A Thought for Atheists

[Avatar4321]

]I actually think being an atheist is intellectually dishonest and narrow minded, not stupid.

Why? How?

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

 

[Dr Grump]

]I actually think being an atheist is intellectually dishonest and narrow minded, not stupid.

Why? How?

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

I get the narrow minded part...that explains your explanation, but intellectually dishonest? I disagree. In fact, I would say it is intellectually honest because there is absolutely not one varifiable shread of evidence that there is a god...any type of god. There is only faith.....That's it.

Most other things I believe in are pretty provable. I believe aeroplanes can fly. Not just because i see them, but I understand the rudamentary mechanics.

I believe oxygen is what humans breath. Can't see it, but there is enough scientific evidence and experiments to prove this is so.

I could go on...

 

[InDoctriNation]

I'd also like the poster to explain in what way the disbelief in any god or gods is intellectually dishonest. As an atheist, I am unable to believe in a god until sufficient evidence has been put forth to justify belief in my mind. How is this position intellectually dishonest? If anything, the theistic position seems to be much more intellectually dishonest, as it posits unverifiable claims as undeniably true. I can't think of much of anything that could be more intellectually dishonest than that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

]I actually think being an atheist is intellectually dishonest and narrow minded, not stupid.

Why? How?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Athiest - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

]I actually think being an atheist is intellectually dishonest and narrow minded, not stupid.

Why? How?

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

That is roughly it. I would add that I have evidence that God does exist, and that, as a working hypothesis, a belief in God explains more than disbelief does. My evidence may not be enough to convince everyone, but anyone who is open minded will admit that there is enough stuff they do not know that there could be evidence somewhere that would provide proof that god actually is real.

 

[Dr Grump]

]I actually think being an atheist is intellectually dishonest and narrow minded, not stupid.

Why? How?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Athiest - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

Maybe open minded. But I'm thinking I'm honest in believing there is no such thing.

For a such a being to exist - and let's face it, we're not talking about some microscopic insect or somesuch but the mother/father of all that we are - I would expect at least a little bit of physical evidence to be around.

At the end of the day, and at the risk of sounding like I am back in primary school (where I first asked this question). If he/she exists, why not show themselves? The "he/she shouldn't have to" or "why should they" is just a cop out invented by priests, cardinals, imans, rabbis, popes when they had no answer to the question. Always has been, always will be (a cop out).

 

[Dr Grump]

Why? How?

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

That is roughly it. I would add that I have evidence that God does exist, and that, as a working hypothesis, a belief in God explains more than disbelief does. My evidence may not be enough to convince everyone, but anyone who is open minded will admit that there is enough stuff they do not know that there could be evidence somewhere that would provide proof that god actually is real.

The amount of 'stuff' unknown and inexplanable (although attributed to a god - thunder and lightening come to mind) 2000 years ago has diminished quite markedly over the past two milleniums. To use that as a yardstick (the bolded part) hardly enhances your argument (IMO)...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? How?

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

I get the narrow minded part...that explains your explanation, but intellectually dishonest? I disagree. In fact, I would say it is intellectually honest because there is absolutely not one varifiable shread of evidence that there is a god...any type of god. There is only faith.....That's it.

Most other things I believe in are pretty provable. I believe aeroplanes can fly. Not just because i see them, but I understand the rudamentary mechanics.

I believe oxygen is what humans breath. Can't see it, but there is enough scientific evidence and experiments to prove this is so.

I could go on...

I have seen people that were changed by God, I have felt Him in my own life. It is very easy for people to dismiss the evidence that believers present, but that is not proof that He does not. Have you ever sat down and listened to a believer who was both willing and able to articulate the reasons that they believe? Have you ever examined any of the evidence, or do you simply reject it by assigning a standard that you do not actually hold science to, rejecting anything less than absolute proof?

There is no verifiable evidence that dark matter exist either, yet, if it does not, the universe does not work. Every experiment that has tried to prove that it exists has failed, yet physicists still believe it because, as a working hypothesis, it explains more than any other hypothesis out there.

What you fail to understand is that faith is part of the evidence that God is real. Your problem exists because you think faith means there is no proof, it doesn't. Faith is just believing the evidence, not blindly believing something.

 

[Lokiate]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this?

With the exception of being persecuted and oppressed, which require giving a shit about others opinions of me, yes. However, that's because I'm a ruthless prick, not because of my personal beliefs.

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love.

I prefer Capitalism, but ok.

So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?

People talk shit about Capitalism all the time, it doesn't bother me one bit.

What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group?

You mean like the Red Chinese, and hippies? **** 'em.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what?

I make complaint when one religion is favored over any other religion, or lack thereof, present in state/government run institutions. It's a violation of peoples First Amendment rights.

Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy.

Bullshit. There's no public prayer. Individuals are allowed to pray all they want, they can even have bible studies during their free time with other Christians at school if they want, as per their First Amendment rights.

how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.

It depends entirely on intent, and the employers actions. If the guy is just down with Jesus, and just has a bunch of crosses here and there, no, he isn't subject to punitive actions. If they guy is going around, telling people they need to "get right with Jesus", and being a smug asshole about it, then yeah, it falls under discrimination.

So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?

Because some people take shit too far, and violate others rights because they follow the "wrong religions", or need to be "saved". **** that shit.

Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith?

Because, if they're anything like me, they do it for the lulz. Don't be a *****, accept the fact that haters gon hate, and roll with it.

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Never, because atheists have the right to voice their opinion just as much as any other. Can't accept it, too ******* bad. I take a lot of shit too, it's called the game, and I play that shit like a beast.

The real irony here, is that a guy that's telling us to stop bitching and complaining has an avatar that's bitching and complaining about people blaming '******' for shit. Cry more, cry me a river so I have an excuse to buy a kayak, just so I can say I went kayaking in a desert.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

I get the narrow minded part...that explains your explanation, but intellectually dishonest? I disagree. In fact, I would say it is intellectually honest because there is absolutely not one varifiable shread of evidence that there is a god...any type of god. There is only faith.....That's it.

Most other things I believe in are pretty provable. I believe aeroplanes can fly. Not just because i see them, but I understand the rudamentary mechanics.

I believe oxygen is what humans breath. Can't see it, but there is enough scientific evidence and experiments to prove this is so.

I could go on...

I have seen people that were changed by God, I have felt Him in my own life. It is very easy for people to dismiss the evidence that believers present, but that is not proof that He does not. Have you ever sat down and listened to a believer who was both willing and able to articulate the reasons that they believe? Have you ever examined any of the evidence, or do you simply reject it by assigning a standard that you do not actually hold science to, rejecting anything less than absolute proof?

There is no verifiable evidence that dark matter exist either, yet, if it does not, the universe does not work. Every experiment that has tried to prove that it exists has failed, yet physicists still believe it because, as a working hypothesis, it explains more than any other hypothesis out there.

What you fail to understand is that faith is part of the evidence that God is real. Your problem exists because you think faith means there is no proof, it doesn't. Faith is just believing the evidence, not blindly believing something.

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....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? How?

Athiest - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

Maybe open minded. But I'm thinking I'm honest in believing there is no such thing.

For a such a being to exist - and let's face it, we're not talking about some microscopic insect or somesuch but the mother/father of all that we are - I would expect at least a little bit of physical evidence to be around.

At the end of the day, and at the risk of sounding like I am back in primary school (where I first asked this question). If he/she exists, why not show themselves? The "he/she shouldn't have to" or "why should they" is just a cop out invented by priests, cardinals, imans, rabbis, popes when they had no answer to the question. Always has been, always will be (a cop out).

If we define God as a being that created the entire universe, what would you expect Him to leave laying around? Some parts that do not fit?



That probably wasn't the best way to make my point, but I do have a sense of humor. It is, however, a serious question. What evidence would God leave behind? What makes you think God does not show Himself? Is it possible you have looked at the evidence that God left behind and misinterpreted it? Is it possible that you have even looked at Him directly and not seen Him?

 

[Dr Grump]

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

Maybe open minded. But I'm thinking I'm honest in believing there is no such thing.

For a such a being to exist - and let's face it, we're not talking about some microscopic insect or somesuch but the mother/father of all that we are - I would expect at least a little bit of physical evidence to be around.

At the end of the day, and at the risk of sounding like I am back in primary school (where I first asked this question). If he/she exists, why not show themselves? The "he/she shouldn't have to" or "why should they" is just a cop out invented by priests, cardinals, imans, rabbis, popes when they had no answer to the question. Always has been, always will be (a cop out).

If we define God as a being that created the entire universe, what would you expect Him to leave laying around? Some parts that do not fit?



That probably wasn't the best way to make my point, but I do have a sense of humor. It is, however, a serious question. What evidence would God leave behind? What makes you think God does not show Himself? Is it possible you have looked at the evidence that God left behind and misinterpreted it? Is it possible that you have even looked at Him directly and not seen Him?

Hey look, without getting into the why for's and where to's etc, it's not that hard to do. You may see a beautiful sunset as evidence, or a baby's smile, to which I say, what about the desolute wasteland that has been created by a volcano, or a baby born with no arms or legs?

