There is no acceptable proof of God for atheists

Slugs

In the words of Marcus Aurelius:-

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

My objective in this thread was just to get confirmation of my idea that there is no acceptable proof of God for an atheist.

If that was what you wanted, then why not ask what would be an acceptable proof, instead of posting that silliness in your first post?

Personally, I can think of many, many ways that a deity could confirm his existence, though a lot of them would start with him showing himself, confirming the identity of his holybook (if any) and earthly representatives (likewise) and then doing something worthy of a deity, rather than simply showing up in the privacy of a believer's mind.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

If that was what you wanted, then why not ask what would be an acceptable proof...

Didn't Jimi start a similar post in the A&A forum some time back? I seem to remember that it centred on the question: "If miracle X happened, would you believe?". There were a few answers along the lines of: "No miracle would convince me, because there is no such things as miracles. There is always a natural explanation for the supernatural."

Fanny Cradock

Slugs wrote: »

In the words of Marcus Aurelius:-

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.

While his argument has some major flaws; Pascal, nevertheless, in his wager, had interesting things to say about such an offhand attitude.

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.

While his argument has some major flaws; Pascal, nevertheless, in his wager, had interesting things to say about such an offhand attitude.

No he didn't :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Humm, I see that debate on this forum has reached a new low. But never one to back down, here follows my rebuttal.

Yes, he did plus infinity.

am i bovvered

[QUOTE And why is Gods PR company still using Tape?[/QUOTE]

God is old school

MrPudding

Does Pascal's wager not make the assumption that your god is an idiot?

MrP

maskofsanity

Just read the original post.

I think it all boils down to the fact that the the whole god idea is quite a silly one. I think any christian on this forum would probably think so to if they were brought up outside of the religion and then introduced to it as a well educated adult.

So to defend this absurd belief they have to come up with something just as absurd to attack non believers.

Although I did get a bit of laugh from it..... Imagine a big head in the sky or if you left your car in a parking lot and came back and it was up a tree

kumate_champ07

Could there ever be acceptable proof to Christians that God doesnt exist or would they ignore it and keep on believing?

DublinWriter

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

Could there ever be acceptable proof to Christians that God doesnt exist or would they ignore it and keep on believing?

Nope - and that's why I think it's interesting how Dawkins marks the difference between belief and delusion.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

The problem(IMO, no offence) is not in the evidence, but the observer.

Well yes, but not for reasons you would think.

Throughout this thread you have shown quite a high level of what is known as confirmation bias. You ignore conclusions that don't suit you and accept ones that do.

People tried to point this out to you with the example of the support you claim for your version of god can be used to support any and all god. You dismissed this off hand simply because as you said you are not interested in other gods.

That was very telling. You are only interested in demonstrating your god exists because you have already concluded that he does and are now working backwards.

The reason atheists don't accept your god exists is because they are not prepared to simply pick a god and start believing he exists. They want a reason beyond I get into heaven in order to do so.

If atheists accepted your evidence for God to be consistent they would have to accept it as evidence for all gods, which is obviously nonsense. And to be consistent so would you but you don't appear to be interested in that.

chozometroid wrote: »

I have a hard time with the idea that decent people are atheists. I've mulled most of these objections you raised over in my head in the past, and I came out of those "tough times" with the assurance that God is what He claims to be (in great part due to what He's done in my life).

Fair enough, if you want to believe keep believing. The issue I have is when believers like yourself start pretending that they have some how logically worked out that their God is real and is what he claims to be, and start claiming others are being stubborn not to accept this.

We atheists get this all the time, that it is our "selfish hearts" that stop us from believing your god exists, not, you know, the complete lack of evidence or logic for such claims.

I no more believe your god exists than I believe that the girl on the bus who some times talks to me is going out with Tom Cruise (or what ever celebrity it is this week). I believe she thinks she is, but the conclusion that she is imagining this because it provides her with comfort and makes her feel special is far more likely to me than she actually is going out with Tom Cruise.

It is entirely possible she is actually going out with Tom Cruise, and if I saw the two of them together kissing I might become more convinced. But at the moment all I have is her claims that it is true and countered by the huge unlikelihood of that actually being the case.

