A Question for Atheists

[AskTheFamily]

The existence of material world (matter has real substance) is not proven. It maybe that only spiritual existence exists and matter is experienced by our senses but has no real substance.

3d Space maybe something we experience, but not real indicator of reality.

 

[awitch]

It is not my goal to prove the existence of God. Only to prove the possibility of the existence of God.

Why? What does that accomplish?

(not bothering to comment on the rest)

 

[Tuddrussell]

I don't know why I'm even asking this but what would you consider evidence? Scientific reports by atheist scientists that they are wrong and God and the supernatural exists? Good luck with that.

Empirical evidence, nothing less will do.

As for these events being unexplained, that is the point. If you can't explain these events, then you have proven my point. It is not my goal to prove the existence of God. Only to prove the possibility of the existence of God. The possibility of the existence of God is already scientific fact.

The fact that they are unexplained proves nothing. If their explanation was that god did it, that would be different.

As it stands the god hypothesis is just that, unless it can be proven it is just one of many possibilities.

The possibility of god/s existing was never in doubt, if that is your goal it was a needless one. You said you had evidence, you dont. That was a lie, and you are a liar.

The rest of your post was a hypothesis, if it becomes a theory then I'll take it seriously. Prove it, if you can't then that settles it. We can both move on with our lives.

Either admit you cannot prove it, or provide evidence. If you refuse to do that, then this conversation is over.

It was fun while it lasted!

 

[norswede]

Why? What does that accomplish?

(not bothering to comment on the rest)

1. If you can't come up with an intelligent response, just admit it.

2. You claim you believe in gods. What do you believe them to be and why do you believe in them if you can't prove their existence?

3. My goal is not to prove the existence of God because that's pointless. I know he exists, I have experienced him in more ways than I can count. I am on here for 4 reasons.

a) to spread the message to those who wish to hear it

b) to answer real questions from those who's purpose is to genuinely try to understand Christianity (Not those who's only goal is to waste their time trying to get Christians to scramble around for evidence that will never be good enough)

c) to learn more about other religions

d) to hopefully convince people that I have a right to believe what I do and should not be forced to accept theories that have no more validity than what I believe (hence proving the possibility of the existence of God rather than the actual existence which because he is energy, can only be proven through those who's minds are open to receiving his energy)

If you are really arrogant enough to think that I am willing to waste hours and days of my time doing everything in my power just to convince you that God exists, then you should look in the mirror and remind yourself that you are not God.

 

[norswede]

Empirical evidence, nothing less will do.

The fact that they are unexplained proves nothing. If their explanation was that god did it, that would be different.

As it stands the god hypothesis is just that, unless it can be proven it is just one of many possibilities.

The possibility of god/s existing was never in doubt, if that is your goal it was a needless one. You said you had evidence, you dont. That was a lie, and you are a liar.

The rest of your post was a hypothesis, if it becomes a theory then I'll take it seriously. Prove it, if you can't then that settles it. We can both move on with our lives.

Either admit you cannot prove it, or provide evidence. If you refuse to do that, then this conversation is over.

It was fun while it lasted!

It certainly was, but while you obviously have no life other than to demean and bully Christians like a kid saying "If you go get me some ice cream I'll be your friend....tee hee sorry, I wanted Chocolate....Tee hee sorry, I meant dark chocolate....tee hee sorry, I wanted brownie chunks....tee hee isn't it funny watching that idiot run? We'll never be his friend anyway "

Come on, get a life and stop picking on people who's only reason for arguing with you in the first place is to help you. If we didn't care we wouldn't degrade ourselves by playing your game but from the looks of it, you're a lost cause so all I can do is pray for you and leave the rest to God.

 

[Tuddrussell]

to hopefully convince people that I have a right to believe what I do and should not be forced to accept theories that have no more validity than what I believe.

Does anyone here deny that you have that right? I certainly don't.

