It's 2019, not 1519.

[durangodawood]

Oh no. There is plenty of evidence. What you mean to say is that there is--in your opinion--no proof.

But whether or not any of us is convinced by the evidence is another matter. Some are and others are not.

Seems to me all the evidence is subjective. Testimonials, basically. I do put some stock in these. But I think its important to note the kind of evidence we're offering, or are looking for, in these discussions.

 

[Halbhh]

Seems to me all the evidence is subjective. Testimonials, basically. I do put some stock in these. But I think its important to note the kind of evidence we're offering, or are looking for, in these discussions.

And then there are the objective factual events and experiences some have witnessed or had happen to them first hand. But above I've pointed out those are not available before meeting divine requirements such as humility, faith, seeking. The leap of faith being akin in my experience to...sort of like jumping off a cliff, metaphorically. It's that...unreserved.

 

[lostinthought]

I doubt most people believed 30, 40, 50 years ago. When I grew up about 50 something years ago, it was routine and obvious to know that many of the people attending church did not actually believe in the miracles. I.e. -- didn't believe. One thing that has finally happened is that most of those that didn't believe don't attend any longer, because it's no longer required to attend a church in order to seem respectable in the eyes of common society.

So, the pretense of being respectable by simply attending church without believing is ended largely (not saying 100%; no doubt some in some areas are still in that).

While I'm happy to discuss with the entire range of all people, it's very good we can prevent the inevitable trolling, and also 2nd, the prosthelytizing for other religions in many areas of our forum here.

That's right, but since the commonplace insulting posts (which we do get in our open areas) aren't truly discussing, keeping those out of our own areas is wise and practical in my view. I'll answer your question in a separate post.

 

[Albion]

A number of posts ago, a member wondered aloud why forums for Atheists don't draw much interest from Theists. I opined that this may be because Theists have other spiritual interests and concerns to discuss, while Atheist posters are united only in being against God and so have little to debate among themselves, preferring instead to tell Theists how wrong they are to believe...and do it again and again and again.

Since then, we have basically been reading the evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Science tells us nothing more about the bible than:

If you go to the Harvard library there are hundreds of thousands of books that talk about science and every one of them confirms that the Bible is accurate and true. We could fill every book in the world with scientific evidence for the Bible and we would just be getting started. The reason I became a Christian is that I needed answers and solutions. Science was limited but the Bible is limitless or infinite. God has the answer for every question and the solution to every problem that we will ever encounter i life.

 

[lostinthought]

the first part of your premises is disingenuous because it really is not about agnosticism at all. when paired with the last part it's agenda is exposed which is regardless of your belief of God if one "follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god" So this is not about what one believes it is about what the trail of evidence points to. Let's be more transparent here, we are all adults.

All I seek is evidence for the god hypothesis. No evidence has, thus far, been presented and so, logically, the hypothesis has to be rejected until such time as there is.

Your premises can be boiled down to "I think therefore there is no god"... yes, it is hugely paraphrased but in the end, it comes down to your ability to reason and think to form these conclusions and that's where your error is.

No. I think therefore I require evidence to accept the god hypothesis and will not accept faith and claims as evidence of anything.

Your ability to think logically doesn't magically create or erase God. The notion of God does not depend on your understanding but you are forcing this which would be counter-theistic in nature. God does not need your approval in order to exist and if he did then he wouldn't be God.

You are correct, either god exists or he does not. This is regardless of what anyone thinks. That is logical but where is your proof that god doesn't need my approval? Not only do you need to prove this, but you first need to prove that god exists and you haven't proven this, have you!

so I reject the idea that our knowledge alone is the only factor in the existence of God. If there is a God he exists regardless of what we know or do not know. For example, we exist and are measured within a continuum (space, time, matter), to say this continuum was uncaused is illogical yet it is the answer science points to and where the trail of logic that you defend ends. is it not more logical to say something preexisting to the continuum would have caused it? If something is preexisting to the continuum it is outside of it and would be immeasurable by the standards inside the continuum.

