A Thought for Atheists

[Avatar4321]

On the contrary, faith is based on believing in something where there is no verifiable evidence to back up that POV. There is nothing wrong with that by the why, but that is not evidence of a god's existence. Neither is it evidence when people claim they have been 'changed' by a god. It is faith.

Thing is dark matter will probably be proven to exist (maybe even in our lifetimes)....a God has had since the dawn of man to stump up. So far? Nada...only belief....

No it is not. Just because you want to define it that way does not mean you get to tell me what faith is. You have faith that the government will not turn up at your doorstep, drag you out of your house, and shoot you on the street. What is that faith based on?

I don't have faith in that at all. Nothing is certain.

A belief in god is based on faith only. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence in any religion that a god exists. If you have undisputable evidence, put it forward... I bet I can rip it to shreds....

BTW, this is not an assault on your faith. If you absolutely believe there is a God, I have no problem. That is YOUR belief...note I use the word 'belief', not 'fact'....

I suppose that depend how you define verifiable evidence, doesn't it?

Because quite honestly, I've seen lots of evidence that God exists and no evidence that He doesn't.

 

[Avatar4321]

Really? Where do I say anything that deprecates atheism itself? I don't? hmmm.
Where do I claim that atheists are self-deluded, ignorant, the source of evil etc...? I don't? Hmmm.
So thank you. You make now continue labeling me.

Hey. Isn't that what atheists complain that others do to them?

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Maybe you should learn some humility. Providing an opinion doesn't "Spank" someone who disagrees.

But then again what grown man enters into a discussion to "spank" their opponent. Grow the heck up. Mature people enter discussions because they are a way to mutually edify one another and learn things from one another, not to show you are superior to another person.

Of course, this is an internet message board so we are lacking in the maturity area.

 

[LOki]

I suppose that depend how you define verifiable evidence, doesn't it?

Christ. "Depends how you define verifiable evidence?" Seriously?

Well, the superstitious like to rely upon some "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact," and that nonsense is certainly not verifiable evidence. So faith and its superstitious awareness of shit that isn't there is right out.

Which, inconveniently for the disingenuous, leaves the broadly understood and intellectually honest definition for verifiable evidence that is bereft of Easter bunnies, elves, unicorns, goat legged boogeymen, leprechauns; and all other manner of imaginary fairy dust that fall outside of the purview verifiable evidence.

Because quite honestly, I've seen lots of evidence that God exists ...

Not a bit of it verifiable, I'm sure. You've just seen what you believe.

But feel free to bring your "evidence" out for examination. I won't be holding my breath.

... and no evidence that He doesn't.

Except that glaring lack of evidence of his existence. There is that.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

You have not produced one iota of evidence..

The Xmas story shows that some men got together over the Yuletide and had a ceasefire. Again, no evidence of a god in any way, shape or form. You call my "beautiful baby" and "sunset" examples as strawman arguments, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.

Who says the story about a carpenter was made up? Jesus being a carpenter may be true. Being the son of a god? I don't think so. You could apply your "a group of people got together" analogy to any point in history, or fiction for that matter.

There are a lot of things that are verifiable, therefore are true. That aside, all you have done is inform me of your faith, which is fine. Doesn't mean there is a god, only that you have FAITH there is one. Nothing wrong with that at all. Doesn't make it true, and you sure as shit haven't provided any evidence.

I like how you give examples (the xmas vid being one) of this amazing event. How about we talk about the Ethipoian famine, the USSR famine of the 1930s, the rape of Nanking, WWI and II...I could go on...is that evidence of your god, too?

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh and BTW, it is not a strawman if that argument has been used ad nauseum over time....Remember, it hasn't been my argument, but your brethren who are believers...

It is a strawman when you bring it up to challenge someone who did not say it. I am not responsible for what other people say, and I do not expect you to defend positions that other atheist have taken in the past in an attempt to refute my arguments. Does that make me intellectually honest or dishonest?

And yet you just did the same in your post with the xmas vid....

