What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?

MayCaesar

Your argument relies on the false notion that, because neither the positive or the negative claim can be proven, they are somehow comparable in their plausibility. They are not.

I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. I can prove, however, that Santa Claus is a product of human imagination, and even if there is actually a creature out there that exhibits some properties of Santa Claus as we think of him, it is, at best, a fun coincidence. And any epistemology relying on fun coincidences is bankrupt.

I cannot prove that "god" does not exist, but it seems self-evident to me that including "god" in one's picture of the world is deeply irrational. Ask yourself this: if you were not a Christian, if you had not grown up in a Christian culture, and if you had never read the Bible - would you come to believe in "god"? Would there be any evidence in the real world that "god" exists?
Reality is cool in that it does not depend on where you grew up and what books you read: it is just there, and any person from any culture, reading any books and speaking any languages can perform an experiment and obtain the same result. This is not the case with fantasy-based epistemologies such as the religious one, where someone can believe that Allah has created the world, someone else can believe that the Christian god has created the world, and nobody is concerned with the obvious contradiction in these two beliefs.

Imagine if people operated like that in the real world. Imagine if one person believed that they can jump from a skyscraper and not get hurt, and another believed that they cannot - and if they acted out their beliefs. Human life expectancy would drop quite sharply, don't you think?

Jweishuhn

@MayCaesar So, I for one did not grow up in a Christian culture. My father is actually an atheist, and my mother was not really around much, and the gang life was what I knew for a long time. I do agree that culture can be fundamental in one's beliefs, but like me, who grew up in a culture that was counter-Christian, there are so many people who are coming to faith in the same God all around the World. Thousands of testimonies can be found in the Middle East of Muslims who converted to Christianity solely because of dreams they had. People who had never read the Bible, or heard the Gospel have found Jesus through miraculous ways. 

I do have to ask. When looking at the precision and intricacy that this universe and everything in it is made up of, how would you explain how it all got here?  

just_sayin

Argument Topic: There is good evidence that God exists

@MayCaesar
You asked if there is any good evidence that God exists. I think there is.

1)  The universe had a beginning.  (i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. - Since the cause can not be the universe itself, it is logical to believe God is that cause.  

2)  The universe is very finely tuned to permit life.  I've gone over the astronomical odds with you before.  Suffice it to say that all of the fundamental forces of the universe are incredibly finely tuned to permit life and that there is no law that forces them to be as they are.  To think that the universe randomly came from nothing on its own with just the right finely tuned parameters seems unrealistic, instead such finely tuned complexity suggests an intelligence.

3)  Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex.  When we see something like code,, as we do in a DNA strand, we know that it is more likely that there is a coder.  The fact that science can not create life from non-life also points to a God.

4) Miracles - We've gone over this.  I've provided eye witness testimony, medical records, even legal documents signed by the king of France to show you examples of miracles such as people miraculously getting their eyesight back, having amputated limbs grow back, the lame walking, and even the dead come back to life.  I've provided numerous doctor's statements that these events happened and were medically impossible.    Some atheists faith won't allow them to consider such evidence so they appeal to the science of the gaps argument, 'we may not know the answer now, but trust me, we'll figure it out one day'.  I'd say miracles are a good indication that God exists.  

I could go on, but this should at least serve to show that there are good reasons to believe that God exists.  

Joeseph

Now I know many people out there may argue that my beliefs are simply based on dumb, blind faith, but I assure you that I am a fairly educated man, and what I believe in is based off of evidence, reason, and faith. Because of what I have come to learn and discover

The term " faith" when used  in the religious sense is based on spiritual conviction and nothing else.

, it is inconceivable to me that anyone can argue against the existence of God

So you accept claims for the others thousands of gods put forward to be consistent with your assertion?


You believe in a supernatural entity that cannot be seen , heard or touched yet somehow exists , if you're a christian you also believe that a daily celestial battle is going on between Satan and his minnions and god and his angels , right.?

I haven't seen convincing evidence to warrant a belief in any supernatural entities until such  evidence can be produced. I'm not buying.

. I will openly state here and now that I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, but I have also yet to find anyone who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He does not exist.

Well for you to convince anyone proof is required , I or others are not trying to convince you a god doesn't exist., the burden of proof is with you.


 I believe that both sides have great arguments when it comes to philosophy, science and history, however, there is still so much unknown on both sides, which leads each proponent to rely on faith at that point.

Read what I said above.

 I cam curious as to what evidence the atheist community has to completely discredit God.

Again read what I've said.  " Discredit God "? Atheists don't believe in gods.

Jweishuhn

@MayCaesar
I am also trying to better understand your argument when you stated,

"Reality is cool in that it does not depend on where you grew up and what books you read: it is just there, and any person from any culture, reading any books and speaking any languages can perform an experiment and obtain the same result. This is not the case with fantasy-based epistemologies such as the religious one, where someone can believe that Allah has created the world, someone else can believe that the Christian god has created the world, and nobody is concerned with the obvious contradiction in these two beliefs."

Could you please dumb that down for me?

Jweishuhn

@Joeseph ;
The term " faith" when used in the religious sense is based on spiritual conviction and nothing else.

The term "faith" in every sense means a state of trust. I concede that part of my faith comes from my convictions which have been revealed to me through God. However, faith is not a belief or feeling. Faith always has and object. For example when you go to sit in a chair you have faith (trust) that chair is going to hold you up and keep you from bruising your tailbone. Now I will also concede that even though faith is not a belief it may involve belief or be caused from belief, but it itself is not belief. It is a state of trust, and Christians trust what the Bible tells us, because reason and evidence has been provided to support it. 

You believe in a supernatural entity that cannot be seen , heard or touched yet somehow exists , if you're a christian you also believe that a daily celestial battle is going on between Satan and his minnions and god and his angels , right.?