You claim that WE exist. Actually, and to be precise, I can satisfy myself that I exist but I can't prove that you actually exist. You could be a figment of my imagination and there is no proof to the contrary. Matt Dilahunty does a superb video on this very point. One cannot go back in time, AFAIK, before the Planck time. Therefore to claim anything before this point is simply pointless since it is illogical to talk about the 'before the Planck time' since 'before' doesn't exist. To claim that it is god is therefore illogical and therefore incorrect. Science simply says, "it doesn't know" but to claim that Theists do is illogical and a lie.

 

[durangodawood]

If you go to the Harvard library there are hundreds of thousands of books that talk about science and every one of them confirms that the Bible is accurate and true....

If you keep on like this, the people youre trying to convince will simply dismiss you as utterly ignorant.

 

[klutedavid]

Before I begin, I'd like to state that I'm an Atheist.

As far as I can remember, although my parents were Theists, I have never been one. The thought of a god seems so improbably to me. It just makes no logical sense. As far as I am able to recall, I've always felt that a god was illogical and improbable.

I remember this one time at school I told one of the boys, that I considered a friend, that I didn't believe in god. I'm sure that there was a valid reason for telling him this but that is now lost in the mists of time. That must have been way back in the late 50s when the world was a very different place and when most people in the UK believed in god.

Anyways, later that day, the teacher asked the class to put up their hands if they believed in god. Obviously, my soon-to-be-ex-friend had snitched on me. No matter, my hand remained firmly down. Even in those days, I was a rebel.

The teacher noticed that only my hand remained down.

I was asked to come and stand in front of the class, caned on the hand and then made to stand in the corner with my back to the class until home time.

I remember the incident as though it were yesterday because it was the one and only time that I was ever punished by a teacher since, actually, I was a very keen and studious student.

The incident made no difference one way or the other. I didn't believe in god because it was illogical. Logic doesn't change. Neither has my attitude to religion.

I am a member of several Atheist forums. We welcome Theists unreservedly although we reserve the right to question the Theist's beliefs. Unlike this forum, full access to all of our threads are open to both Theists and Atheists alike. Generally, Theists are free to criticise us Atheists in whatever manner they choose, including the use of profanity. You see, from our perspective, truth has nothing to fear from inquiry. Even though christianity is supposedly about peace, love, understanding, acceptance and tolerance, it would appear that Atheists are far more tolerant of Theists than are Theists of Atheists, given that there are topics on this forum that are only open to christians.

At one time, drive-by Theists frequently dropped into our forums but they rarely stayed any length of time when they realised that we Atheists had able minds and used them in a logical and inquiring manner. Fools we weren't.

However, I can't quite remember when we last encountered a Theist. Our forums have become as quiet as the grave. Therefore, I though that I would drop in on you guys and gals for a spot of healthy debate.

Let's start at the top, if I may:

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

This therefore begs the question: How and why do people become Theists and, given the lack of evidence and recent scientific research, remain so.

Hello Lostinthought.

A puzzling proposition.

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

Nor would one end up with a conclusion that God does not exist. Given that we actually know what the evidence for the existence of God comprises.

 

[Speedwell]

All I seek is evidence for the god hypothesis. No evidence has, thus far, been presented and so, logically, the hypothesis has to be rejected until such time as there is.

Assuming that the existence of evidence is why one believes.

 

[Halbhh]

All I seek is evidence for the god hypothesis.

That's what I wrote to you about above in post 53

 

[dayhiker]

I wasn't asking you to disprove a negative. I am well aware of the problem.

You stated in an earlier post that the only explanation was god. I merely pointed out that other possibilities exist, that you had obviously rejected, in order to arrive at what you claim to be the only hypothesis, and I wished to inquire on what basis you rejected them.

Now you are misrepresenting what I said!
Your first post said, "I have never been one. The thought of a god seems so improbably to me." Which with a reference to your parents sounds like what you were feeling and thinking from an early age.
I responded, "Its interesting to me that as far back as I can remember it has been completely logical to me that the only explanation of existence is God."
So it appears that we both formed our views when we were young and the study we each have done since than continues to reinforce our own view. I've never said in my life tht they "only explanation was god."

