainty or disbelief/doubt.

Care to examine the nature of what is 'probable' ?
The invitation is to establish what we would mutualy agree to be within the realms of probability/mere chance...and what would be considered improbable/beyond chance.

Scenario-
You are a Steward at a Race Track. Race 1, hurdles event, 10+ horses...all except one fall before the finish line...one horse completes race.

Your rule of thumb calculation of 'probability' on a scale of 1-10, 1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion?

What seems clear is that there is no personal God who answers prayers or takes any role in individual human lives. That God is actively disproved.

I am not, as yet, convinced of that. The potential remains that "It is done unto you as you believe" Matthew 9:29..."Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them..." Mark 11:24....and “ You are what you think and with your thoughts you make the world.” -- Buddha .

There are a number of religious traditions that place the onus of prayer, not on God to make it happen, but as an empowerment offered to the individual. An ancient understanding that sport and buisness psychology is just catching up with .

 

[Wombat]

But I do not agree that there is such a thing as a "super-consciousness" ---that can precieve beyond the norm.

Then I invite you to play the 'establishing probability' game outlined in prior post.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is the very definition of "God"!
God = "He/She/It from whence everything originates from"

That's certainly not the conventional definition of God, especially not when it is given a capital letter. It is typically used to mean something much more specific than just "some kind of creator" (it doesn't necessarily even include being the creator).

If you're going to make a claim in this area, I think you need to be very specific about exactly what you're claiming. Otherwise you can have the appearance (even if not intention) of having a constantly shifting argument to avoid questions and challenges to it.

 

[angrymoose]

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.
...

Well, most of those things have explanations but lets consider one by one. First, really you seem to be invoking three things:
-- first cause : why the universe
-- the mystery of consciousness
-- information argument for origin of life
-- existence of morality

What if atheists have considered all of these and still have reason to disbelieve?


Consider this:
1) history shows men invent religions
2) we can see evidence of fraud by people using religion to justify power since begiunning of time
3) we see liars duping people with supernatural claims even today
4( even christis=an churches have been caught creating false artifacts to cause people to believe
5) scripture is on shaky ground. no independent evidence shows the evidence true. lots of apparent contradictions and similarity to other myth traditions

 

[Autodidact]

And I was trying to point out before, there's evidence against gods/Gods as well.

For instance, if, say, an apparition of Mary is "evidence" of God, then the inefficacy of prayer is evidence against this same God.

Exactly. On balance, the sufficiency of simpler, natural explanations, combined with the extensive evidence against the existence of (most common definitions of) God, result in a reasonable conclusion that God does not exist.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not, as yet, convinced of that. The potential remains that "It is done unto you as you believe" Matthew 9:29..."Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them..." Mark 11:24....and

These statements are demonstrably false, and have been proven so. Every grownup knows we cannot make things so by wishing them so. Otherwise beggars would ride.

 

[Erebus]

Personally, I would argue that the only evidence that should convine an individual of the existence of a god is evidence that individual has found personally. Scripture, photographs of figures in the sky and the promises of others etc simply aren't enough to rely on entirely.
Now my ideas on atheism are somewhat contradictory. Atheism accomplishes nothing and so I consider certain forms of theism to be more practical. However I also don't believe a person should take another's word for this and unless they experience something to convince them otherwise. Agnostic atheism is therefore the more reasonable position to hold.

 

[sniper762]

AUTODICT, those are your "own" feelings also. even though you and i see things differently, neither can you "prove" your disbelief.

the evidence that theists present that they believe substanciates their belief is not considered to be evidence by athiest such as yourself and vice versa.

so in a technical sense, there is NO evidence that will "prove" that one nor the other is correct.

one's belief or disbelief in "god" is simply by faith or none.

 

[weirdpuckett]

Even with science "showing" me all of these answers to questions that were unknown at one time-isn't it a "miracle" that I can still believe in God?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Sometimes it is miraculous, sometimes it is pathology.

 

[nrg]

Again...possibly, possibly not.
Problem is that humans have the capacity to look at any given set of facts, events and circumstances and draw different/opositional conclusions. Some will see randomness and chance...others will see purpose, design or conspiracy.

That's why centuries of philosophy gave us logic, which in turn gave us the scientific method, to draw the most likely conclusion. When compared to other methods, it always does what it's supposed to do better, and it changes the more we learn about logic.

The persuit of the God question is not conducted in the Lab...it is conducted by juries of 'one' on the basis of a multitude of factors...some reasonable, some dubious. But I would suggest most people make mug punter assesments of 'evidence' to establish 'probability' and subsequently lay bets of belief/certainty or disbelief/doubt.

Uh, yes, deciding what's propable is the only thing we can do when it comes to the Universe. We can only get finite justifications for our beliefs about the Universe, so we'll have to decide what's more likely by measuring the ammount of postulates.

Care to examine the nature of what is 'probable' ?
The invitation is to establish what we would mutualy agree to be within the realms of probability/mere chance...and what would be considered improbable/beyond chance.

It's not propable that you can travel faster than the speed of light. It's propable that you're breathing now that you read this. The key to making these assesments is to count the number of assumptions. We would have to assume alot if we believed you could go faster than the speed of light, for example.

Scenario-
You are a Steward at a Race Track. Race 1, hurdles event, 10+ horses...all except one fall before the finish line...one horse completes race.

Your rule of thumb calculation of 'probability' on a scale of 1-10, 1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion?