I am assuming that you are a proponent of evolution, a theory that posits billions of years for the existence of earth. If that is the case you too believe in something that cannot be seen, heard, or touched, yet it has become a "fact" to so many. You have placed your faith (trust) in what many people have declared to be true, based on the evidence they have provided, even though it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

I or others are not trying to convince you a god doesn't exist., the burden of proof is with you.

You might not be trying to convince me, (even though your response to my post shows that you have some intentions of wanting to convince me) however, there are atheists out there, who have made it their mission to convince people that there is no God. It does not take a long search on google to find a plethora of books arguing against God. This whole burden of proof thought is one that can honestly go back and forth forever. 

Can you tell me how you think everything came into existence? 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Evidence For No God

• Problem of Evil: The presence of evil and suffering in the world contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god 

• Diversity of Religions: The existence of many religions with conflicting beliefs about the nature of god(s) makes it difficult to determine which, if any, is true.

• Unexplained Phenomena Attributed to Gods: Historically, many phenomena we now understand scientifically were attributed to gods. As science progresses, explanations for the natural world become less reliant on divine intervention.

MayCaesar

Jweishuhn said:

@MayCaesar So, I for one did not grow up in a Christian culture. My father is actually an atheist, and my mother was not really around much, and the gang life was what I knew for a long time. I do agree that culture can be fundamental in one's beliefs, but like me, who grew up in a culture that was counter-Christian, there are so many people who are coming to faith in the same God all around the World. Thousands of testimonies can be found in the Middle East of Muslims who converted to Christianity solely because of dreams they had. People who had never read the Bible, or heard the Gospel have found Jesus through miraculous ways. 

I do have to ask. When looking at the precision and intricacy that this universe and everything in it is made up of, how would you explain how it all got here?  

You did grow up in generally a Christian culture though, despite your particular immediate environment being somewhat insulated from it, no? An interesting question you could ask yourself is this: would it be likely that, had you lived in Saudi Arabia and Iran, that you would convert to Christianity and not Islam? There are some Christians and atheists who convert to Islam eventually.

And sorry if I sound overly skeptical, but it is hard for me to imagine how someone could "find Jesus" without learning at least a bit of Christianity. How would you even know that what you found is Jesus if you are not familiar with the name?

To your question, explaining "how it all got here" is quite a tall order: I do not think that any intelligent being will ever be able to answer that. I will say though that, given how much amazing progress humanity has made in understanding both the fundamental processes driving evolution of this Universe, and their particular consequences, our current assumption that it is all or, at least, most of it is explainable through the scientific framework does not seem to be far-fetched.
What I do not like is jumping to lazy conclusions: "God made it all". You can "explain" anything with it, and a good rule of thumb is that explainability of something is inversely proportional to its usefulness. Something that can explain anything is completely useless, and the most useful explanations are those that explain a very specific phenomenon and do not generalize to anything else. When building a car, would it be enough to just know the three Newton's laws (that are very widely applicable), or would you have to know a lot of specialized engineering results that are barely applicable to anything other than building a car?

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
You asked if there is any good evidence that God exists. I think there is.

1)  The universe had a beginning.  (i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. - Since the cause can not be the universe itself, it is logical to believe God is that cause.  

2)  The universe is very finely tuned to permit life.  I've gone over the astronomical odds with you before.  Suffice it to say that all of the fundamental forces of the universe are incredibly finely tuned to permit life and that there is no law that forces them to be as they are.  To think that the universe randomly came from nothing on its own with just the right finely tuned parameters seems unrealistic, instead such finely tuned complexity suggests an intelligence.

3)  Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex.  When we see something like code,, as we do in a DNA strand, we know that it is more likely that there is a coder.  The fact that science can not create life from non-life also points to a God.

4) Miracles - We've gone over this.  I've provided eye witness testimony, medical records, even legal documents signed by the king of France to show you examples of miracles such as people miraculously getting their eyesight back, having amputated limbs grow back, the lame walking, and even the dead come back to life.  I've provided numerous doctor's statements that these events happened and were medically impossible.    Some atheists faith won't allow them to consider such evidence so they appeal to the science of the gaps argument, 'we may not know the answer now, but trust me, we'll figure it out one day'.  I'd say miracles are a good indication that God exists.  

I could go on, but this should at least serve to show that there are good reasons to believe that God exists.  

Eh, here we go... A false claim in the very first sentence. I did not ask that. Now, to your points.

1) The idea that something that begins must have a cause seems highly questionable to me, at best.
2) It is not. I have explained why in the past.
3) Complexity does not indicate design. And the fact that currently science is limited does not point to a "god". 500 years ago science could not produce anything that flew in a continuously controlled manner; that did not imply the divine nature of birds.
4) It seems bizarre to me to compare shamanic testimonies of people claiming to have telepathic abilities ("my patient heard the voice in her head"), with results of countless experiments in labs with results consistently reproducible with incredible accuracy. On one hand we have experiments allowing one to calculate the mass of electron with ~10^(-12) precision, and on the other we have a bunch of witnesses from 2,000 years ago. I will go with the former, I think.

To me these seem to be not only bad reasons to believe that "god" exists, but, in fact, good reasons to assume that it does not. If millennia of philosophical and intellectual search could not produce better arguments for "god"'s existence than... this, then there is a good chance that they ain't there.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Jweishuhn

YOUR QUOTE OF WHERE DID THE UNIVERSE AND EARTH COME FROM:   "I do have to ask. When looking at the precision and intricacy that this universe and everything in it is made up of, how would you explain how it all got here?"