How do you have honest discussions when you misrepresent what a person says much?

 

[lostinthought]

If you go to the Harvard library there are hundreds of thousands of books that talk about science and every one of them confirms that the Bible is accurate and true. We could fill every book in the world with scientific evidence for the Bible and we would just be getting started. The reason I became a Christian is that I needed answers and solutions. Science was limited but the Bible is limitless or infinite. God has the answer for every question and the solution to every problem that we will ever encounter i life.

Oh dear. You are using, I think, Argumentum Verecundium - appeal to reverence. Have you been to Harvard and read all of these hundreds and thousands of books? If not, how do you know? Has someone told you? If so, how do you know that they told the truth?

There are parts of the bible that are true. However, because one part is true, it has no bearing on the truth of the other parts.

Because science is limited does not imply it is wrong and, in what way is it limited?

Prove that the bible is limitless.

Prove that god has answers. In fact, before you prove that god has answers, you need to prove god.

I have to admit, it rather sounds like you want to believe in god and are scratching around for what you refer to as "proof" to substantiate your claim. You may be succeeding in convincing you but you have yet to convince me.

 

[Hank77]

I didn't say that I'm a non-theist. I said I'm an Atheist.

Then why are you representing yourself as Non-Denominational instead of Atheist, which is a choice you had?

 

[durangodawood]

Then why are you representing yourself as Non-Denominational instead of Atheist, which is a choice you had?

Thats for everyone who claims "atheism is a religion!"

 

[public hermit]

Man, this thread really took off! And, I didn't even get to play. Maybe, it was something I said about logic?

 

[Robban]

Oh dear. You are using, I think, Argumentum Verecundium - appeal to reverence. Have you been to Harvard and read all of these hundreds and thousands of books? If not, how do you know? Has someone told you? If so, how do you know that they told the truth?

There are parts of the bible that are true. However, because one part is true, it has no bearing on the truth of the other parts.

Because science is limited does not imply it is wrong and, in what way is it limited?

Prove that the bible is limitless.

Prove that god has answers. In fact, before you prove that god has answers, you need to prove god.

I have to admit, it rather sounds like you want to believe in god and are scratching around for what you refer to as "proof" to substantiate your claim. You may be succeeding in convincing you but you have yet to convince me.

Who has appointed you as judge that you demand being convinced?

 

[lostinthought]

Now you are misrepresenting what I said!
Your first post said, "I have never been one. The thought of a god seems so improbably to me." Which with a reference to your parents sounds like what you were feeling and thinking from an early age.
I responded, "Its interesting to me that as far back as I can remember it has been completely logical to me that the only explanation of existence is God."
So it appears that we both formed our views when we were young and the study we each have done since than continues to reinforce our own view. I've never said in my life tht they "only explanation was god."

How do you have honest discussions when you misrepresent what a person says much?

It's you that misrepresents me.

I became an Atheist because Theism has failed to meet its burden of proof. As such, I reject the god hypothesis until such time as there is proof.

If you have come to the conclusion that there is a god, you either have proof or you have faith. Proof requires investigation. Faith requires nothing more that accepting the god hypothesis. If you have proof, then I would like to hear it.

 

[durangodawood]

Man, this thread really took off! And, I didn't even get to play. Maybe, it was something I said about logic?

You can still play. Many of the toys are abandoned and strewn about the place.

 

[Halbhh]

Proof requires investigation

That what I did. It's a voluntary act though.

 

[lostinthought]

A number of posts ago, a member wondered aloud why forums for Atheists don't draw much interest from Theists. I opined that this may be because Theists have other spiritual interests and concerns to discuss, while Atheist posters are united only in being against God and so have little to debate among themselves, preferring instead to tell Theists how wrong they are to believe...and do it again and again and again.

Since then, we have basically been reading the evidence.

Misrepresenting me seems to be a trait of this forum.

Atheists are 'not against god'. I'm certainly not. I simply reject the Theist hypothesis that god exists until such time as sufficient proof for god is presented.

I merely point out that the so-called 'proof' presented by Theists isn't 'proof' at all. It is merely unsupported assertions.