Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evidence For Atheism

Recommended Posts

 

Those who have never heard of Christ?

Those who do not have the mental capabilities to know of Christ?

They deserve Hell?

 

All men and women were given a God conscsiousness and a conscience about right vs wrong, good vs evil. Men are judged as to the amount of light they are given and as to whether they rejected that light or accepted it. Not all are going to be punished to the same degree: Jesus said that the people of Tyre and Sidon would not be as responsible as were the Jews of Caperneum and other cities that actually saw Jesus, His power, miracles, and goodness and yet rejected Him.

 

You said, "Those who do not have the mental capabilities to know of Christ?

They deserve Hell?"

And do you really think that you have greater concern and compassion for those with mental difficulties than God does? Well, you don't. The whole emphasis of the gospel is love for those who are lost and that would apply equally for people with serious handicaps physically or biologically. Do not try to infer that you have more feeling for the helpless than the Lord does. Whatever God does with each individual in such a situation will be the right thing.

 

However, there are no excuses for human sin and rebellion. All men and women must be willing to admit their wrongdoings before the Lord and repent and He easily and gladly forgives. But those that don't will perish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since God's will is that none would perish then it stands to reason that people who are going to Hell run towards it voluntarily through their own will, ducking for cover and trying to hide from the light.

 

It's disheartening to think that the people who presume they can withstand the weight of their own sin will be the ones running for Hell after they've tried fooling themselves.

 

As they see the load of sin, they asked to take responsibility for, getting dropped on them they'll be too proud to cry out for Jesus' mercy. They'll tuck tail and run.

 

Right, Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason, which by the way is the norm of this forum, is much more effective.

I don't think reason versus revelation or one over against the other. Both are important and they harmonize. Sometimes the problem with reason is that it can disconnect the participant from the reality that this is really happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said, "Those who do not have the mental capabilities to know of Christ?

They deserve Hell?"

I guess the Bible can go both ways here.

From what I have read about how Christ feels about children, I would say that those with the same mental capacities would be treated with the same forgiveness. (according to scripture).

 

It is however quite clear about not knowing Jesus himself, I know of no place where it makes exception for those who could have never heard of him.

I have heard the Billy Graham explanation in that everybody deep inside has some knowledge of him, but I don't think it is scriptural.

 

 

Do not try to infer that you have more feeling for the helpless than the Lord does. Whatever God does with each individual in such a situation will be the right thing.

There are some really, really bad things happening to people in our world.

I appreciate that you feel that there is a reason for such horrific situations, that for some reason unfathomable to us, it is supposed to work out somehow, I get that part.

But if there is a God that has complete control over such things, that not only can stop such things, but also actually causes such things, then I know that I have more compassion for my fellow beings...and I know you do too.

 

Think of it this way, If I know of something horrific that is happening to someone, I'm (and pretty much everybody is) doing everything in my power to stop it, call the police, whatever.

I'm not going to give it a second thought as to whether this unnecessary suffering is part of God's will or not.

As to whether I'm interfering in God's work, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in a thread asking atheists for THEIR evidence for THEIR beliefs, instead they continue to turn the discussion around and shift the burden of proof... Seriously that logical fallacy is getting old, just admit that you have no evidence and therefore to demand evidence of a theist's beliefs is being a hypocrite :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a Deity is what?

An omnipotent being that can do whatever it pleases.

 

You noticed that Hewy got quiet when asked to deal with his evidence for Atheism when invited to expound on his first mention... Evolution.

I don't understand the purpose of this statement. Do you want me to shut up?

 

If we are talking about the God of Scripture, then that statement is false.

The please explain "free will" according to the scriptures. If not here, another thread (or point me where it is already being discussed).

 

I wish you knew your New Testament better, Fjuri. If you did, you'd never say this. Hell is not defined in any detail until one gets to the new testament. In fact, Jesus preached more on hell than he did on heaven.

 

God is quite wrathful in both testaments, but particularly in the new testament. I'd be very wary of the Christian N.T. Gof if I were you.

Then you also disagree with Calypsis4?

And do you really think that you have greater concern and compassion for those with mental difficulties than God does? Well, you don't. The whole emphasis of the gospel is love for those who are lost and that would apply equally for people with serious handicaps physically or biologically. Do not try to infer that you have more feeling for the helpless than the Lord does. Whatever God does with each individual in such a situation will be the right thing.