To say these things, is nothing more than a slight of hand. It's not that hard to stand up and be counted and say "I am the creator". I'm telling you right now, if some supreme being or god stumped up and brought somebody back to life or changed 5 loaves of bread into 5000 or walked on water, or cured cancer or half a dozen things, that let's face, wouldn't be that hard to pull of for such a being, then I would be impressed....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know why he said that, but I would presume it has something to do with the fact that it's impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe it all you want, but there just isnt evidence to support it. And lack of evidence is no evidence. The only way you could know that there is no God is if you knew everything in the Universe or in other words, if you were God.

I would think that the more intellectually honest position would be admit that you dont know whether there is a God or not, but leave the possibility open. The main problem I have with agnosticism personally that many falsely presume that there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not and if they don't know no one else can know.

There was a point in my life when I didn't know whether there was a God. I don't know if I'd qualify myself as agnostic at that point. But I know I didn't know. But when the Lord reveals Himself it's difficult to deny and remain honest. Personally, Id rather be honest and look the fool than be a liar and remove all doubt.

But that's beside the point. Im sure he can elaborate more if I'm wrong about what he was thinking.

That is roughly it. I would add that I have evidence that God does exist, and that, as a working hypothesis, a belief in God explains more than disbelief does. My evidence may not be enough to convince everyone, but anyone who is open minded will admit that there is enough stuff they do not know that there could be evidence somewhere that would provide proof that god actually is real.

The amount of 'stuff' unknown and inexplanable (although attributed to a god - thunder and lightening come to mind) 2000 years ago has diminished quite markedly over the past two milleniums. To use that as a yardstick (the bolded part) hardly enhances your argument (IMO)...

Actually, the more we have learned over the years, the more we have realized how little we know. There was a profound belief in the scientific community in the middle to late 19th century that had discovered everything it was possible to know. Guess what, they were wrong.

Instead of trying to force me to defend a God of the gaps, and pointing out that there are fewer gaps to hide him in, you should remember that we actually have more places to look for evidence of God than we did 2000 years ago. Not only did we not understand lightning back then, we did not even know that there were single celled organisms, other galaxies, molecules and atoms, the entire realm of quantum physics, or the real possibility that there are more than 4 dimensions. The more science learns, the more places we can actually look for God's fingerprints.

 

[Dr Grump]

That is roughly it. I would add that I have evidence that God does exist, and that, as a working hypothesis, a belief in God explains more than disbelief does. My evidence may not be enough to convince everyone, but anyone who is open minded will admit that there is enough stuff they do not know that there could be evidence somewhere that would provide proof that god actually is real.

The amount of 'stuff' unknown and inexplanable (although attributed to a god - thunder and lightening come to mind) 2000 years ago has diminished quite markedly over the past two milleniums. To use that as a yardstick (the bolded part) hardly enhances your argument (IMO)...

Actually, the more we have learned over the years, the more we have realized how little we know. There was a profound belief in the scientific community in the middle to late 19th century that had discovered everything it was possible to know. Guess what, they were wrong.

Instead of trying to force me to defend a God of the gaps, and pointing out that there are fewer gaps to hide him in, you should remember that we actually have more places to look for evidence of God than we did 2000 years ago. Not only did we not understand lightning back then, we did not even know that there were single celled organisms, other galaxies, molecules and atoms, the entire realm of quantum physics, or the real possibility that there are more than 4 dimensions. The more science learns, the more places we can actually look for God's fingerprints.

I see the more evidence we uncover as proof that it was nature and not a god that is responsible for the universe (edited)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I get the narrow minded part...that explains your explanation, but intellectually dishonest? I disagree. In fact, I would say it is intellectually honest because there is absolutely not one varifiable shread of evidence that there is a god...any type of god. There is only faith.....That's it.

Most other things I believe in are pretty provable. I believe aeroplanes can fly. Not just because i see them, but I understand the rudamentary mechanics.

I believe oxygen is what humans breath. Can't see it, but there is enough scientific evidence and experiments to prove this is so.

I could go on...

I have seen people that were changed by God, I have felt Him in my own life. It is very easy for people to dismiss the evidence that believers present, but that is not proof that He does not. Have you ever sat down and listened to a believer who was both willing and able to articulate the reasons that they believe? Have you ever examined any of the evidence, or do you simply reject it by assigning a standard that you do not actually hold science to, rejecting anything less than absolute proof?

There is no verifiable evidence that dark matter exist either, yet, if it does not, the universe does not work. Every experiment that has tried to prove that it exists has failed, yet physicists still believe it because, as a working hypothesis, it explains more than any other hypothesis out there.

What you fail to understand is that faith is part of the evidence that God is real. Your problem exists because you think faith means there is no proof, it doesn't. Faith is just believing the evidence, not blindly believing something.

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?

 

[syrenn]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

I will assume that this is some of your independent logic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe open minded. But I'm thinking I'm honest in believing there is no such thing.