I don't confront her on this of course, what would be the point, I and most people who know her play along with her. I imagine that if I did confront her with the fact that she isn't actually dating Tom Cruise and presented all the reasons she wasn't, she wouldn't accept that, because she is not rationally thinking at the time I'm dating Tom Cruise. She would probably dismiss me as just jealous, jealous of her success in dating a celebrity. Anything rather than look at the problems with the idea of her dating a celebrity and why I wouldn't believe her. I also imagine she wouldn't think that is fine that I don't believe because really she hasn't presented any good evidence for me to believe and what she is claiming is quite out there. You would think that if she was actually dating Tom Cruise she would expect people not to believe her, but apparently she does want people to believe her.

That feels very similar to how a lot of believers act towards atheists.

They concoct any and all excuse for why the atheists don't believe that their version of god exists rather than the obvious conclusion that perhaps he doesn't, or at the very least perhaps there is not nearly enough evidence to demonstration to someone that he does.

I think believers need to look at why they do this. The fact that they do do this should at the very least make them think that something is a miss with their beliefs and why they can't convince a non-believer that what they think is true is actually true.

philologos

Wicknight: Isn't it possible that we could have thought extensively on issues about our faith? I mean doubt isn't confined to atheists.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: Isn't it possible that we could have thought extensively on issues about our faith? I mean doubt isn't confined to atheists.

Well I've been on this forum a long time Jakkass and I've yet to see much evidence of that.

For example the discussion we just had with chozometroid demonstrated some very basic logical fallacies, such as confirmation bias and argument from ignorance.

This was pointed out to him and he simply ignored it.

Soul Winner

As there is no proof that God does not exist then atheism is also a faith based assumption. Where is the evidence that atheism is true? And if there is no such evidence available then why base one's life on such fragile grounds? That is basically what Pascal’s wager is saying. If there is no God and you believe there is, then you lose nothing. If there is a God and you believe there isn't then you lose everything. I take the point from some atheists that (to them at least) there might not be sufficient evidence to believe that a God exists, what bothers me though is that these same atheists have no problem basing their faith on another un-provable assumption, the assumption that God does not exist. If I’m wrong then please show me the evidence that atheism is true?

maskofsanity

Soul Winner wrote: »

As there is no proof that God does not exist then atheism is also a faith based assumption. Where is the evidence that atheism is true? And if there is no such evidence available then why base one's life on such fragile grounds? That is basically what Pascal’s wager is saying. If there is no God and you believe there is, then you lose nothing. If there is a God and you believe there isn't then you lose everything. I take the point from some atheists that (to them at least) there might not be sufficient evidence to believe that a God exists, what bothers me though is that these same atheists have no problem basing their faith on another un-provable assumption, the assumption that God does not exist. If I’m wrong then please show me the evidence that atheism is true?

What if I pretend to believe in the wrong god?
Why should I believe something on insufficent evidence just because there might be equally improbable bad results?
We don't base our faith on anything because we have no faith.
We have the best science available at this time to go on. Very simple.

Fanny Cradock

maskofsanity wrote: »

What if I pretend to believe in the wrong god?

I'm confused as to why you would want to pretend to believe anything. Let alone a being who presumably has the ability to see through your deception.

Soul Winner wrote:

If I’m wrong then please show me the evidence that atheism is true?

I would point out that there is evidence for the alternative. For starters, all one has to do is open The God Delusion.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

As there is no proof that God does not exist then atheism is also a faith based assumption. Where is the evidence that atheism is true?

Depends on if an atheists believes that no intelligent being created the universe, or that theists are imagining their gods.

I, and most atheists would be in the latter camp. I've no idea if an intelligence created the universe or not. I see no evidence that is true but it is entirely possible.

I do see a huge amount of evidence that humans make up gods and religions.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if there is no such evidence available then why base one's life on such fragile grounds? That is basically what Pascal’s wager is saying. If there is no God and you believe there is, then you lose nothing. If there is a God and you believe there isn't then you lose everything.

Yes but how does one convince themselves to do that without knowing they are convincing themselves to do that. And if you know you are doing that then surely that defeats the purpose, if you are only trying to believe because the outcome is better rather than because you actually believe.