Your views are not any more or less valid than any other religion. They are all pretty much equally unproven.

Science, and scientific theories are not religons. They have evidence, and are falsifiable. If you don't like what science has to say about something, then it is your duty to do something about it. Find evidence, compose a suitable counter theory, and enlighten us!

Theories are by definition well supported by empiricle evidence, if they were not then they would be hypotheses. A theory is definately more valid than your hypothesis. Just as all theories are more valid than all hypotheses.

If you do not like that, then make your hypothesis into a theory. I sincerely wish you luck in that endevour should you seek it. I am not afraid of the truth, if I am wrong then by all means show me the light.

It certainly was, but while you obviously have no life other than to demean and bully Christians like a kid saying "If you go get me some ice cream I'll be your friend....tee hee sorry, I wanted Chocolate....Tee hee sorry, I meant dark chocolate....tee hee sorry, I wanted brownie chunks....tee hee isn't it funny watching that idiot run? We'll never be his friend anyway.

I've been saying if you bring me ice cream I'll be your friend, every single time you've only brought me shaved ice. Similar, but fundamentally different and definately not what I ordered. I have only ever asked for evidence, I have never once said "This evidence is good, but I need a different sort of evidence." You have never brought me evidence, you brought me assertions and told me it was evidence.

Come on, get a life and stop picking on people who's only reason for arguing with you in the first place is to help you. If we didn't care we wouldn't degrade ourselves by playing your game but from the looks of it, you're a lost cause so all I can do is pray for you and leave the rest to God.

You are the one playing the game. I genuinely want to be proven wrong, but you can't do so. You can't even prove yourself right.

If you want to play the game, know the rules.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ignoring me norswede?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

b) to answer real questions from those who's purpose is to genuinely try to understand Christianity

But what kind of Christianity? I mean there are people, like me, who have a somewhat positive, or at least not out-and-out bad image of Christianity and then ...


As an aside:

hence proving the possibility of the existence of God rather than the actual existence

None of what you are doing is actually going into even just that direction. You would have to start with a proper concept, or something. Next step, quite important but often overlooked, is to get other people to agree that your concept is somewhat under contemplation, before you continue to whereever you are going. Michaels "An Empirical Theory of God" in the "Physical & Life Sciences" section, totally fails at that step, for example. At least from my POV. And a bunch of wild eyed 'miracle' claims do so too, incidentally; at best, in case hell freeze over, you'd end up with something odd, out of the ordinary as currently understood.

 

[Erfan777]

It certainly was, but while you obviously have no life other than to demean and bully Christians like a kid saying "If you go get me some ice cream I'll be your friend....tee hee sorry, I wanted Chocolate....Tee hee sorry, I meant dark chocolate....tee hee sorry, I wanted brownie chunks....tee hee isn't it funny watching that idiot run? We'll never be his friend anyway "

Come on, get a life and stop picking on people who's only reason for arguing with you in the first place is to help you. If we didn't care we wouldn't degrade ourselves by playing your game but from the looks of it, you're a lost cause so all I can do is pray for you and leave the rest to God.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[SithDoughnut]

3. My goal is not to prove the existence of God because that's pointless. I know he exists, I have experienced him in more ways than I can count. I am on here for 4 reasons.

a) to spread the message to those who wish to hear it

b) to answer real questions from those who's purpose is to genuinely try to understand Christianity (Not those who's only goal is to waste their time trying to get Christians to scramble around for evidence that will never be good enough)

c) to learn more about other religions

d) to hopefully convince people that I have a right to believe what I do and should not be forced to accept theories that have no more validity than what I believe (hence proving the possibility of the existence of God rather than the actual existence which because he is energy, can only be proven through those who's minds are open to receiving his energy)

Which of those 4 aims is this thread working towards? Because the only one it could possibly fit is C and that's stretching it, given your attitude here.

You have a right to believe what you do, everyone respects that. You can accept whatever you wish, just don't expect everyone else to agree with you, or give your thoughts equal space to tried and tested ideas.

