Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[chris4243]

No, I'm simply define somebody who calls themselves an agnostic is in fact a weak atheist. The same definition applies to almost everyone who calls themselves 'atheist'.

Here's a thought, ask your average Christian if they can prove (even to themselves) that God exists, or whether they accept His existence by faith.

 

[chris4243]

As for the Bible, it is a collection of books which seem to hold much accurate historical data.

Not according to any modern historian. For example there's absolutely no evidence of the exodus.

I think the world accepts much of the old testament concerning how people migrated and which kings and pharaohs ruled around what times.

Argumentum ad populum. And would you be able to cite some sources for the rest of the claim?

In case you're wondering, it won't help your case to show your ignorance on a topic, nor to purposely exaggerate your stance to the point it looks ignorant. Lately I've been reading a historical/archeological bible that has a lot of very interesting things. For example, the claim that the Israelites worshiped Asherah is backed up by some artifacts and it seems that there might have been a merging of the Canaanite supreme god El with YAHWEH such that some have concluded that YAHWEH ended up with El's consort Asherah. Obviously also a lot of less interesting stuff concerning who was king when and about battles and cities.

If you feel the above is inaccurate, feel free to give a source for your claim that no modern historians think the Bible holds much accurate historical data.

 

[rjc34]

In case you're wondering, it won't help your case to show your ignorance on a topic, nor to purposely exaggerate your stance to the point it looks ignorant.

I was talking about the theological claims of the Bible. But the real historical information in the Bible is gleamed by historians and Bible scholars who don't use the modern version of the book, but go way back and research its origins.

My statements (probably should have clarified) are referencing the supernatural and otherwise claims in the Bible.

Lately I've been reading a historical/archeological bible that has a lot of very interesting things. For example, the claim that the Israelites worshiped Asherah is backed up by some artifacts and it seems that there might have been a merging of the Canaanite supreme god El with YAHWEH such that some have concluded that YAHWEH ended up with El's consort Asherah. Obviously also a lot of less interesting stuff concerning who was king when and about battles and cities.

It was just a few months ago I began researching this exact topic. It's fascinating stuff, eh? Cool to find another person on here who enjoys this sort of thing!

If you feel the above is inaccurate, feel free to give a source for your claim that no modern historians think the Bible holds much accurate historical data.

Just to clarify: my position is that there is definitely some valuable historical information to be gleamed from the bible (mostly the OT), but there are also a great many things for which the Bible is simply not a reliable historical source.

 

[rjc34]

Here's a thought, ask your average Christian if they can prove (even to themselves) that God exists, or whether they accept His existence by faith.

This would only have an effect if the person didn't believe faith was a virtue. And from what I've gathered, it's pretty much doctrine that faith is a virtue, so anyone who sees something wrong with believing through faith isn't really a Christian.

BTW, I know your little faith icon is non-denominational, but I'm curious as to how exactly you'd describe your beliefs?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?' Then you have The Big Bang but where did that come from?

Then you have 'Where did God come from?' How does that help? It only appears to solve problems by invoking magic instead of understanding.

Being naturalistic sounds hip

Hip? What, it will get me chicks? Why didn't anyone tell me?

but once we get to the edge of where we understand nature to be things get weird.

Yes, so? Nature is weird. Science can be challenging to understand. That doesn't mean that naturalism is mistaken.

Such as with String Theory. Do you consider those other dimensions, if they exist, as part of nature?

I lean towards loop quantum gravity theory, myself.

I don't believe in magic either but I think there is a lot more to 'it' than meets the eye.

Of course there is. That doesn't mean that what is more is supernatural.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wrong. It takes a whole lot of faith in being the follower of the guys that tell you atheism is sensible. Pure faith founded on emotionalism. Pessimism is hardly logic.

Say what?

Whatever are you talking about?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

It requires no faith to be agnostic. To admit you don't know is fine. But to say you believe there is no God is to make a statement of faith.

Ok, here´s an aspect that - as far as I can tell - hasn´t been brought up in the discussion and possibly helps you get a clearer view on why many agnostics also call themselves "atheists" (without explicitly stating that there´s no god and/or that they believe there is not god):

I have absolutely no clue whether god´s exist/s or not. However, I am exposed to claims that such entities exist. I am doing what I am always doing when someone makes a claim: I am waiting for him to provide evidence. Until such evidence is provided, I am withholding judgement.
But: for all practical purposes, I am not going to incorporate the idea that this so far unevidenced entity exists into my life.