If you are going to swallow the Christian kool aide of your JEWISH God Jesus (Peter 1:1) and the rest of the primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible, then you have to erroneously accept, and without laughing, that the earth and the universe is only approximately 6000 YEARS OLD as shown within the Bible!!!

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from the mythical Adam and Jesus, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans within the scriptures since the mythical Jesus died in 33AD, and subsequent to Jesus until the present day of 2024, is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that the creation of man and the entire universe, the animals, and ALL LIFE is only 6000 years old!

The genealogy above doesn’t take into account that the many differrent species of thousands of dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, where in essence, how would they have fit upon Noah’s Ark to begin with in joining the other 19.7 million of animal species that had to be known in Adam's time, as they are also known today! LOL!

Therefore, will you expose these biblical axioms from the word of your JEWISH god to others of your faith in being history ? Or, if you tell these biblical axioms to Atheists, they will laugh you off and call you a dumbfounded pseudo-christian bible fool to historical FACTS of the true history of planet earth and the universe! GET IT?


NEXT? 

 

ZeusAres42

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

• Problem of Evil: The presence of evil and suffering in the world contradicts the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god 

• Diversity of Religions: The existence of many religions with conflicting beliefs about the nature of god(s) makes it difficult to determine which, if any, is true.

• Unexplained Phenomena Attributed to Gods: Historically, many phenomena we now understand scientifically were attributed to gods. As science progresses, explanations for the natural world become less reliant on divine intervention.

You have it backwards Jules, if there is an objective evil, then there is an objective lawgiver. So if there is true evil then there is a God.  Objective evil is not actual tangible thing, it is the privation of good.  It only exists as the absence of good, it can only exist if something objectively good exists.  An atheist can not claim there is objective evil.  How can matter be evil?  An atheist claims its mind is the product of randomness. If so then it is irrational for an atheist to claim that something is objectively evil, for how can a mind of randomness make such a determination?  Objective evil is evidence that there is a God.

The fact that there are many religions does not disprove God at all.  it shows man has an innate desire to know God.  it shows that within man is a desire to connect with the creator.  In the same way that many numbers do not disprove that 2+2=4 , many religions do not disprove that there is a real God.  

While there have been unexplained phenomena attributed to God that we now can attribute to science, there are also many well documented miracles - that have the blind regaining sight, amputated limbs growing, the lame walking, and even the dead rising from the dead.  Science doesn't explain how a man whose leg was amputated, two years later wakes up with both legs fully intact and functional.  Miracles are evidence for God.  If explained phenomena disproves God, then miracles are indeed evidence for God.  

So to recap, Jules AI set out to disprove God, but instead proved God existed.  Thanks Jules.  You couldn't have done better if you tried.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

You ever seen Alex O-connor video where he made ChatGPT admit God exists? I not seen that yet, just saw him mentionion it in one of his vids. 

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;So to recap, Jules AI set out to disprove God, but instead proved God existed. 

You certainly love making things up which I suppose is typical of some one suffering from delusions.

No body on the planet needs to set out to disprove some thing that has never been proven in the first place. And its not the first time that you have tried to invent a situation of demanding that people disprove your nutty notions. Like derrr disprove that the guy had his arm glued on and derr disprove that a known con artist jumped out her wheel chiar and derr disprove that babies did not have there heads chopped off.

How many more of your loony toons ideas that constantly float around in side your top level are you going to demand that people should disprove? 

I could demand that you disprove the notion that I make up that there is a Green Spaghetti Monster orbiting the earth and like Jesus there is plenty of documented evidence to prove its true. 

But Im not going to do that because Im not a Loony with wired ideas and sounds floating a round in my head and I dont have the belief that the world revolves a round me and that every one else has to disprove me.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

Oh my goodness. I was just mentioning a video. Can't we just step out of serious debates once in a while and discuss lighthearted stuff? 

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

Anyway, as for this, I was responding that there is no evidence we atheists have to claim that God does not exist. To do so would entail making claims about which we do not know.

@just_sayin

Your quote reads, "I don't have as much faith as you to not have faith."

I am anti-faith. And no amount of linguistic manipulation on your part will change that. I am an advocate for evidence-based epistemology, not flawed and failed epistemologies like faith.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;I just don't have enough faith to believe that. 

Your got to realize that it doesnt take faith to believe that. It just requires that you have at least half of a brain.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

Anyway, as for this, I was responding that there is no evidence we atheists have to claim that God does not exist. To do so would entail making claims about which we do not know.

@just_sayin

Your quote reads, "I don't have as much faith as you to not have faith."

I am anti-faith. And no amount of linguistic manipulation on your part will change that. I am an advocate for evidence-based epistemology, not flawed and failed epistemologies like faith.

Sigh.  Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it.  You deny that you have beliefs that are just 'faith claims'.  But it is true.  If you believe life came from non-life that is a faith claim that science can not support.  You just aren't honest about your faith.  

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

I never said life came from non-life. just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

Anyway, as for this, I was responding that there is no evidence we atheists have to claim that God does not exist. To do so would entail making claims about which we do not know.

@just_sayin

Your quote reads, "I don't have as much faith as you to not have faith."

I am anti-faith. And no amount of linguistic manipulation on your part will change that. I am an advocate for evidence-based epistemology, not flawed and failed epistemologies like faith.

Sigh.  Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it.  You deny that you have beliefs that are just 'faith claims'.  But it is true.  If you believe life came from non-life that is a faith claim that science can not support.  You just aren't honest about your faith.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

This is the textbook case of intellectual cowardice. You first attribute these claims that virtually nobody makes to all atheists, then start criticizing atheists for having them. Your system of beliefs is so weak, you have to consistently convince yourself that everyone who does not share it has the worst beliefs possible, for only then does it not look utterly ridiculous in comparison.

I think that intellectual cowardice is one of the most definitive features of faith. This is why all tyrannical regimes have hunted down the people who questioned their ideology and right to power: their arguments are the weakest and crumble upon the slightest scrutiny, so they can only survive if all attempts to subject them to any scrutiny are stopped preemptively. Said regimes also fell down spectacularly the moment people became fed up with this nonsense and started talking loudly.

Jweishuhn

@21CenturyIconoclast ;

If you are going to swallow the Christian kool aide of your JEWISH God Jesus (Peter 1:1) and the rest of the primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible, then you have to erroneously accept, and without laughing, that the earth and the universe is only approximately 6000 YEARS OLD as shown within the Bible!!!

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from the mythical Adam and Jesus, a period of approximately 4000 years in generational time spans within the scriptures since the mythical Jesus died in 33AD, and subsequent to Jesus until the present day of 2024, is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that the creation of man and the entire universe, the animals, and ALL LIFE is only 6000 years old!

The genealogy above doesn’t take into account that the many differrent species of thousands of dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, where in essence, how would they have fit upon Noah’s Ark to begin with in joining the other 19.7 million of animal species that had to be known in Adam's time, as they are also known today! LOL!

Therefore, will you expose these biblical axioms from the word of your JEWISH god to others of your faith in being history ? Or, if you tell these biblical axioms to Atheists, they will laugh you off and call you a dumbfounded pseudo-christian bible fool to historical FACTS of the true history of planet earth and the universe! GET IT?


NEXT?

As I do appreciate you bringing up several (not all) reasons as to why I do believe in a young earth. Is your evidence that there is no God, the fact that you believe the Ark could not have fit as many creatures as you are assuming would have needed to be on the Ark? Instead of attacking what I believe, help me understand more of why you believe what you believe. That is the whole point of a true debate.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Sigh.  Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it. 

Wow, you've really lost it.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I have seen this happen to too many people believing in something irrational: as their beliefs get systematically challenged, they adopt more and more degrading behaviors to avoid facing the challenges. My memory may be failing me, but I believe I remember this guy making quite decent arguments just a few months back. Now it is just constant full-on lies, weak arguments and thumbs-down-s.

Had a friend like that years ago who I actually quite liked in *that* sense. She was a little "woke", but it was okay. However, she liked frequenting political forums, and as the irrationality of her "wokeness" was systematically exposed, her behavior started deteriorating. It got to the point where I had to constantly walk on eggshells as even one carelessly dropped trigger word could set her off and cause her to go berserk on me; she did that to everyone else as well. I had to just cut off all contact eventually as I had only two choices left otherwise: to call her on her behavior (which would make her even nastier), or to tolerate it (which made me feel like a sleazy scumbag).

As strange as it may sound, I think that people who hold irrational beliefs (and are not open to changing them) are much more pleasant to be around when they are oblivious to problems with their beliefs. It is a bit like having the "elephant man's disease": if the person is somehow oblivious to having this devastating condition, then they can be very happy and great to be around - but if someone points it out to them and explains the gravity of the situation, they are very likely to fall apart psychologically.
I do not think that someone becomes an ISIS warrior when everyone loves them and accepts their belief in Allah. It is when their belief is threatened that they go on the offensive: having an AK-74 in your hands and shooting down everyone daring to look the wrong way at you is one of the most direct ways to avoid having to face the ugly truth.

All of these problems are easily avoidable by accepting a very simple and obvious premise: "I can be wrong about anything". But us humans are addicted to our egos. "Me, wrong? No, all of those other people are obviously wrong... But I have come a long way in my life and believe these things for a reason. Do not tell me that my whole life was a lie!"
Yet it almost certainly was. I would go as far as to say that every single human being has lived a life of confusion and delusion. Some of us simply accept it as inevitable reality and do our best to put at least a few blocks together in this chamber of smoke and mirrors, while others try to convince themselves that they are outside of this chamber.

My moment of glory was when my last relationship exploded, I was talking to a friend, and she started telling me the usual, "She was a fool. She did not deserve you anyway. You will find someone better..." And I raised my hand and said, "Nah, I was the [censored]." That felt good. Although I guess I kind of undermined my point by bragging about it.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I have seen this happen to too many people believing in something irrational: as their beliefs get systematically challenged, they adopt more and more degrading behaviors to avoid facing the challenges. My memory may be failing me, but I believe I remember this guy making quite decent arguments just a few months back. Now it is just constant full-on lies, weak arguments and thumbs-down-s.

Had a friend like that years ago who I actually quite liked in *that* sense. She was a little "woke", but it was okay. However, she liked frequenting political forums, and as the irrationality of her "wokeness" was systematically exposed, her behavior started deteriorating. It got to the point where I had to constantly walk on eggshells as even one carelessly dropped trigger word could set her off and cause her to go berserk on me; she did that to everyone else as well. I had to just cut off all contact eventually as I had only two choices left otherwise: to call her on her behavior (which would make her even nastier), or to tolerate it (which made me feel like a sleazy scumbag).

As strange as it may sound, I think that people who hold irrational beliefs (and are not open to changing them) are much more pleasant to be around when they are oblivious to problems with their beliefs. It is a bit like having the "elephant man's disease": if the person is somehow oblivious to having this devastating condition, then they can be very happy and great to be around - but if someone points it out to them and explains the gravity of the situation, they are very likely to fall apart psychologically.
I do not think that someone becomes an ISIS warrior when everyone loves them and accepts their belief in Allah. It is when their belief is threatened that they go on the offensive: having an AK-74 in your hands and shooting down everyone daring to look the wrong way at you is one of the most direct ways to avoid having to face the ugly truth.

All of these problems are easily avoidable by accepting a very simple and obvious premise: "I can be wrong about anything". But us humans are addicted to our egos. "Me, wrong? No, all of those other people are obviously wrong... But I have come a long way in my life and believe these things for a reason. Do not tell me that my whole life was a lie!"
Yet it almost certainly was. I would go as far as to say that every single human being has lived a life of confusion and delusion. Some of us simply accept it as inevitable reality and do our best to put at least a few blocks together in this chamber of smoke and mirrors, while others try to convince themselves that they are outside of this chamber.

My moment of glory was when my last relationship exploded, I was talking to a friend, and she started telling me the usual, "She was a fool. She did not deserve you anyway. You will find someone better..." And I raised my hand and said, "Nah, I was the [censored]." That felt good. Although I guess I kind of undermined my point by bragging about it.

Awesome. If I were a paying member and could give you 10 points I would.

You hit the nail on the head. What we will do to protect our egos and mask our insecurities is mind blowing.

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn

1 : I'm afraid you're totally wrong the term faith when used by the relgious is as I clearly pointed out based on spiritual conviction  the term faith as used in any other way is based on trust.

Maybe you should look up.what it says in the bible regards the term faith there's a specific verse that says exactly what it is ,you seem totally unaware of this whys that?

2: I asked you 2 questions and you avoid answering by switching and baiting  but I'll play anyway.

Nothing can be proved for certain, you're argument is fallacious as you're attempting to claim that your belief in God is equivalent to an Atheist believing in Evolution .

As a former Catholic there was no problem believing in Evolution the Protestants held the same view the ones who rejected it were the lunatic fringe of young earthers and nuts like Ken Ham.

What church are you a member of? I have a feeling you won't say prove me wrong.

Evolution is fact a denial of this firmly puts you intellectually in more or less the same category as flat earthers.
Evolution is supported by mountains of peer reviewed papers that you're free to challenge and destroy and disprove and thus become the first christian to disprove Evolution ,but of course we both know that not one peer reviewed science paper exists that destroys Evolution or not one peer reviewed paper exists that proves a god ,whys that?

Also you say Evolution cannot be seen heard or touched , do you really want me to tell you the flaws in that ridiculous claim?

Another problem now looms for you, just say I didn't believe in Evolution how does that in any way prove a god?

I also asked you do you also accept every other god claim and claims of supernatural enties from around the world and if not why not?

3: If you're going to be dishonest and make up nonsense about what I said you can go away , you asked a question I've answered and I said at the beginning I'm not concerned about convincing you yet you say I am.

You said you wanted fair respectful exchanges so do you think you can stick to that?

What other Atheists say and do is not on me so please don't once again try and tar me with that brush.

4: No I cannot tell you how everything came into existence ,you claim you can based on the words of a book of mostly contradictory nonsense written by bronze age goat herds yet you think Evolution is nonsense yet you haven't a shred of proof to back your claims up, do you even see the numerous flaws in your arguments?

Joeseph

@Jweishuhn


Thousands of testimonies can be found in the Middle East of Muslims who converted to Christianity solely because of dreams they had. 

Who told you that?  

People who had never read the Bible, or heard the Gospel have found Jesus through miraculous ways. 

How exactly did these miraculous ways manifest themselves?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Sigh.  Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it. 

Wow, you've really lost it.

The very word atheist denotes a belief.  A - meaning negation, 'no', and theism from theo meaning God.  Your anger toward God has caused you to lose objectivity.  The atheists on this site do indeed have very strong beliefs and tenets associated with their faith, or lack thereof.  They are unable to defend them though, and so pretend they have no beliefs.  No one is fooled by the dishonesty, but the atheist making the claim.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

This is the textbook case of intellectual cowardice. You first attribute these claims that virtually nobody makes to all atheists, then start criticizing atheists for having them. Your system of beliefs is so weak, you have to consistently convince yourself that everyone who does not share it has the worst beliefs possible, for only then does it not look utterly ridiculous in comparison.

I think that intellectual cowardice is one of the most definitive features of faith. This is why all tyrannical regimes have hunted down the people who questioned their ideology and right to power: their arguments are the weakest and crumble upon the slightest scrutiny, so they can only survive if all attempts to subject them to any scrutiny are stopped preemptively. Said regimes also fell down spectacularly the moment people became fed up with this nonsense and started talking loudly.

Which of the things I listed do you not believe in?  Are you telling me you do not think life came from non-life?  The true cowardice is your unwillingness to admit what you really believe.  

A great example of this is your many appeals to the science of the gaps defense whenever I mention evidence of miracles, or discuss the fine tuning of the universe, the evidence that the universe had a beginning, or the numerous scientific problems with abiogenesis. 

Now when I cited the miracle of Calanda where the guy's amputated leg grows back after being removed 1 1/2 years earlier - I provided medical documentation of the amputation, medical documentation of his amputated leg being fully grown and functional 1 1/2 years later.  I provided 24 eye witness testimonies that were recorded under tribunal rules, with cross examination by lawyers and judges, and sealed as official testimony by the kings personal record keeper.  You ignored the evidence and came up with your own imaginary explanations in defiance of the evidence. You weren't open to other views as you claim.   The only person believing your is you.  Don't be a coward.  Own your beliefs.  Sure, I'll keep crushing them with evidence, but at least own what you believe.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Which of the things I listed do you not believe in?  Are you telling me you do not think life came from non-life?  The true cowardice is your unwillingness to admit what you really believe.  

A great example of this is your many appeals to the science of the gaps defense whenever I mention evidence of miracles, or discuss the fine tuning of the universe, the evidence that the universe had a beginning, or the numerous scientific problems with abiogenesis. 

Now when I cited the miracle of Calanda where the guy's amputated leg grows back after being removed 1 1/2 years earlier - I provided medical documentation of the amputation, medical documentation of his amputated leg being fully grown and functional 1 1/2 years later.  I provided 24 eye witness testimonies that were recorded under tribunal rules, with cross examination by lawyers and judges, and sealed as official testimony by the kings personal record keeper.  You ignored the evidence and came up with your own imaginary explanations in defiance of the evidence. You weren't open to other views as you claim.   The only person believing your is you.  Don't be a coward.  Own your beliefs.  Sure, I'll keep crushing them with evidence, but at least own what you believe.

I tend to not think things that I do not know to be true: I, at best, hypothesize them. "Life came from non-life" is a statement that makes little sense to me. For one, I am not even sure what exactly constitutes life and what forms of life are possible: I would call an AI created by humans alive, but some would not.

But if you have telepathic abilities and can know what I "truly think", then I will not make claims against your intellectual property.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Jweishuhn

I am sorry that you are not getting the FACT that there is no god because as shown, the JUDEO-Christian Bible explicitly states the earth and mankind is ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD, get it? Huh?
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178377/#Comment_178377

Furthermore, do I dare bring up EVOLUTION of mankind, instead of your god making Adam from dirt, and Eve from Adams rib 6000 years ago, where what a comical proposition from your god to start off your faith! ROFLOL!

In turn, if you want your  God to exist from your primitive Bronze and Iron Age religion, explain the dinosaurs living on planet earth MILLIONS OF YEAR AGO, when your god says he created ALL LIFE and the universe 6000 years ago!  GET IT YET?

BEGIN: 

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


.
TO THE MEMBERSHIP THAT IS IN DISCUSSION WITH THE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL "JUST_SAYIN!"

Just_sayin has RAN AWAY from his JUDEO-Christian bible FIVE TIMES as embarrassingly shown in the link below, that relates to his god's comical and contradicting creation narratives within Genesis in his JUDEO-Christian bible!
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/177920/#Comment_177920 

Just_sayin wants the Atheist to prove their theory of evolution and such, BUT, at the same time, the Bible fool just_sayin cannot prove his god's creation inferences within his primitive bible, but to only run away from them in embarrassment and go into hiding as once again shown in the link above! 

Make the runaway from his faith just_sayin prove his god's creation as explicitly before in my link above before you waste your time in accommodating his wants from you!  He can't have his cake, and eat it too!

.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it.

And any one with half a brain knows that atheism is not a belief. And by you saying that is a belief does not make it a belief. Unfortunately your hole system and universe seems to revolve a round the half baked beliefs flying a round in your head. So like derr if Just Sayin believes some thing well like derr the some thing is true and he will go to the most extreme wrong nutty sauces to reinforce his belief.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Sigh, atheism rejects faith based claims of proclaimed gods, still. Doesn't matter that concept is beyond your ability to compute. 'Tenets' in this context indicates principles of doctrine concerning pronouncements of religious faith. As an atheist tenets are resisted as part of the cognitive thought processes. That's why we don't believe. The tenets of Christianity say, don't line up with reality so as an atheist they're rejected. It's that simple. 

Barnardot

@Factfinder @just_sayin Just as sure as the word atheist means without belief then a long comes a dill brain theist and says it is a belief.

And any way even if it is a belief what the fu*k point is that dill brain @just_sayin trying to make. Could it be like derrr were all in the same boat. Like derr we all have beliefs and even though you underling heathens have all the evidence in the world to back up your belief and I have totally none my belief is the right one one because I believe it and if I believe some thing it must be true because I say so.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

I never said life came from non-life. just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

none. And I am an Atheist too. 

Sorry Zeus, I just don't have as much faith as you.  I can't believe that everything came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That complexity came from chaos.  That consciousness came from the irrational.  Or that morals came from randomness.  I just don't have enough faith to believe that.  It's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat to start with.  

Anyway, as for this, I was responding that there is no evidence we atheists have to claim that God does not exist. To do so would entail making claims about which we do not know.

@just_sayin

Your quote reads, "I don't have as much faith as you to not have faith."

I am anti-faith. And no amount of linguistic manipulation on your part will change that. I am an advocate for evidence-based epistemology, not flawed and failed epistemologies like faith.

Sigh.  Any system of belief, even atheism has tenets to it.  You deny that you have beliefs that are just 'faith claims'.  But it is true.  If you believe life came from non-life that is a faith claim that science can not support.  You just aren't honest about your faith.  

Yep, I agree you do this.  For instance, the traditional definition of atheism is that one does not believe in God.  It is literally in the name.  Yet, you have tried to redefine the view as to something of being 'noncommittal'.  I get it, if I had to defend the faith claims of atheism, I'd deny I was an atheist too.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

It is very difficult to explain to someone operating on faith what not operating on faith looks like. Yes, atheism implies lack of belief in "god": such a belief would be an expression of faith. Similarly, a belief in absence of "god" would be an expression of faith (at least, I am not aware of any logical argument that completely outlaws the possibility of existence of some form of an intelligent creator of the Universe). But simply not including "god" in one's world view is precisely what atheism is about. You used a very fitting word here: "noncommittal". The ability to not commit to a claim and keep one's mind open is something that theists seem to particularly struggle with.

I will try a very simple analogy again: who knows, maybe this time it will get through. Suppose you tell me that you own a Rolls-Royce. I will look you over, see that you do not look much like someone who can afford a Rolls-Royce, so I will say, "I do not believe you own a Rolls-Royce". Am I claiming that you do not own it? No: the heck do I know what you own? However, I have not received any information that squares with the claim that you have a Rolls-Royce, and knowing how rare it is to own one and how difficult the conditions required to afford one are to meet, my default assumption will be that you do not own a Rolls-Royce. I am completely open to being wrong: you can pull up to my house tomorrow in a Rolls-Royce and I will accept that I was wrong.

Similarly, if I receive one of the pieces of evidence I mentioned before, I will absolutely accept that there is "god". And if a "god" existed and wanted to provide me with such evidence, it would not be very difficult. Right now a luminous humanoid creature could appear on my sofa, and after a short conversation I would be convinced. Any intellectually honest atheist would as well.

The problem is, such evidence is lacking. When for naturality of origin of everything in the world we have piles of evidence spanning millennia and millions of experiments with reproducible results, for "god" we have some shoddy witness claims and books. So, as an intellectually honest person, no matter what I want to be true, I have to say that there is no reason at this point to assume that "god" exists. Which, again, does not make me commit to the claim that it does not. But I live my life as though it did not because I do not see what assuming that it does would add to my life other than unnecessary mental clutter.
I will add that I find the whole idea of "god" childish and ridiculous, but that is a separate matter, and I do not speak for all "atheists". I only speak for myself, not associating with any group. God knows (pun intended) there are plenty of "atheists" with childish and ridiculous ideas as well.

I am curious to see how you misread my comment this time. I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. But we are dealing with a particularly difficult case here, so...

Barnardot

@just_sayin @ZeusRes42 ;Yet, you have tried to redefine the view as to something of being 'noncommittal'.

No your the one who redefines things to fit your stu pid views then try to blow it back in other peoples faces because the real definition happens to be different from your totally wired daffy nitions. And by the way there is no such word as definist. You will only find that word on gutter scam web sites like the ones you often frequent to get your totally off the planet views from.

Joeseph

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE , YOU POST A DEBATE TOPIC UP AND PROMISE TO BEHAVE DECENTLY AND YET YOU RUN FOR THE HILLS WHEN QUESTIONED........... .....

: To anyone with an argument, I expect respectful, civil, and professional discussion to happen. I will not interact with anyone who is unable to do so. Looking forward to hearing what you have.  

"CHRISTIAN " LOL

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;To anyone with an argument, I expect respectful, civil, and professional discussion to happen. I will not interact with anyone who is unable to do so. Looking forward to hearing what you have.  

Not long to go now is there?
I mean before you get kicked off again.
Your definitely on that spiral again.
The bold text is definitely the give away that your time is getting very near.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Bwahahahaha you prize id-ot you're running round squealing and as- kissing the man  for a year now trying to get me banned when with one word I could get you banned .......

I see 6 people in the last 24 hours have called you an id-ot , you keep proving it.

Barnardot

@Joeseph I’m not trying to get you kicked off at all because I don’t have to try at all. Your the one whose kicking your self off with all your nasty crap.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

I never heard such nonsense , I'm here 6 years you ridiculous troll , I say who's kicked of not you or anyone else.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Yep, I agree you do this.  For instance, the traditional definition of atheism is that one does not believe in God.  It is literally in the name.  Yet, you have tried to redefine the view as to something of being 'noncommittal'.  I get it, if I had to defend the faith claims of atheism, I'd deny I was an atheist too.  

People do not believe in god, period. How is that noncommittal? There's nothing to defend. Believers assert a positive, nonbelievers reject it do to lack of evidence, period. 

You always say "I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist" while making stuff up like your quote above, to hold on to the faith of a theist. Well atheists have no urge to make stuff up in order to not believe. I'd say that's demonstrates displaying non faith as opposed the amount of faith you use to imagine strawmen to knock down.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think that "atheists" make stuff up all the time as well: this is just how humans think. We like to engage in sweet lies in our thinking and are often quite deliberate about it. The whole idea of communism, for instance, is a product of such lies.

Being "atheist" simply means lacking a particular system of fantasy beliefs. It does not imply lacking any such system in general.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Jweishuhn ; All evidence points to design and an omnipotent Designer.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I think that "atheists" make stuff up all the time as well: this is just how humans think. We like to engage in sweet lies in our thinking and are often quite deliberate about it. The whole idea of communism, for instance, is a product of such lies.

Being "atheist" simply means lacking a particular system of fantasy beliefs. It does not imply lacking any such system in general.

That is true however not on point. The claim atheists don't lie was never made. In the context of religious beliefs I have no urge to lie or reject truths in order to not believe in a god, do you? It is this particular system of fantasy beliefs of which my comments were made. We do not make stuff up in order to edify our nonbelief in a god. No need, we just don't believe.

When it comes to ideologies and political landscapes I agree. Atheist can and do lie like anyone else. But even then if it is to promote something like communism, it is asserting a positive, making a claim. Then, atheist, theist, it doesn't matter, one does not need to lie to themselves to secure their non faith in ideologies that are rejected for their totalitarian or oppressive tendencies. 

I can imagine though, that an atheistic, communist could lie about the effects of democracy and/or capitalism because they have a personal stake in promoting a communist government. But in the religious context what stake would one have in order to be motivated enough to lie about a god they believe in and say they don't? Under normal conditions like debating on your computer that is? If someone had a gun to your head, yeah sure but that would be extenuating circumstances.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I think that "atheists" make stuff up all the time as well: this is just how humans think. We like to engage in sweet lies in our thinking and are often quite deliberate about it. The whole idea of communism, for instance, is a product of such lies.

Being "atheist" simply means lacking a particular system of fantasy beliefs. It does not imply lacking any such system in general.

That is true however not on point. The claim atheists don't lie was never made. In the context of religious beliefs I have no urge to lie or reject truths in order to not believe in a god, do you? It is this particular system of fantasy beliefs of which my comments were made. We do not make stuff up in order to edify our nonbelief in a god. No need, we just don't believe.

When it comes to ideologies and political landscapes I agree. Atheist can and do lie like anyone else. But even then if it is to promote something like communism, it is asserting a positive, making a claim. Then, atheist, theist, it doesn't matter, one does not need to lie to themselves to secure their non faith in ideologies that are rejected for their totalitarian or oppressive tendencies. 

I can imagine though, that an atheistic, communist could lie about the effects of democracy and/or capitalism because they have a personal stake in promoting a communist government. But in the religious context what stake would one have in order to be motivated enough to lie about a god they believe in and say they don't? Under normal conditions like debating on your computer that is? If someone had a gun to your head, yeah sure but that would be extenuating circumstances.

Well, my point was just that the fact that atheists do not engage in, let us call it, "creative storytelling" when it comes to religious beliefs does not imply that this mode of thinking is absent in them. Specifically when it comes to religion, indeed, people do not make counter-stories to justify the claim of god's non-existence: at least, I have never heard such counter-stories.

As to your last question, I think Jordan Peterson is a good example of that. Everything that he says indicates that he believes in "god", if not in the literal wizard in the sky, then in something like "the embodiment of all highest goods": to him it is a real entity. Yet whenever asked outright, "Do you believe that god exists?", he will refuse to give an answer. He will engage in sophistry: "What do you mean by 'believe'? What do you mean by 'god'? What do you mean by 'exists'?"
The stake of refusing to acknowledge that you believe in god when you do is losing respect from non-religious people, and if your audience includes a large fraction of such people, then it is a problem. Imagine giving a presentation at a physics conference and praying before your talk: that is unlikely to end well. So you may pretend that you do not hold religious beliefs, or, at least, tone them down appropriately.

I also agree with something someone else said around here: some people claim that they do not believe in "god" not because they actually do not, but because they want to convince themselves that they do not: they know that if the "god" is what the religion says it is, then they are screwed - yet they do not have a good epistemology to rely on to arrive at the logical conclusion that the idea of such "god's" existence can be confidently discarded, so they have to engage in self-deception. I do not know how common it is, but I have definitely met a couple of people who I suspected of doing this.

The problem at the end of the day is the same across the board: lack of thinking. It is very easy and comfortable to just let someone else do the thinking and then adopt their conclusions: this is what religionists do, communists do, nationalists do and so on - and many of them then backwards-rationalize their beliefs with sloppy arguments. Yet such conclusions are weak, resting on a house of cards. It is impossible to have a strong position of something without thinking independently and very hard about it for a long time, subjecting one's own position to intense scrutiny.

There are some positions that I have been arriving at for decades. For example, my highest value has always been freedom, yet what is the best way to exercise this freedom is a question I have grappled with almost daily since I was 12 or so. I would have an assumption, then imagine an audience full of people attacking my assumption and seeing if it stands under fire. I believe I have thoroughly examined, at least, a thousand different possible answers to this question, and I am still very far away from arriving at a conclusive answer - however, if you want to discuss it with me, you will find me very well prepared to virtually any criticism you can hurl at my position.
Contrast it with someone who heard from a priest when he was 6 that "god" is the only objective source of morals, and without "god" he will be completely lost. For the next 30 years he will be doing everything he can to reinforce the idea of "god's" existence, because he knows that this idea being false would make him unable to function in human society. He has spent a lot of time justifying his belief to himself, and very little time actually thinking about what a good moral framework looks like. Tell this person something obvious, such as that morals come from people and not "god's" - and he will be left defenseless and have to resort to tricks like ignoring your words, misreading them, et cetera. As we have seen our little friend here do many times.

That is the difference of a position that has been forged in hellfire (pun intended) and became virtually immovable - from a position that has rested on four eggs and has to be protected from any challenge in order to survive.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Where is the Atheist's Evidence?

If you have been reading the debate you are probably wondering why all the atheists are avoiding the topic and are instead attacking people of faith.  It's because they don't have any evidence that there is no God.  When asked to explain how a universe could start from zero space, the atheist just wants you to take it on faith.  When you ask them why the universe is astronomically finely tuned and how do they explain this, especially since there are no laws of nature that require the fundamental forces to be as they are, you get pathetic answers like 'cause it just is'.  When you ask the atheist to provide evidence that abiogenesis works - just make life from non-life, they just stare at you with the 'I got nothin' look.  When you ask the atheist to explain documented instances of miracles, they just start the science of the gaps song.  When you point out that it is actually science which is saying that the miracles are impossible, yet they happened, you get the 'I got nothin' look again.  Instead atheists want us to believe:

1) everything came from nothing
2) complexity came from chaos
3) life came from non-life
4) Consciousness came from inanimate objects
5) Morals came from matter

That's a lot of faith claims without any evidence at all.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; Atheists are narcissistic fools...arrogant, insolent, useless.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Your first paragraph is what I was saying in my original comments you responded to. I never intended that what I said to be par for the entire spectrum of knowledge, opinion and interpretation. Just in the contexts of believing in a god or not. 

You did bring up some interesting topics of discussion though. The internal struggles one has in determining what they do believe or not. Or hiding belief while on the lecture circuit so as not to lose respect from peers. Jordan Peterson in my opinion is an agnostic of sorts looking for theology that can conform to his epistemology. Didn't his wife, a catholic, claim to experience a miracle of some kind? Is that the same Jordan you're talking about?

The bottom line  is generally ordinary people discussing whether they believe in god or not in a neutral environment are motivated by two primary things. Yes they believe, or no they do not. The non believer has nothing to lose where as the believer has an entire belief system and world view that could come crashing down. They're the one that generally begin to compromise reality in various ways. Even if the non believer had some fear of hell upon death, they couldn't escape their own mind and would likely shift towards a more agnostic approach, I think. But they'd be on the fence, not atheist.