 

[awitch]

1. If you can't come up with an intelligent response, just admit it.

There is no intelligent response to the rest of that post.

2. You claim you believe in gods. What do you believe them to be and why do you believe in them if you can't prove their existence?

Personal experience. Which I am happy to admit is not at all convincing to anyone else. I don't expect it to be. But then again, I'm not trying to convince anyone they exist. I have no need to.

a) to spread the message to those who wish to hear it

Quite the leap to go from "there may or may not be gods" to believing in all the details associated with your particular god. Don't expect that to happen.

b) to answer real questions from those who's purpose is to genuinely try to understand Christianity (Not those who's only goal is to waste their time trying to get Christians to scramble around for evidence that will never be good enough)

I usually demand evidence when Christians demand an acknowledgement or seek to impose Christianity on those who are not Christian.

c) to learn more about other religions

Stick around. There is much to learn.

d) to hopefully convince people that I have a right to believe what I do and should not be forced to accept theories that have no more validity than what I believe

I want the same thing!
I do not try to impose my faith on others, but many Christians do; and some of them are militant about it. Some of them are very open about the need for Christians to run the country, and the need to suppress non-Christians.

I'm not talking about the lunatic fringe either. The lunatic fringe is Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church and Warren Jeffs of the Church of Latter Day Saints who hole themselves up in their little compounds with their multiple child brides.

The ones I'm talking about are wealthy and politically influential and are Senators and running for Presidential office in the US.

It certainly was, but while you obviously have no life other than to demean and bully Christians like a kid saying "If you go get me some ice cream I'll be your friend....tee hee sorry, I wanted Chocolate....Tee hee sorry, I meant dark chocolate....tee hee sorry, I wanted brownie chunks....tee hee isn't it funny watching that idiot run? We'll never be his friend anyway "

I am friends with many Christians. If it bothers you when people demand evidence, then be honest and say that you have none but your personal experience and lose the expectation that they will accept it. You will in more respect and endless demands for more evidence.

Oh, and the Christian persecution complex is really old. I know you're in Canada, but Christians are still privileged in the US, so no sympathy for you.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I know I'm a bit late, but I'd like to address the OP:

Atheists don't understand why Christians believe in God based on Faith in what the Bible says even with the thousands if not millions of reports around the world where individuals and groups of people have experienced phenomena that can't be explained by science.

1. Do you believe that you can read the minds of atheists - ALL atheists, everywhere - or do you extrapolate after having a couple of atheists tell you: "I do not understand why Christians believe in God"?
2. How do "phenomena that can't be explained by science" point to the kind of personal deity that you'd postulate? Has it never occurred to you that these phenomena could point to a myriad of other things that we just haven't discovered yet?
3. Do you think that science is somewhat interchangeable with atheism? If so, does it bother you greatly that the majority of scientists (including those who do research in the field of evolutionary biology) are theists?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Atheists don't understand why Christians believe in God based on Faith in what the Bible says even with the thousands if not millions of reports around the world where individuals and groups of people have experienced phenomena that can't be explained by science. I have 3 questions for you:

(the big type is because a few here have complained they can't read the default size)

I'm not aware of research showing that atheists understand Christianity less well than Christians do. I was an Evangelical Christian for ten years, a Bible study leader for one, before returning to atheism.

Does the Bible explain those millions of reports of phenomena that can't be explained by science?

And if they can't be explained by science then what method do you propose to investigate them, or just not to investigate them at all.

A number of scientists take an active role in investigating things that are not (yet?) within the realm of science. IIRC Carl Sagan have spent a lot of time reading UFO abduction reports but found nothing of value in any of them as all contained no information about anything that would happen in the future or would be discovered in the future or anything not yet known that woud be useful.

The 66 book and other Bibles have been looked at in the same way as have the other holy texts with the same result.