IOW: I have no interest in claiming that no gods exist, but I have to lead my life, and I´ll do that based on that which there´s evidence for. This means: I live like there are no gods. I don´t practice any religion. I don´t worship any of those gods that are claimed to exist. I don´t look for a deity when it comes to determining ethical problems. I am not hoping for an afterlife. Etc. etc. (The atheistic life style, if you will).

This is the problem with agnosticism, in my opinion: It is the only intellectually honest position - but practically you still have to live like a theist (someone who lives like there is an unevidenced deity A, B, or C) or someone who, for all practical purposes, rejects faith in unevidenced entities, doesn´t live like a theist, and that makes you an atheist.

 

[quatona]

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil.

I wasn´t aware that being an atheist required me to have come to this conclusion. Thus, I am wondering whether and why you are so eager to side-track from your original question.

God makes sense.

You are welcome to show how it does.
Although demonstrating how your god concept makes sense would still be far from being evidence that this god exists, it would certainly be a step towards justifying your worldview.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil.

Of course you do, since you know so little about science. But when you learn what science is saying in depth, you will see that critical thinking is supportive of science.

Or that a tree can be from anything but the seed it was predestined from.

This is a good example of a lack of understanding of science. No scientist claims that trees don't come from seeds. Everything mature comes from something young.

You got me all wrong if you think throwing logic at me will make me scurry away.

We don't want you to scurry away. We want you to think and come to a proper understanding our views.

God makes sense.

What does "make sense" mean to you? All religions "make sense" to their believers. Consider this variety of creation stories:

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider Norse religion:

Norse mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Norse myth, the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the jötunn Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jötnar.

To the old Norse peoples, this made sense. It makes just as much sense as Adam being created from dust and Eve being created from one of Adam's ribs.

There is something much more important than "making sense", however, and that is critical thinking skills and the evidence to support one's views. Between toes, dust, armpits, ribs, and chemical reactions, there are scientific reasons to think that chemical reactions are the answer to the question of how life emerged.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Woden84]

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw

Even if that were true, should we all be drunk all the time as well? I know I'm much happier when drunk.

That old canard? When do we get the flying spaghetti monter routine?

When/if you try to get religion taught in science class is when you should be seeing the FSM(praise be upon his noodily appendages)

Wrong. It takes a whole lot of faith in being the follower of the guys that tell you atheism is sensible. Pure faith founded on emotionalism. Pessimism is hardly logic.

I am an immortal. Throughout time I have been known by many, many different names. A few of those being Zeus, Odin, Ra, YWYH, and Jesus.....so how much faith exactly did it take you to completely dismiss my unevidenced claim?

Dirt does not look like an accident bumping into other things in the dark making the situation that makes dirt. But alas atheism tells us just that.

Well, it's a good thing atheism tells us no such thing!

= nothing as its cause? Absurdity fashioned into the ancient cult of every religion without an origin story for their deity.

Fixed that for you.

Don't you guys just love it when theists rag on something else because of something that the theist himself holds true?

 

[Upisoft]

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil.

Yeah, critical thinking... I also fail to see it. Who is claiming it?

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't even get the atheists being happy/unhappy angle anyway. Personal, temporary emotional states have no bearing on the factuality of something.

Yep, reality can suck sometimes. Wear a helmet.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hm. After reading the posts by the Christians in this thread, I have come back to the same conclusion to which I most often arrive regarding why people believe in god.

Random Christian: "So, you just think it/we/everything all just came from nothing?"

This is the same thing I see repeatedly here, and in everyday life. Do you, my atheist and agnostic friends, think that I am correct in saying that some people have such a desperate need to know the origins of life and the universe that they feel that they have no other choice than to insert god as the originator simply because some answer is better than no answer? Are some people really so uncomfortable with the unknown? It honestly looks that way to me, but I have to ask, "Why?" What is so terribly wrong with not knowing? To me, in a way, it's a little exciting!

 

[Mling]

Hm. After reading the posts by the Christians in this thread, I have come back to the same conclusion to which I most often arrive regarding why people believe in god.

Random Christian: "So, you just think it/we/everything all just came from nothing?"

This is the same thing I see repeatedly here, and in everyday life. Do you, my atheist and agnostic friends, think that I am correct in saying that some people have such a desperate need to know the origins of life and the universe that they feel that they have no other choice than to insert god as the originator simply because some answer is better than no answer? Are some people really so uncomfortable with the unknown? It honestly looks that way to me, but I have to ask, "Why?" What is so terribly wrong with not knowing? To me, in a way, it's a little exciting!