 

[Dr Grump]

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 - YouTube

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

The video of the Christmas truce, while extremely touching and inspiring, is not evidence of the existence of any sort of god. What happened on that day in 1914 is strikingly human, not supernatural. The fact that you think divine intervention is required for soldiers, who have been surrounded by nothing but death and destruction, to be good to each other on one day out of a year is an indictment of your inability to comprehend how humans can be moral all by themselves.

Another person who is close minded and rejects the evidence in front of his nose.

By the way, I did not say that divine intervention caused the Christmas Truce, I said it is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. The problem I have with most idiots who think they have the answers already is they always use strawmen arguments to defend their positions. Why is it that people who supposedly have the intellectual high ground have to resort to deception when confronted with actual evidence?

And your Xmas truce example is not a deception? RATFLMO...

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a sock puppet or troll, simply because I cannot truly believe that YOU believe what you are typing...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

You have not produced one iota of evidence..

The Xmas story shows that some men got together over the Yuletide and had a ceasefire. Again, no evidence of a god in any way, shape or form. You call my "beautiful baby" and "sunset" examples as strawman arguments, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.

Who says the story about a carpenter was made up? Jesus being a carpenter may be true. Being the son of a god? I don't think so. You could apply your "a group of people got together" analogy to any point in history, or fiction for that matter.

There are a lot of things that are verifiable, therefore are true. That aside, all you have done is inform me of your faith, which is fine. Doesn't mean there is a god, only that you have FAITH there is one. Nothing wrong with that at all. Doesn't make it true, and you sure as shit haven't provided any evidence.

I like how you give examples (the xmas vid being one) of this amazing event. How about we talk about the Ethipoian famine, the USSR famine of the 1930s, the rape of Nanking, WWI and II...I could go on...is that evidence of your god, too?

Of course I haven't, no evidence will ever convince anyone that approaches any subject with a closed mind and a willingness to lie to themselves. Your eagerness to reject evidence out of hand just because it conflicts with your settled opinion makes you no different that the members of the Flat Earth Society. You should join them, they are having a membership drive right now, it seems most of them are dead.

The Flat Earth Society

 

[Dr Grump]

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

You have not produced one iota of evidence..

The Xmas story shows that some men got together over the Yuletide and had a ceasefire. Again, no evidence of a god in any way, shape or form. You call my "beautiful baby" and "sunset" examples as strawman arguments, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.

Who says the story about a carpenter was made up? Jesus being a carpenter may be true. Being the son of a god? I don't think so. You could apply your "a group of people got together" analogy to any point in history, or fiction for that matter.

There are a lot of things that are verifiable, therefore are true. That aside, all you have done is inform me of your faith, which is fine. Doesn't mean there is a god, only that you have FAITH there is one. Nothing wrong with that at all. Doesn't make it true, and you sure as shit haven't provided any evidence.

I like how you give examples (the xmas vid being one) of this amazing event. How about we talk about the Ethipoian famine, the USSR famine of the 1930s, the rape of Nanking, WWI and II...I could go on...is that evidence of your god, too?

Of course I haven't, no evidence will ever convince anyone that approaches any subject with a closed mind and a willingness to lie to themselves. Your eagerness to reject evidence out of hand just because it conflicts with your settled opinion makes you no different that the members of the Flat Earth Society. You should join them, they are having a membership drive right now, it seems most of them are dead.

The Flat Earth Society

Actually, some dude appearing out of thin air in front of me would be pretty compelling. Or maybe bringing somebody back to life who has been dead for a few days. Or turning water into wine maybe....

I have not rejected any evidence. You have yet to provide any...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh and BTW, it is not a strawman if that argument has been used ad nauseum over time....Remember, it hasn't been my argument, but your brethren who are believers...

It is a strawman when you bring it up to challenge someone who did not say it. I am not responsible for what other people say, and I do not expect you to defend positions that other atheist have taken in the past in an attempt to refute my arguments. Does that make me intellectually honest or dishonest?

And yet you just did the same in your post with the xmas vid....