1. Do you understand and have you seen for yourself proof of all the scientific claims you believe in or do you assume they are true because the media reports it or because Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking tell you it is so?

Do you have faith in the newspapers, TV and other media?
I don't. I don't have a TV or buy newspapers. I am more sceptical than you are.

2. If not, then why do you automatically believe the scientists as soon as they tell you something is true even when they have been proven in the past to falsify information such as mixing bones of different species together in order to attempt to prove their agenda

There are some dishonest people practicing science, I doubt if the proportion begins to approach the proportion of dishonest people who are prominent Christians. In the Christian Union at University, most, including the President are now no longer believers. His explanation of how he could say what he did was that 'it seemed real at the time'. Now he has moved into ... politics. Another brilliant place for people with an honesty deficit.

and even though not all scientists agree on any one topic?

In the churches I've been in I have never met two Christians who agreed on the basic points of their theologies.

3. How do you know that everything science claims is true is in fact the whole picture when every scientific discovery has to go through peer review by top scientists before it is even publicized. Imagine for a moment that solid evidence of the existence of God or evidence that disproves evolution were to be discovered. Do you have enough "Faith" in your scientists that they would say "Wow, look we were wrong all along and the Christians were right. Let's admit we were wrong and rewrite all of the science books to include God and Creationism." There have been many cases of Christian scientists or scientists who have become Christians after they made discoveries that disprove evolution or other scientific theories or that prove stories from the Bible to be true who have lost their jobs because they spoke out about these discoveries and of course no one believes them because they find scientists who have everything to lose if they go against current scientific theories more credible than those who have lost their jobs over revealing the truth. Yet many of the proven scientific hoaxes managed to get through peer review because they furthered their agenda. Think about it.[/quote]

No one has ever disproven evolution. Do you really think in these days where anyone can publish anything on the Internet, and there is huge Fundamentalist movement in the United States hungry for evidence against evolution, and yes, I know a PhD biologist who insists on teaching creationism along with science,

do you really think with that much public demand that peer review can actually stop something that big from being published?

If so then I have these two magnets which if arranged correctly with the right gears and levers will give you unlimited free energy.

 

[dewaddict84]

Atheists don't understand why Christians believe in God

I think I have a pretty good idea about why christians believe what they do. It's mostly tradition and sociology.

...thousands if not millions of reports around the world where individuals and groups of people have experienced phenomena that can't be explained by science.

I'd like you to post links to those reports. Of course, we still can't fully explain gravity... so... I guess this could be true in a weaselly sort of way.

1. Do you understand and have you seen for yourself proof of all the scientific claims you believe in or do you assume they are true because the media reports it or because Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking tell you it is so?

The ones that I believe in? Yeah, I understand them. I ALSO have a decent amount of
faith in the majority of the scientific claims out there. That's mostly due to science's track record and my philosophical belief in the process. EVEN THEN, I know that parts of the current theories aren't quire right, and that we will be constantly and forever be updated and refined.

2. If not, then why do you automatically believe the scientists as soon as they tell you something is true even when they have been proven in the past to falsify information such as mixing bones of different species together in order to attempt to prove their agenda and even though not all scientists agree on any one topic?

I trust the process to weed out the liers and cheats. Indeed, you only have heard stories about the bad anthropologists because, wait for it, other scientists proved them wrong.
As for consensus. Yeah, you're never going to get all the crazy nutjobs to agree, but you don't need that. All you need is the vast majority of the people that matter.

3. How do you know that everything science claims is true is in fact the whole picture

It's not. And it doesn't claim to be. Ok. We know that things fall down, right? That's a scientific principle. And it's mostly true. But "down" is redefined in space. So the theory about how gravity works was tweaked by Newton and his laws. But his refined definition of gravity doesn't say squat about quantum mechanics. With time and progress the theories will get better and better. The theory "things fall down" is still true, but it's not the whole truth.