 

However, there are no excuses for human sin and rebellion. All men and women must be willing to admit their wrongdoings before the Lord and repent and He easily and gladly forgives. But those that don't will perish.

Emphasis is mine, and my earlier statement should be understood in the same manner.

 

The sheer ignorance of God in this thread is disheartening. It reminds me of a child who's had ground rules set for them and is claiming them unfair. Fjuri, hewey, as children did your parents set some strict rules in your life? Don't play with the stove, stay out of the street, don't talk to strangers, that sort of thing? I'm sure they did, and I'm sure you felt indignant over them as well. THAT is was causes you now to remain willfully ignorant (see 2 Peter 3:5) and uses such arguments.

I'm not using this argument. Check my post #153.

 

So in a thread asking atheists for THEIR evidence for THEIR beliefs, instead they continue to turn the discussion around and shift the burden of proof... Seriously that logical fallacy is getting old, just admit that you have no evidence and therefore to demand evidence of a theist's beliefs is being a hypocrite smile.png

You willingness to disagree with us is clouding your judgement. ;)

 

Read what happened after you left.

 

Also, at best we are discussing opinions here, not evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not read the whole topic so i'm sure this has been said before.

 

Atheism by default is the position that there isn't enough positive evidence for god; we cannot provide evidence for the negative. The evidence (or arguments) against a benevolent god, for me, would include many things including redundancy and downright cruelty in his designs.

 

What if I had a 'lack of belief' in a Godless universe?

 

Would I need evidence for this lack of belief in atheism?

 

Atheism is by definition the belief that there is no God, indeed I gave the dictionary definition which states it has this as a doctrine... This is a positive claim to knowledge and thus requires evidence... Lest you believe an argument from ignorance (which is what you stated above) is a logical premise to base your beliefs on? (Pro-tip: its a logical fallacy ;) ).

 

 

 

 

No. The apparent design is just that - apparent. A benevolent designer wouldn't have made the decisions god did. Why would a benevolent god design parasitic wasps, whose generation requires that caterpillars are burst open alive from the inside?

 

If we say "design" is a verifiable prediction about god than why cant we predict anything else about him? and if the designs ARE hallmarks of god than he isn't very nice at all.

 

How can you possibly know what God would and wouldn't do?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why would a benevolent god design parasitic wasps, whose generation requires that caterpillars are burst open alive from the inside? "

 

That's not the way the world was in the beginning....before man rebelled against God and He therefore changed the nature of things.

 

I am with Gilbo on this: "How can you possibly know what God would and wouldn't do?"

 

"Also, at best we are discussing opinions here, not evidence."

 

Gilbo asked for evidence but you still haven't given any evidence that God does not exist. Please notice the title of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Bible can go both ways here.

From what I have read about how Christ feels about children, I would say that those with the same mental capacities would be treated with the same forgiveness. (according to scripture).

 

It is however quite clear about not knowing Jesus himself, I know of no place where it makes exception for those who could have never heard of him.

I have heard the Billy Graham explanation in that everybody deep inside has some knowledge of him, but I don't think it is scriptural.

 

 

2 Samuel 12:23 King David acknowledged: "But now he(*that is, his baby son) is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." This is in perfect alignment with what Jesus taught that "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 19:14.

 

It is scriptural all right and it squares away with a God who is seen to punish some sinners (those who have heard the truth) more than other sinners (those who never heard it) and mercy upon the helpless (example: the beaten man whom the good Samaritan helped. He could not help himself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You willingness to disagree with us is clouding your judgement. wink.png

 

 

Also, at best we are discussing opinions here, not evidence.

 

What has the atheists given to make us more willing to agree with you?

 

You don't think it ironic that in a thread labelled "Evidence for Atheism" that the atheists give no evidence yet then twist the conversation into discussing the evidence for God? As I said if atheists have no evidence for their beliefs it is hypocritical for those same people (who have no evidence) to demand evidence from theists... This thread is testament to that hypocrisy.. "Do as I say not as I do"....