How, exactly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The video of the Christmas truce, while extremely touching and inspiring, is not evidence of the existence of any sort of god. What happened on that day in 1914 is strikingly human, not supernatural. The fact that you think divine intervention is required for soldiers, who have been surrounded by nothing but death and destruction, to be good to each other on one day out of a year is an indictment of your inability to comprehend how humans can be moral all by themselves.

Another person who is close minded and rejects the evidence in front of his nose.

By the way, I did not say that divine intervention caused the Christmas Truce, I said it is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. The problem I have with most idiots who think they have the answers already is they always use strawmen arguments to defend their positions. Why is it that people who supposedly have the intellectual high ground have to resort to deception when confronted with actual evidence?

And your Xmas truce example is not a deception? RATFLMO...

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a sock puppet or troll, simply because I cannot truly believe that YOU believe what you are typing...

Are you saying the Christmas Truce did not happen?

 

[Dr Grump]

It is a strawman when you bring it up to challenge someone who did not say it. I am not responsible for what other people say, and I do not expect you to defend positions that other atheist have taken in the past in an attempt to refute my arguments. Does that make me intellectually honest or dishonest?

And yet you just did the same in your post with the xmas vid....

How, exactly?

I have to spell it out for you? Er, OK.

I said that over the years Christians have told me that a baby's smile or a beautiful sunset is 'evidence' of there being a god. You call it a strawman. You then post the vid about the well-publicised Yuletide ceasefire during WWI as 'evidence'. I see no distinction between all three, yet somehow my examples are strawman. All three are based on faith, not fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have not produced one iota of evidence..

The Xmas story shows that some men got together over the Yuletide and had a ceasefire. Again, no evidence of a god in any way, shape or form. You call my "beautiful baby" and "sunset" examples as strawman arguments, yet here you are doing exactly the same thing.

Who says the story about a carpenter was made up? Jesus being a carpenter may be true. Being the son of a god? I don't think so. You could apply your "a group of people got together" analogy to any point in history, or fiction for that matter.

There are a lot of things that are verifiable, therefore are true. That aside, all you have done is inform me of your faith, which is fine. Doesn't mean there is a god, only that you have FAITH there is one. Nothing wrong with that at all. Doesn't make it true, and you sure as shit haven't provided any evidence.

I like how you give examples (the xmas vid being one) of this amazing event. How about we talk about the Ethipoian famine, the USSR famine of the 1930s, the rape of Nanking, WWI and II...I could go on...is that evidence of your god, too?

Of course I haven't, no evidence will ever convince anyone that approaches any subject with a closed mind and a willingness to lie to themselves. Your eagerness to reject evidence out of hand just because it conflicts with your settled opinion makes you no different that the members of the Flat Earth Society. You should join them, they are having a membership drive right now, it seems most of them are dead.

The Flat Earth Society

Actually, some dude appearing out of thin air in front of me would be pretty compelling. Or maybe bringing somebody back to life who has been dead for a few days. Or turning water into wine maybe....

I have not rejected any evidence. You have yet to provide any...

If someone appeared out of thin air in front of you it would not be verifiable, and thus it would not be true, if we accept your standards. I have prevented evidence, you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Another person who is close minded and rejects the evidence in front of his nose.

By the way, I did not say that divine intervention caused the Christmas Truce, I said it is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. The problem I have with most idiots who think they have the answers already is they always use strawmen arguments to defend their positions. Why is it that people who supposedly have the intellectual high ground have to resort to deception when confronted with actual evidence?

And your Xmas truce example is not a deception? RATFLMO...

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a sock puppet or troll, simply because I cannot truly believe that YOU believe what you are typing...

Are you saying the Christmas Truce did not happen?

It did. But you are insinuating, or outright saying, it is evidence of a god. To which I say, 'Bullshit'....

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course I haven't, no evidence will ever convince anyone that approaches any subject with a closed mind and a willingness to lie to themselves. Your eagerness to reject evidence out of hand just because it conflicts with your settled opinion makes you no different that the members of the Flat Earth Society. You should join them, they are having a membership drive right now, it seems most of them are dead.

The Flat Earth Society

Actually, some dude appearing out of thin air in front of me would be pretty compelling. Or maybe bringing somebody back to life who has been dead for a few days. Or turning water into wine maybe....

I have not rejected any evidence. You have yet to provide any...

If someone appeared out of thin air in front of you it would not be verifiable, and thus it would not be true, if we accept your standards. I have prevented evidence, you just refuse to accept it.

You certainly have prevented evidence...or shown none. Are you Loki in disguise?

Being totally serious here: I'm really having a hard time believing that YOU believe what you are posting...seriously. I think you're taking the piss....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And yet you just did the same in your post with the xmas vid....

How, exactly?

I have to spell it out for you? Er, OK.

I said that over the years Christians have told me that a baby's smile or a beautiful sunset is 'evidence' of there being a god. You call it a strawman. You then post the vid about the well-publicised Yuletide ceasefire during WWI as 'evidence'. I see no distinction between all three, yet somehow my examples are strawman. All three are based on faith, not fact.

I understand, you have no idea what strawman means.

A strawman is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Can you explain where I argued that your position had anything to do with the Christmas Truce?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And your Xmas truce example is not a deception? RATFLMO...

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a sock puppet or troll, simply because I cannot truly believe that YOU believe what you are typing...

Are you saying the Christmas Truce did not happen?

It did. But you are insinuating, or outright saying, it is evidence of a god. To which I say, 'Bullshit'....

To be clear, I am not insinuating, it is evidence of the existence of God.

 

[Dr Grump]

How, exactly?

I have to spell it out for you? Er, OK.

I said that over the years Christians have told me that a baby's smile or a beautiful sunset is 'evidence' of there being a god. You call it a strawman. You then post the vid about the well-publicised Yuletide ceasefire during WWI as 'evidence'. I see no distinction between all three, yet somehow my examples are strawman. All three are based on faith, not fact.

I understand, you have no idea what strawman means.

A strawman is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Can you explain where I argued that your position had anything to do with the Christmas Truce?

It didn't, but then you introduced the truce. At the very best you are a hypocrite at the worst a troll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are the former....

And going by subsequent posts (backed up by the Yuletide story) I haven't misrepresented your position at all...

 

[Lokiate]

That depends on how you define God.

All I have to go on are definitions, depictions, and writings. The majority of which describe an anthropomorphic entity, which I cannot possibly believe in.

Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

What I'm doing is going off of prior descriptions given. Even the god Yahweh walked the Earth, and did very human things in the book of Genesis, before becoming more abstract, and obscure in Exodus, on. I cannot know something I have not experienced.

What I do believe in is not a god, but the soul that is present in all living things. The closest description would be animism, though not 100% accurate, because many animists believe in mythical creatures like fairies, or dwarves. I do not.

Try multi-person pantheistic solipsism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, some dude appearing out of thin air in front of me would be pretty compelling. Or maybe bringing somebody back to life who has been dead for a few days. Or turning water into wine maybe....

I have not rejected any evidence. You have yet to provide any...

If someone appeared out of thin air in front of you it would not be verifiable, and thus it would not be true, if we accept your standards. I have prevented evidence, you just refuse to accept it.

You certainly have prevented evidence...or shown none. Are you Loki in disguise?

Being totally serious here: I'm really having a hard time believing that YOU believe what you are posting...seriously. I think you're taking the piss....

That was a typo, and proof that I should read before hitting the Submit Reply button.

As for the rest, it is understandable you prefer to believe I am not being serious. Human nature is fairly predictable.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you saying the Christmas Truce did not happen?

It did. But you are insinuating, or outright saying, it is evidence of a god. To which I say, 'Bullshit'....

To be clear, I am not insinuating, it is evidence of the existence of God.

No it is not.
All it shows is that it is YOUR belief. Nothing more, nothing less. As I said, nothing wrong with that, just remind me never to use you has a witness in a court of law. If you think that is an example of evidence, I'm Elvis ....