Imagine for a moment that solid evidence of the existence of God or evidence that disproves evolution were to be discovered. Do you have enough "Faith" in your scientists that they would say "Wow, look we were wrong all along and the Christians were right. Let's admit we were wrong and rewrite all of the science books to include God and Creationism."

Yes. But that's just silly. It's is AS SILLY as solid evidence showing up proving that Pastafarians are correct and his great noodly appendage is real and we really do get a beer volcano after we die.

There have been many cases of Christian scientists or scientists who have become Christians after they made discoveries that disprove evolution

Source that.

Actually, yeah, you're going to have to source every sentence after that point as well.

After giving it a thought, you're assuming you're right and asking a bunch of leading questions to that effect.

 

[dewaddict84]

Come on, get a life and stop picking on people who's only reason for arguing with you in the first place is to help you.

You're original post was unabashedly assaulting science.
It's only trying to make progress and make the world a better place.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You're original post was unabashedly assaulting science.
It's only trying to make progress and make the world a better place.

Science is just the means the Devil uses to steal away the souls of any who are easily deceived.

Electricity is Satan incarnate. It allows metal to make sparks and that is the way of Zoroastrianism. In the Indo-Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism the ability of flint to make sparks made rocks sacred as the place fire lived, as well as fire itself.

The people of God need to come apart from this evil generation and do what is right rather than just do what they feel like: 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked'

The Bible tells of a great flood and the need for an Ark and pairs of all the animals saved in it. If it had been a local flood they would have not spent 100 years building the Ark but just left the area. Science tells us the Flood didn't happen, that there are ice cores in the Antarctic going back 900,000 years and regular sediment layers going back way before that.

The Bible tells us that God made the human ancestors of all humans alive today. Science says we have ancestors called homo erectus and apes before that and fish before that. The Bible tells us there were fruit bearing trees before there were fish in the seas, science tells us that the coelacanth fish existed 400 million years ago and flowering plants at most 250 million years ago. Anyone who says that science basically supports the Bible is lacking in sufficient knowledge of either one or the other.

How can science agree with scripture when it doesn't take scripture as authoritative?

Either the Bible is right or science is right, you must choose between them which one you will believe.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

Make your choice which is the ultimate authority - the Word of God or the wise-sounding words of man.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Words have no authority, only deeds. What has God done for us lately? Either way the words of man can actually be heard, which is a plus.

 

[Non sequitur]

Science is just the means the Devil uses to steal away the souls of any who are easily deceived.

Electricity is Satan incarnate. It allows metal to make sparks and that is the way of Zoroastrianism. In the Indo-Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism the ability of flint to make sparks made rocks sacred as the place fire lived, as well as fire itself.

The people of God need to come apart from this evil generation and do what is right rather than just do what they feel like: 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked'

The Bible tells of a great flood and the need for an Ark and pairs of all the animals saved in it. If it had been a local flood they would have not spent 100 years building the Ark but just left the area. Science tells us the Flood didn't happen, that there are ice cores in the Antarctic going back 900,000 years and regular sediment layers going back way before that.

The Bible tells us that God made the human ancestors of all humans alive today. Science says we have ancestors called homo erectus and apes before that and fish before that. The Bible tells us there were fruit bearing trees before there were fish in the seas, science tells us that the coelacanth fish existed 400 million years ago and flowering plants at most 250 million years ago. Anyone who says that science basically supports the Bible is lacking in sufficient knowledge of either one or the other.

How can science agree with scripture when it doesn't take scripture as authoritative?

Either the Bible is right or science is right, you must choose between them which one you will believe.

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

Make your choice which is the ultimate authority - the Word of God or the wise-sounding words of man.

Poe?

 

[Tuddrussell]

Poe. No one who hates electricity would be on the web. Simple logic.

 

[Non sequitur]

Poe. No one who hates electricity would be on the web. Simple logic.

Lol, I'd think so.

(Especially when their occupation is listed as "Electrician"...)