 

I have continually questioned you on this to which you have dodged giving an answer, do you think this behaviour is hypocritical? If not then please explain why it isn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have continually questioned you on this to which you have dodged giving an answer, do you think this behaviour is hypocritical? If not then please explain why it isn't.

I have given you an answer. You have twisted it into something it is not (even though I added in my reply the context in which it should be understood).

See my reply #76 and your follow up #79 (and the replies that follow).

 

In order to clarify my response, I have asked you to help define atheism, since obviously we disagree on the definition.

 

Fjuri wrote:

4. Answer these 3 questions:

"Can you give examples of evidence for your vùqgbjeohism?"

"Do you agree that opinions are not valid evidence?"

"Why are you vùqgbjeohist, assuming that you cannot provide evidence?"

 

You asked questions, I replied.

I asked questions, you ignored them.

Who is the hypocrite here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have given you an answer. You have twisted it into something it is not (even though I added in my reply the context in which it should be understood).

See my reply #76 and your follow up #79 (and the replies that follow).

 

In order to clarify my response, I have asked you to help define atheism, since obviously we disagree on the definition.

 

Fjuri wrote:

4. Answer these 3 questions:

"Can you give examples of evidence for your vùqgbjeohism?"

"Do you agree that opinions are not valid evidence?"

"Why are you vùqgbjeohist, assuming that you cannot provide evidence?"

 

You asked questions, I replied.

I asked questions, you ignored them.

Who is the hypocrite here?

 

 

Shakes head... Even now you continue to dodge the questions I have posed continually...

 

As Adam asked

 

When have I twisted your answers?

 

 

I haven't twisted anything, rather you believe you "answer" my question with something that has no relevance to it. In fact you demonstrated your folly by giving "evidence" in the form of your own opinion, and then admit that opinions are not evidence for reality.... (or perhaps you claim your "answers are being twisted" in order to save face... just a thought ;) ).

 

 

1. The lack of evidence for theism.

2. I agree that opinions are not evidence for theism or atheism.

 

 

 

1- Already refuted since this is simply an opinion and you agree that opinions are not valid evidence... So you're lack of belief is evidence for your "lack of belief"... Yeah because that makes sense wink.png

2- Then this refutes your answer to question one, hence you are engaged in self contradiction / cognitive dissonance

 

 

1+2: that's your opinion. wink.png

 

No its not my opinion... You stated your opinion was your evidence and then admitted that opinions are not evidence... ergo cognitive dissonance... Its all clear for anyone to see, instead you give some silly response rather than admit the fact of the matter.

 

 

I was the one asking you if you agree that opinions are not valid evidence! So don't try and twist that around and claim you stated that... (Typical atheist dishonesty). See below for ACTUAL QUOTES not the copy paste you did...

 

 

 

So where is the evidence for atheism?

 

Do atheists agree that if there is no evidence for atheism then it is hypocritical for them to demand evidence from a theist?

 

(Please don't ignore this question, and dodge around it)

 

 

 

Do you really believe that having a "lack of belief" aka OPINION is evidence of anything?

 

As I continue to tell atheists. Your opinions don't define reality, reality should define your opinions... Therefore what evidence do you have IN REALITY which supports your atheism? If not then do you agree that demanding evidence from a theist is hypocritical since you yourself cannot hold to the same standard.

 

 

 

Once again skipping over my post...

 

Do you agree that opinions are not evidence?

 

Do you agree that to demand evidence for theism when there is no evidence for atheism is hypocritical?

 

Again I implore you to not ignore my questions.

 

 

Do you agree that opinions are not valid evidence?

 

 

 

Again, do you admit that atheists who demand evidence from theists, yet have no evidence of their own are being hypocritical?

 

This has nothing to do with your imaginary "vuggbjeohism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have given you an answer. You have twisted it into something it is not (even though I added in my reply the context in which it should be understood).

See my reply #76 and your follow up #79 (and the replies that follow).

 

In order to clarify my response, I have asked you to help define atheism, since obviously we disagree on the definition.

 

Fjuri wrote:

4. Answer these 3 questions:

"Can you give examples of evidence for your vùqgbjeohism?"

"Do you agree that opinions are not valid evidence?"

"Why are you vùqgbjeohist, assuming that you cannot provide evidence?"

 

You asked questions, I replied.