All horses except for one falling is still something that can be explained without the need of a massive ammount of assumptions. If one of the horses turned into Beelzebub, however, we would be discussing the real issue.

I am not, as yet, convinced of that. The potential remains that "It is done unto you as you believe" Matthew 9:29..."Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them..." Mark 11:24....and “ You are what you think and with your thoughts you make the world.” -- Buddha .

There are a number of religious traditions that place the onus of prayer, not on God to make it happen, but as an empowerment offered to the individual. An ancient understanding that sport and buisness psychology is just catching up with .

But you still need a working model for explaining what's possible and not possible when it comes to prayers, and how that model can be used predictively, if it's supposed to ammount into any sort of evidence that follows the scientific method. We're talking absolutes here.

 

[Autodidact]

AUTODICT, those are your "own" feelings also.

No, they are not. Please don't tell me what I believe; ask me.

even though you and i see things differently, neither can you "prove" your disbelief.

I'll come back to this point in a later post. For now I will just point out that my beliefs are based on evidence, yours on lack of evidence.

the evidence that theists present that they believe substanciates their belief is not considered to be evidence by athiest such as yourself and vice versa.

YOU SAID yours was based on no evidence at all. Not me, you.

so in a technical sense, there is NO evidence that will "prove" that one nor the other is correct.

You only meant it in a technical sense? How is that different from an actual sense? Is your belief based on evidence, or lack of evidence? Please let us know when you've figured it out. Thanks.

one's belief or disbelief in "god" is simply by faith or none.

The only faith I have is faith in evidence itself. Do you share my faith in evidence?

Now, would you be so kind as to answer my question? In general, in other areas of your life, do you find it productive to believe in things based on no evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

Even with science "showing" me all of these answers to questions that were unknown at one time-isn't it a "miracle" that I can still believe in God?

No, it's pretty common. That's how our brains work.

 

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
That is the very definition of "God"!
God = "He/She/It from whence everything originates from"

To which HonestJoe replied:

That's certainly not the conventional definition of God, especially not when it is given a capital letter. It is typically used to mean something much more specific than just "some kind of creator" (it doesn't necessarily even include being the creator).

If you're going to make a claim in this area, I think you need to be very specific about exactly what you're claiming. Otherwise you can have the appearance (even if not intention) of having a constantly shifting argument to avoid questions and challenges to it.

Your Own post is a text book example of what you are objecting to, of my post:
"If you're going to make a claim in this area, I think you need to be very specific about exactly what you're claiming. Otherwise you can have the appearance (even if not intention) of having a constantly shifting argument to avoid questions and challenges to it."

I don't see what contribution you have made with your post.
It reads as an example of what you accuse me of.
Your post is simply a 'negation' without stating a benchmark of which your opinion is based.

You actually & simply challenged me to "convince you of my opinion" ---while claiming it is NOT "conventional definition of God" ----you may notice now that your post omits the "conventional definition of God".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I did Not say ""some kind of creator""

This is what I said [so why not attempt to relate your opinion as to what the "conventional definition of God" is]:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Evelyonian
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2272261-post89.html

"had to come from somewhere" does not necessarily equal "god did it".

You can't stop a runaway metaphor.

In post #100, Bhakajan replied to Post 89 as following:

That is the very definition of "God"!
God = "He/She/It from whence everything originates from"

 

[bhaktajan]

the very definition of "God" is:
The origin from whence everything originates.

I did Not say ""some kind of creator""

...........................
Please challange me with questions or with your alternative position.

FYI, I could not discern any "challange me with questions or with your alternative position".

Maybe, it was overlooked that I was replying to Post #89:
"had to come from somewhere" does not necessarily equal "god did it".

To which I replied:
God is defined as "The SOMEWHERE from whence everything originates."

 

[Wombat]

so we'll have to decide what's more likely by measuring the ammount of postulates.

Which is in line with my (untaken) invitation-
Care to examine the nature of what is 'probable' ?
The invitation is to establish what we would mutualy agree to be within the realms of probability/mere chance...and what would be considered improbable/beyond chance.
Scenario-
You are a Steward at a Race Track. Race 1, hurdles event, 10+ horses...all except one fall before the finish line...one horse completes race.

Your rule of thumb calculation of 'probability' on a scale of 1-10, 1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion?

Response-

All horses except for one falling is still something that can be explained without the need of a massive ammount of assumptions. If one of the horses turned into Beelzebub, however, we would be discussing the real issue..

My only “assumption” was that someone would be able to give a “rule of thumb calculation of 'probability' on a scale of 1-10, 1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion”.
I assumed wrong.
The ‘scenario’ reflects a desire to demonstrate- “philosophy gave us logic, which in turn gave us the scientific method”....but is seems the basic Math of probability is less appealing than “discussing the real issue”-“ If one of the horses turned into Beelzebub”(???)

If- "All horses except for one falling is still something that can be explained without the need of a massive ammount of assumptions" that would place the event closer to 1 than 10 (yes? no?...1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion”.)

What happens to the Stewards sense of probability/suspicion if the same thing happens in the next race...all horses fall except one?

But you still need a working model for explaining what's possible and not possible when it comes to prayers,......

Nope, prayer is to nebulous for "a working model for explaining what's possible and not possible"...horses are solid and will do just fine.

Still seeking to establish a working model for explaining what's possible and not possible....

What happens to the Stewards sense of probability/suspicion if the same thing happens in the next race...all horses fall except one? (calculation of 'probability' on a scale of 1-10)