It is like saying it is better to believe the lies you tell. You can't if you know they are lies.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I take the point from some atheists that (to them at least) there might not be sufficient evidence to believe that a God exists, what bothers me though is that these same atheists have no problem basing their faith on another un-provable assumption, the assumption that God does not exist. If I’m wrong then please show me the evidence that atheism is true?

You are basically saying that there is not enough evidence to convince an atheists that your god exists but it is wrong of him not to be convinced your god exists

Generally if there is not a lot of evidence to believe something is true people tend not to believe it is true. The onus is on the believer to convince others that their position is correct, not on others to prove it isn't.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Didn't Jimi start a similar post in the A&A forum some time back? I seem to remember that it centred on the question: "If miracle X happened, would you believe?". There were a few answers along the lines of: "No miracle would convince me, because there is no such things as miracles. There is always a natural explanation for the supernatural."

No doubt there could have been one or two who posted something like that -- I don't recall -- but it's certainly nothing like the majority view that I'm aware of. As I said above, I think the OP should have asked straight out what would satisfy people's curiosity, rather than just producing a series of arguments that don't really rise much above schoolyard.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. While his argument has some major flaws; Pascal, nevertheless, in his wager, had interesting things to say about such an offhand attitude.

The major flaw with Pascal's argument is that it assumes a false dichotomy; as such, it's unfortunately useless as a guide to what one should accept as being a reasonable belief.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't it possible that we could have thought extensively on issues about our faith? I mean doubt isn't confined to atheists.

I don't doubt it

That said, I think it is fair to point out that the forum's regular religious posters haven't really demonstrated any serious doubt about any of their religious beliefs. At least, not that I recall anyway.

What do people doubt?

maskofsanity

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm confused as to why you would want to pretend to believe anything. Let alone a being who presumably has the ability to see through your deception

If I was to use pascals wager and start going to mass, temple or whatever "just to be on the safe side" I WOULD be pretending and god WOULD see through that. See you got my point and missed it at the same time.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I don't doubt it

That said, I think it is fair to point out that the forum's regular religious posters haven't really demonstrated any serious doubt about any of their religious beliefs. At least, not that I recall anyway.

What do people doubt?

At times God's existence (God can feel far off at times), my ability to live up to God's standard for my life, or particular points of discussion that I have read that day. Generally it strengthens my faith after thinking about it.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Generally if there is not a lot of evidence to believe something is true people tend not to believe it is true. The onus is on the believer to convince others that their position is correct, not on others to prove it isn't.

Well, the obvious rebuttal is that as a minority position, atheism has less convincing evidence for its claim. Still, it would be a terrible simplification to say this.

On another note, I've never understood why the onus necessarily rests on Christianity to convince people. Christianity makes certain claims and it provides evidence to back up these claims (admittedly not always in the most sophisticated manner). There is also a large part of Christianity that is experiential in nature. If people aren't willing to look at the evidence or dip their toe in the waters then it's probably not going to be convincing.

I'm quite sure that I've encountered atheists who will argue against Christianity till they are blue in the face only for it later to transpire that they don't have the foggiest notion about the basics of the thing they reject. So I would say that in existential matters, it is also up to the individual to actually investigate the evidence for a belief as widespread as Christianity.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

As there is no proof that God does not exist then atheism is also a faith based assumption.

No, its not.

I have no 'faith' in thor, Zeus or Apollo. This doesn't mean I have faith in their none existence.

Where is the evidence that atheism is true?

None. Instead of choosing between Thor, Apollo, God, Zeus etc I don't believe any because there is no proof of any.

And if there is no such evidence available then why base one's life on such fragile grounds?

I don't care enough to base my life on the existence or none existence of anything.

That is basically what Pascal’s wager is saying. If there is no God and you believe there is, then you lose nothing. If there is a God and you believe there isn't then you lose everything.

How clever. :rolleyes:

A slight problem though. Which God or Gods ? All of them ? Or just pick one lottery style ?

what bothers me though is that these same atheists have no problem basing their faith on another un-provable assumption, the assumption that God does not exist.

Its not faith, its nothing at all. If its faith then its impossible for anyone to be atheist or theist.

If what you claim is true then you yourself are an atheist and a theist and so am I. You for not believing in any of the other million religions and me for not believing in any.

Your argument is logically flawed.

maskofsanity

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, the obvious rebuttal is that as a minority position, atheism has less convincing evidence for its claim. Still, it would be a terrible simplification to say this.

What are you not convinced by?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On another note, I've never understood why the onus necessarily rests on Christianity to convince people.

If you dont convince people your religion will die out. Do you expect people to pick up a bible one day read genesis go "omg! This explains everything" on there own? Without being indoctrinated?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Christianity makes certain claims and it provides evidence to back up these claims (admittedly not always in the most sophisticated manner). There is also a large part of Christianity that is experiential in nature. If people aren't willing to look at the evidence or dip their toe in the waters then it's probably not going to be convincing.

True story... Experiences can be interpreted differently eg; a hindu will put his experience down to one of his gods.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm quite sure that I've encountered atheists who will argue against Christianity till they are blue in the face only for it later to transpire that they don't have the foggiest notion about the basics of the thing they reject. So I would say that in existential matters, it is also up to the individual to actually investigate the evidence for a belief as widespread as Christianity.

Yep debating christians can be frustrating but its not because there arguments are in anyway convincing. Its because when you argue from faith nobody can touch you, not evidence, not logic nothing.

Just because Christianity is widespread doesn't make it anymore true if that was the case then you would have to say islam could be true or hinduism. How much investigation have you done on those religions.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've never understood why the onus necessarily rests on Christianity to convince people.

How is your 'faith' different from 'superstition'?

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Its not faith, its nothing at all. If its faith then its impossible for anyone to be atheist or theist.

When you understand that faith is simply trusting then it is easy to see that that is exactly what atheism is. Some people are natural born honest atheists who simply don't believe that there is a God without feeling the need to appeal to anything other than an intuitive instinct for that conclusion. Others appeal to scientific analysis and experiment and once enough of what they call lack of evidence becomes apparent they then act in life as though the conclusion which they draw i.e. there is no God, is actually true. That is faith.

monosharp wrote: »

If what you claim is true then you yourself are an atheist and a theist and so am I. You for not believing in any of the other million religions and me for not believing in any.

We can't be both atheist and theist by definition. We are either one or the other. You don't believe that any Gods exist and I don't believe that all Gods except the Judeo-Christian God exist. Notice one thing we have in common. Our end resulting object is arrived at through belief. It is not enough for you to say that you simply don't believe that there is a God; you actively believe that there is no God. What makes you an atheist is not your knowledge but rather your belief.

Hence atheism is a faith based belief system like all other faith based belief systems. I however will admit that my non belief in Thor et all is a faith based assumption, whereas you will not and I will also admit that I actively believe that there are no such beings as Thor et al. Of course I have no proof but heck that is my point; neither do atheists have any proof that atheism is true. At least the Christian has many positives for believing that Christianity is true. I can go through these with you if you like. Whereas atheism offers absolutely no positives for believing that atheism is true, it only offers negatives on other beliefs system but no positives for itself.

monosharp wrote: »

Your argument is logically flawed.

I think you will find that my argument logically follows once we understand what faith actually is.

Stephentlig

what about this then? science have examined the photos and cant explain it, and also everybody saw the mother of God that day, over ''one million'' people saw her, muslims, protestants, Catholics, orthodox, buddist, the evidence of such witnesses can be seen on youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7wD20TeQFg&feature=fvw

Morbert

Atheism is not a faith based belief system. If we want to get all metaphysical, then it is certainly an assumption. But an assumption is not the same as a faith.

Faith involves an active investment. To have faith in someone is to trust them and their promises. We have no such investment in atheism. If it's wrong then it's wrong *shrug*.

Stephentlig

Morbert wrote: »

Atheism is not a faith based belief system. If we want to get all metaphysical, then it is certainly an assumption. But an assumption is not the same as a faith.

Faith involves an active investment. To have faith in someone is to trust them and their promises. We have no such investment in atheism. If it's wrong then it's wrong *shrug*.

as indelicate as the following may sound, it is said with the utmost respect.

but your post is the most unsatisfactory and ridiculous post I've ever seen. you cannot prove that God does not exist, your belief therefore is one based on faith. the end.