For a such a being to exist - and let's face it, we're not talking about some microscopic insect or somesuch but the mother/father of all that we are - I would expect at least a little bit of physical evidence to be around.

At the end of the day, and at the risk of sounding like I am back in primary school (where I first asked this question). If he/she exists, why not show themselves? The "he/she shouldn't have to" or "why should they" is just a cop out invented by priests, cardinals, imans, rabbis, popes when they had no answer to the question. Always has been, always will be (a cop out).

If we define God as a being that created the entire universe, what would you expect Him to leave laying around? Some parts that do not fit?



That probably wasn't the best way to make my point, but I do have a sense of humor. It is, however, a serious question. What evidence would God leave behind? What makes you think God does not show Himself? Is it possible you have looked at the evidence that God left behind and misinterpreted it? Is it possible that you have even looked at Him directly and not seen Him?

Hey look, without getting into the why for's and where to's etc, it's not that hard to do. You may see a beautiful sunset as evidence, or a baby's smile, to which I say, what about the desolute wasteland that has been created by a volcano, or a baby born with no arms or legs?

To say these things, is nothing more than a slight of hand. It's not that hard to stand up and be counted and say "I am the creator". I'm telling you right now, if some supreme being or god stumped up and brought somebody back to life or changed 5 loaves of bread into 5000 or walked on water, or cured cancer or half a dozen things, that let's face, wouldn't be that hard to pull of for such a being, then I would be impressed....

Where did I point to a sunset or the smile of a baby as evidence of anything? Thank you for proving to others here that I am right about you being close minded and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have seen people that were changed by God, I have felt Him in my own life. It is very easy for people to dismiss the evidence that believers present, but that is not proof that He does not. Have you ever sat down and listened to a believer who was both willing and able to articulate the reasons that they believe? Have you ever examined any of the evidence, or do you simply reject it by assigning a standard that you do not actually hold science to, rejecting anything less than absolute proof?

There is no verifiable evidence that dark matter exist either, yet, if it does not, the universe does not work. Every experiment that has tried to prove that it exists has failed, yet physicists still believe it because, as a working hypothesis, it explains more than any other hypothesis out there.

What you fail to understand is that faith is part of the evidence that God is real. Your problem exists because you think faith means there is no proof, it doesn't. Faith is just believing the evidence, not blindly believing something.

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'....

 

[Dr Grump]

If we define God as a being that created the entire universe, what would you expect Him to leave laying around? Some parts that do not fit?



That probably wasn't the best way to make my point, but I do have a sense of humor. It is, however, a serious question. What evidence would God leave behind? What makes you think God does not show Himself? Is it possible you have looked at the evidence that God left behind and misinterpreted it? Is it possible that you have even looked at Him directly and not seen Him?

Hey look, without getting into the why for's and where to's etc, it's not that hard to do. You may see a beautiful sunset as evidence, or a baby's smile, to which I say, what about the desolute wasteland that has been created by a volcano, or a baby born with no arms or legs?

To say these things, is nothing more than a slight of hand. It's not that hard to stand up and be counted and say "I am the creator". I'm telling you right now, if some supreme being or god stumped up and brought somebody back to life or changed 5 loaves of bread into 5000 or walked on water, or cured cancer or half a dozen things, that let's face, wouldn't be that hard to pull of for such a being, then I would be impressed....

Where did I point to a sunset or the smile of a baby as evidence of anything? Thank you for proving to others here that I am right about you being close minded and intellectually dishonest.

I have heard that argument many times from those who believe in a god as evidence..

Huh? How is that even close to being close-minded or intellectually dishonest? Ok, stump up - bring forward your evidence. Be intellectually honest.... be open-minded....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey look, without getting into the why for's and where to's etc, it's not that hard to do. You may see a beautiful sunset as evidence, or a baby's smile, to which I say, what about the desolute wasteland that has been created by a volcano, or a baby born with no arms or legs?

To say these things, is nothing more than a slight of hand. It's not that hard to stand up and be counted and say "I am the creator". I'm telling you right now, if some supreme being or god stumped up and brought somebody back to life or changed 5 loaves of bread into 5000 or walked on water, or cured cancer or half a dozen things, that let's face, wouldn't be that hard to pull of for such a being, then I would be impressed....

Where did I point to a sunset or the smile of a baby as evidence of anything? Thank you for proving to others here that I am right about you being close minded and intellectually dishonest.

I have heard that argument many times from those who believe in a god as evidence..

Huh? How is that even close to being close-minded or intellectually dishonest? Ok, stump up - bring forward your evidence. Be intellectually honest.... be open-minded....

You do not think is intellectually dishonest to throw up strawmen? You don't think it is close minded to expect me to resort to arguments based on emotion when I have been articulating solid points that are based on everything but emotion?