I think that's ultimately part of it, but...consider the bravery and knowledge it takes to get to a point where that can feel exciting. If you've been told all your life that, without that knowledge, you'd become a murder and rapist, and probably start drinking baby blood as a midmorning snack...well, accepting that unknown and seeing how it affects you will probably take more bravery than the average person has.

It's the difference between sailing off into the ocean, not knowing where you're headed but understanding how to read the stars and a compass, vs. sailing into the unknown believing that you're heading straight into the mouth of a chaos demon.

You have to have built up scientific and moral muscle, first, and feel somewhat comfortable with the hypothetical idea that people can not know, and still be ok, before accepting the idea of not knowing as a reality.

 

[selfinflikted]

Very well said!

I think that's ultimately part of it, but...consider the bravery and knowledge it takes to get to a point where that can feel exciting. If you've been told all your life that, without that knowledge, you'd become a murder and rapist, and probably start drinking baby blood as a midmorning snack...well, accepting that unknown and seeing how it affects you will probably take more bravery than the average person has.

Yea, well I was basically told those things throughout my upbringing, but it's ridiculous notion to begin with. I try to do what I consider to be the right thing simply because it's the right thing.

Ya know, as an aside, I have learned --mostly the hard way-- that in life, it is much easier to do the "right" thing than not. The consequences of doing the "wrong" thing often tend to be far more of a hassle than the miniscule amount of "work" it would've taken to do the "right" thing to begin with.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yep, reality can suck sometimes. Wear a helmet.

Hah Mind if I steal this for my sig?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hm. After reading the posts by the Christians in this thread, I have come back to the same conclusion to which I most often arrive regarding why people believe in god.

Random Christian: "So, you just think it/we/everything all just came from nothing?"

This is the same thing I see repeatedly here, and in everyday life. Do you, my atheist and agnostic friends, think that I am correct in saying that some people have such a desperate need to know the origins of life and the universe that they feel that they have no other choice than to insert god as the originator simply because some answer is better than no answer? Are some people really so uncomfortable with the unknown? It honestly looks that way to me, but I have to ask, "Why?" What is so terribly wrong with not knowing? To me, in a way, it's a little exciting!

I agree with you wholeheartedly - people have an insatiable need to explain the unknown. So long as there's something between them and the terrible, yawning abyss, they're happy believing that the abyss simply doesn't exist.

 

[chris4243]

Hm. After reading the posts by the Christians in this thread, I have come back to the same conclusion to which I most often arrive regarding why people believe in god.

Random Christian: "So, you just think it/we/everything all just came from nothing?"

This is the same thing I see repeatedly here, and in everyday life. Do you, my atheist and agnostic friends, think that I am correct in saying that some people have such a desperate need to know the origins of life and the universe that they feel that they have no other choice than to insert god as the originator simply because some answer is better than no answer? Are some people really so uncomfortable with the unknown? It honestly looks that way to me, but I have to ask, "Why?" What is so terribly wrong with not knowing? To me, in a way, it's a little exciting!

Perhaps some of them, but I think that mostly it is an attempt to prove God. This is also why many are so hostile to when science attempts to explain these things (evolution, BB, etc), which would not make sense for someone who was afraid of the unknown but makes perfect sense for someone trying to prove something.

 

[selfinflikted]

Perhaps some of them, but I think that mostly it is an attempt to prove God. This is also why many are so hostile to when science attempts to explain these things (evolution, BB, etc), which would not make sense for someone who was afraid of the unknown but makes perfect sense for someone trying to prove something.

Well, of course knowledge is a threat to the belief in god. Ever heard the phrase "God of the Gaps"? As science fills in the holes in our knowledge base, things that were once attributed to god are then explained through natural phenomena. The bigger science grows, the smaller god gets - or so it seems.

If I put myself in the shoes of a believer, I would most likely feel threatened also.

 

[Hakan101]

Well, of course knowledge is a threat to the belief in god. Ever heard the phrase "God of the Gaps"? As science fills in the holes in our knowledge base, things that were once attributed to god are then explained through natural phenomena. The bigger science grows, the smaller god gets - or so it seems.

If I put myself in the shoes of a believer, I would most likely feel threatened also.

Care to explain this a little more? I don't see how anything we've learned cannot be attributed to God. Maybe some scientists don't attribute it to him, but science just seems to be the art of discovering God's constructive side, rather than his spiritual one.