I asked questions, you ignored them.

Who is the hypocrite here?

 

 

As I stated to you before I already gave a definition of atheism..... (This was post #36.....)

 

 

 

When you do not believe in something then you are in effect stating that the thing doesn't exist... Since if it did exist then you would believe.. OR you can sit on the fence and claim that you do not know (agnostic).

 

Lets see what the dictionary says on this

 

Atheism

1
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

 

 

Lets define that further

 

Disbelief

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief?show=0&t=1395843740

 

 

 

What evidence do you have which supports your atheism?

 

If you cannot give any evidence then would you agree that it is hypocritical for atheists to demand evidence for a theist's beliefs?

 

 

Third time now, why be an atheist if you have no evidence for your atheism? Why not just be an agnostic?...

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the definition given wasn't one that fits your popularist atheist worldview, sorry buddy I prefer to defer to the dictionary not what some guy says on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short reply then:

You should ask one of those people that fit your discription of an atheist then. I do not fit it, so it would be presumptuous for me to reply in their stead. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not fit it, so it would be presumptuous for me to reply in their stead. ;-)

Please describe your atheism so we can discuss the evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fjuri wrote:

 

 

4. Answer these 3 questions:

 

"Can you give examples of evidence for your vùqgbjeohism?"

Yep it's new information caused by evolution. No one "knows" whether it will be selected for I think it is a mutation that will cause

cows to give chocolate milk.

 

"Do you agree that opinions are not valid evidence?"

 

Why of course opinion are valid. Since we are not sources of infinite information, that's al we have (if there is no God) and no free moral agency--it's my opinion vs yours.

 

I still choose creativity as the "best" alternative because it suits us both very well. Aren't you an electrical engineer ( a creator)?

 

Why are you vùqgbjeohist, assuming that you cannot provide evidence?"

That's because you "created" a "new" word and we have not agreed to put it in the dictionary or agreed as to what the meaning assigned to the symbols will be. As I said there is no information stored in code. We associate meaning to the symbols in our minds.

 

 

If the word is to be understood we have to agree as to what meaning will be associated to the symbols.

 

There is the same code in a dead plant or animal as one that is alive Life animates matter. Code does not "cause" life.

 

I also would like to know what your definition of atheism is? Apparently you do not agree with th definition found in the dictionary. What definition for your alleged atheism have you decided to assign atheism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What if I had a 'lack of belief' in a Godless universe?

 

Would I need evidence for this lack of belief in atheism?

 

Atheism is by definition the belief that there is no God, indeed I gave the dictionary definition which states it has this as a doctrine... This is a positive claim to knowledge and thus requires evidence... Lest you believe an argument from ignorance (which is what you stated above) is a logical premise to base your beliefs on? (Pro-tip: its a logical fallacy wink.png ).

Which occurs first, 1) a person believes that they and their surrounding exist (also known as believing the universe exists), or 2) a person believes a god exists.

 

If option 1 occurs first then the default position for everyone is believing in a universe without believing in god. I'm not sure that 2 is even possible since it would require a person to believe that god exists and not believe that they themselves exist, which raises the question of what could be doing the believing in god?

 

Imagine you are a completely blank slate, a person with no knowledge or beliefs.

In order to add the belief "I exist" you can justify it by having internal experiences (thoughts).

In order to add the belief "external surroundings exist" you can justify it by having external experiences (sensory input).

If you never have any sensory input, you would have no reason to add the belief in an external world. You would not need to have any other evidence to justify your lack of belief in an external world. The lack of evidence would be sufficient by itself.

Similarly,

In order to add the belief "god exists", you would need to justify that additional belief somehow. (evidence)

If you never have any evidence for god, you would have no reason to add the belief in a deity. You would not need to have any other evidence to justify your lack of belief in a deity. The lack of evidence would be sufficient by itself.

 

Regarding your use of the dictionary, in a later post you give 2 definitions and seem to ignore this one:

2 - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

If an atheist claims that they don't believe god exists (which matches definition 2.a) that is not a positive claim, merely a statement that they haven't been convinced that god exists. At best you could ask why the various arguments for god are unconvincing to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our awareness of the physical world is an indicator that there is a Creator. Creation equals Creator.

The Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which occurs first, 1) a person believes that they and their surrounding exist (also known as believing the universe exists), or 2) a person believes a god exists.

 

If option 1 occurs first then the default position for everyone is believing in a universe without believing in god. I'm not sure that 2 is even possible since it would require a person to believe that god exists and not believe that they themselves exist, which raises the question of what could be doing the believing in god?

 

Imagine you are a completely blank slate, a person with no knowledge or beliefs.

In order to add the belief "I exist" you can justify it by having internal experiences (thoughts).

In order to add the belief "external surroundings exist" you can justify it by having external experiences (sensory input).

If you never have any sensory input, you would have no reason to add the belief in an external world. You would not need to have any other evidence to justify your lack of belief in an external world. The lack of evidence would be sufficient by itself.

Similarly,

In order to add the belief "god exists", you would need to justify that additional belief somehow. (evidence)

If you never have any evidence for god, you would have no reason to add the belief in a deity. You would not need to have any other evidence to justify your lack of belief in a deity. The lack of evidence would be sufficient by itself.

 

Regarding your use of the dictionary, in a later post you give 2 definitions and seem to ignore this one:

2 - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

If an atheist claims that they don't believe god exists (which matches definition 2.a) that is not a positive claim, merely a statement that they haven't been convinced that god exists. At best you could ask why the various arguments for god are unconvincing to them.

 

Once again in a thread dedicated to atheists giving THEIR evidence, the atheists attempt to do a switch-a-roo and change to conversation back to evidence for God... You do realise this is intellectually dishonest?

 

 

Your logic is flawed, its not about what one believes first.. But if you want to go down that path, studies have been done that demonstrate that the belief in God is intrinsic to children, thus making belief in God the default position.... Since one has to teach / learn themselves into a belief of atheism away from the intrinsic belief in God.

 

However as I said your logic is flawed on this.

 

How does believing in God automatically means that the person doesn't believe they exist?... How does believing you exist equate to living in a Godless world? All you are doing is attempting to blur two different elements together.

 

I'm not sure that 2 is even possible since it would require a person to believe that god exists and not believe that they themselves exist, which raises the question of what could be doing the believing in god?

 

 

What about adding the belief "God doesn't exist" or "I do not believe God exists" (which are the same thing)..... This would also require evidence, hence what this thread is attempting to address...

 

Soooooo where is your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your logic is flawed, its not about what one believes first..

It is. It defines the knowledge claim.

Evidence for "god" to reject the "no god" null hypothesis or evidence for "no god" to reject the "god" null hypothesis.

 

But if you want to go down that path, studies have been done that demonstrate that the belief in God is intrinsic to children, thus making belief in God the default position.... Since one has to teach / learn themselves into a belief of atheism away from the intrinsic belief in God.

This a very interesting statement. Would you kindly point me to these studies? If this is shown in a valid study, it would in fact convince me to take the agnostic label instead of the atheist label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This a very interesting statement. Would you kindly point me to these studies? If this is shown in a valid study, it would in fact convince me to take the agnostic label instead of the atheist label.

 

I tried this: I asked a baby if the universe popped into existence without God. He didn't respond (since... he cannot talk yet) so I assumed he "lacks belief" in a godless universe. Therefore he is a Theist by default... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If such a study is the only research a creationist can come up my atheist label is save for a while. ;)

I didn't expect much more though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri:

 

So you agree with the baby being a theist by default because he lacks belief in a godless universe?

 

Ironically, I was expecting much more... like Evidence for Atheism..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If such a study is the only research a creationist can come up my atheist label is save for a while. wink.png

I didn't expect much more though.

the correct word is "safe" not "save." You don't know the correct word usage but you know there is no God?

 

According to your logic, if you tell yourself you are a tuba you will become a tuba. Silly me. I will think you are a human being telling yourself you are a tuba. Admit it. You do not know all the beings on planet earth let alone what beings may or may not inhabit the universe.

 

Since you are a "finite" source of information (like me) the only way you can make the statement there is no God is an act of creativity. You have used your creative ability to tell yourself there is no God--no evidence necessary.

 

I, like all Christians, claim we have a personal relationship with God. For you to be "right" we either have to be wrong, hallucinating, deceived, or liars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms