If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

"Evidence it remains."

Yes, by your standards for evidence and belief, the existence of anything can prove the existence of anything else, which is to say there is no true evidence, only blind faith due to brainwashing and superstition.

True Scotsman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Attempted proof in open functional system. Denial of logic and the proof of identy. Buzzword fallacies.

Evidence is not a proof, Void.

Go learn English.

 

[ZenMode]

True Scotsman fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Attempted proof in open functional system. Denial of logic and the proof of identy. Buzzword fallacies.

Evidence is not a proof, Void.

Go learn English.

Okay... The existence of stuff is evidence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being existing somewhere.

 

[Margot]

What evidence is there that is objective and not based on your already existing faith that a God exists?

If you take away the fact that you already believe in a God, what objective reason is there to believe that any God created the universe, you, me and everything else in it?

Have you seen your God? Has your God spoken to you, emailed you or written to you? Is there anything that has happened, while you are awake, that is evidence of miracles, angels or God?

I don't play the evidence game

 

[Margot]

Never seen that happen.

Never seen that happen either.

Evidence is not something that is 'given'. It simply exists.

Never seen an atheist claim any such thing.

Nope. Atheists are not necessarily obsessed with anything.

I guess you need glasses

 

[Into the Night]

Okay... The existence of stuff is evidence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being existing somewhere.

In general, that's correct.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess you need glasses

Nope. Turns out I can fly and drive without them.

 

[ZenMode]

In general, that's correct.

Which is why I said, if you lower your standards for evidence enough, basically anything can be evident for anything, And once you believe, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where you are finding evidence in everyday events that have nothing to do with a God, much less your God.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

From more recent post:

"Your "beliefs" are not based on evidence...which is why you refer to them as "beliefs."

Maybe I should word is as a lack of evidence.

Unless you are already a believer in some religion's god, and attribute random worldly events and the existence of anything/everything to that God because of your pre-existing faith, there is no evidence that would compel you to start believing in any god today. God isn't making an appearance in our lives today like he supposedly did in the Bible. The heavens aren't parting today, allowing angels to float down to earth. Nobody is performing true miracles today.

It's kind of like the people who believe the NFL is rigged. If you have faith that the NFL is rigged, then you can find all kinds of events and evidence that supports your pre-existing belief that it's rigged. If you don't already believe it's rigged, then things are just happening. Some good plays happen. Some bad plays happen. Some good calls happen. Some bad calls happen. Some people get hurt. Some people don't get hurt.

Humans tend to be superstitious, like to find explanations for things they can't easily explain and the gap between what man can and can't explain tends to be filled by gods or other supernatural entities. Mental illness used to be demonic possession... so man drilled holes in other peoples' heads to let the demon out. Man didn't understand what the sun was, so it became a god. Man didn't understand weather patterns, so he began praying for rain. Those things are all ridiculous by today's standards of knowledge, but were perfectly legit 2000+ years ago.

Man can't fully explain how the universe and humans came into existence, so we pretend a god created it.

Religion is an "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

So may I assume you will not answer my question?

 

[ZenMode]

So may I assume you will not answer my question?

This one?

"what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

If so, I would just say that it's not impossible. There's no real reason to believe any gods exist, much less structure your life around a belief in any particular one, but it's not impossible.

 

[Ross Dolan]

lieving that the NFL

Pretty much everyone uses the term "atheist" incorrectly these days.

How is that? It means so many different things to different people. Even dictionaries define it in various ways...and the etymology is all screwed up.

What do you suppose the "correct" definition is of a word that is in such condition?

My opinion is better that the descriptor not be used because of the problem of understanding what a person means when they say, "I am an atheist."

That's why I use the words 'Church of No God' so that there is clarity as to what is being discussed.

Okay, but it does not clarify much. There are some people who claim to be atheists who mean, "There are no gods." But there are many who mean, "I simply do not accept as true that any particular god exists."

Your 1) and 2) above are just varying levels of confidence regarding the same belief (that gods do not exist).

My 1) and 2) describe two entirely different things. One is "there are no gods" and the second is "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." Some people who call themselves atheists proclaim one...and others the other.

Such people are expressing a belief that is faith-based.

We agree. "There are no gods" and "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are both faith-based.

I'm not "buying anything".

I now see that. You were not clear before.

The belief that gods do not exist is a faith-based belief.
The belief that gods DO exist is a faith-based belief.

We agree on this.

The position "I don't hold either of those beliefs" is a lack of belief re: theism. Ergo, the CORRECT usage of the term "atheism". IOW, a "lack of theism".

Incorrect. That is not how the word works...which is why I say it would be better not to use it.

The word "atheism" is NOT the result of "a" meaning without + "theism" meaning "belief in a god" = without a belief in gods. In fact, the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...so it cannot have been derived that way...and for most of its existence, it was not used that way. At some point, when atheists wanted to pretend their position was not "faith based"...they started using it that way.

In fact, the etymology of atheist is: "a" meaning without + theos (a god)** = without a god. One cannot be without a god unless there are no gods...so defining that way would be declaring that there are no gods.


** From the Greek through the French

 

[Cypress]

WRONG. The rational basis of Christianity (or any other religion) is based on a circular argument, or Argument of Faith.

Historical evidence and cosmological evidence are not circular.

Something can't come from nothing, and both science and logic show that the universe had a beginning. That means it had a cause.

Nothing about physics and inanimate chance can explain the origin of a lawfully organized and finely tuned universe.

There is no scientific explanation for origin, and it's more probable than not that there never will be.

Your stuck either inferring that a rationally organized, mathematically tuned universe just blinked into existence by random inanimate chance. Or that some purposeful immaterial organizing entity or force outside the universe caused the origin.

As for the Christian version of God, Christianity is based on a historical claim. It's not based on mythological fable, like Zeus, Odin, or Poseidon.

Jesus of Nazareth is the most well documented Palestinian of the first century. He is more well documented in terms of manuscript evidence than the Emperor Trajan.
One can either accept the claims of eyewitnesses and people who interviewed the eyewitnesses that Jesus was god entering history in human form, or people can infer that the testimony about Jesus was a coordinated lie, or the witnesses were hallucinating and just mistaken about what they saw.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This one? "what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

Yes.

If so, I would just say that it's not impossible.

So you think it is possible there is at least one god...and that it also is possible that no gods exist.

Me, too.

There's no real reason to believe any gods exist, much less structure your life around a belief in any particular one, but it's not impossible.

Well...that may be your opinion (and I may share much of that), but some people think otherwise and I feel it is reasonable to suppose they may benefit from their (otherwise) opinions.


I have a further question of you, if you If you have any questions of me...please ask them.

Despite that we both think that it is possible that at least one god exists...and that it is possible no gods exist...do you guess there are no gods/it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

For the record, I do not.

 

[ZenMode]

Despite that we both think that it is possible that at least one god exists...and that it is possible no gods exist...do you guess there are no gods/it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

For the record, I do not.

For me, it's not a matter of guessing. It's a matter of tangible evidence today to support the existence of a god.

I see nothing today that would make me believe there is a god, especially not any of the gods that man has written about or believed in throughout history.

 

[Ross Dolan]

For me, it's not a matter of guessing.

I take that to mean that you do not guess on the issue. If so...we are one in that.

But the rest of what you say sounds to me like you do guess...toward either "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are none than that there is at least one."

If so...fine. There are people who guess toward "there is a GOD" or "It is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none."

All four of those guesses are suspect to me...and truly are not necessary for rational, intelligent discussion.

It's a matter of tangible evidence today to support the existence of a god.

Well...there is as much evidence that there is a god...as there is that there are no gods. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence for both...but it ALL is totally ambiguous. We cannot determine if the evidence (everything that appears to exist) points to the existence of a god...or to the lack of existence of one.

The "loving, and worshiping, and devotion" bullshit annoys me as much as it seems to annoy you. To me...if a GOD whoo made all this exists...I can think of very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very little reason for IT to give a shit whether we insignificant beings constantly tell IT how wonderful and powerful IT is.

But there may be a reason, so fine...let 'em kiss its ass. Only time I truly object is when people who feel that way demand to any tiny extent that I do so also.

I see nothing today that would make me believe there is a god, especially not any of the gods that man has written about or believed in throughout history.

Okay. And I see nothing that should make you guess one way or another on the issue.

You do designate yourself an atheist, right?

 

[ZenMode]

I take that to mean that you do not guess on the issue. If so...we are one in that.

But the rest of what you say sounds to me like you do guess...toward either "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are none than that there is at least one."

If so...fine. There are people who guess toward "there is a GOD" or "It is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none."

All four of those guesses are suspect to me...and truly are not necessary for rational, intelligent discussion.




Well...there is as much evidence that there is a god...as there is that there are no gods. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence for both...but it ALL is totally ambiguous. We cannot determine if the evidence (everything that appears to exist) points to the existence of a god...or to the lack of existence of one.

The "loving, and worshiping, and devotion" bullshit annoys me as much as it seems to annoy you. To me...if a GOD whoo made all this exists...I can think of very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very little reason for IT to give a shit whether we insignificant beings constantly tell IT how wonderful and powerful IT is.

But there may be a reason, so fine...let 'em kiss its ass. Only time I truly object is when people who feel that way demand to any tiny extent that I do so also.

Okay. And I see nothing that should make you guess one way or another on the issue.

You do designate yourself an atheist, right?

Yes, I do consider myself an atheist because I've seen no gods. I've seen no evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

There is as much evidence today for Santa Claus that there is evidence for a god, which is to say there are stories written by people about both.

 

[gmark77]

They don't

I'll have to take your word for that. Because 99% of believers on JPP would rather shit their pants than try to discuss atheism rationally. Even our local "agnostics" hate atheists and fear them because they fail to believe that the lack of evidence for something means it could be real.

 

[gmark77]

Yes, I do consider myself an atheist because I've seen no gods. I've seen no evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

There is as much evidence today for Santa Claus that there is evidence for a god, which is to say there are stories written by people about both.

The simplest concept gets muddled in the mind of the believer.

It is so strange that people cannot understand or accept that my failure to believe their evidence DOESN'T somehow means I'm broken in my failure to believe.

That's why it seems that to JPP believers (and even the so-called self-proclaimed "agnostics" on here) all seem scared shitless of atheism. They cannot allow it to exist as atheism. It must be something else.

It's so simple: a failure to believe someone else's unevidenced claim.

And yet it causes no end to strain for the believers and "agnostics" on JPP.

 

[gfm7175]

It means so many different things to different people. Even dictionaries define it in various ways...and the etymology is all screwed up.

That's why I make sure to get to the heart of the matter. Church of No God members don't like that very much because they like to hide behind various irrelevancies and obfuscations (such as asserting what they DON'T believe instead of asserting what they DO believe).

My opinion is better that the descriptor not be used because of the problem of understanding what a person means when they say, "I am an atheist."

I always probe further whenever someone says "I am an atheist" or "I am an agnostic".

Okay, but it does not clarify much.

It clarifies a lot. It clarifies that the person believes that gods do not exist. It removes the obfuscation of "things that are NOT believed" and pinpoints precisely what IS believed.

There are some people who claim to be atheists who mean, "There are no gods."

Yup. Those are the people who I call 'Church of No God' members. It highlights the fact that they believe that gods do not exist.

But there are many who mean, "I simply do not accept as true that any particular god exists."

Fine, but do they simultaneously "not accept as true" the belief that gods do not exist? If yes, then that's what an 'atheist' "correctly" is.

My 1) and 2) describe two entirely different things. One is "there are no gods"

Yup. This falls under the 'Church of No God' classification.

and the second is "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Yup. This also falls under the 'Church of No God' classification, as this person still ultimately believes that no gods exist. You're not distinguishing anything other than a "confidence level" in said belief. The belief still exists, regardless of "confidence level".

Some people who call themselves atheists proclaim one...and others the other.

Both of those fall under the 'Church of No God' classification.
Neither fall under the 'atheist' category.

1) God exists. [theism]
2) God does not exist. [church of no god]
3) I don't accept 1 OR 2 as true. [atheism]

We agree. "There are no gods" and "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are both faith-based.

Yes, we agree here.

I now see that. You were not clear before.

We agree on this.

Yes sir.

Incorrect. That is not how the word works...which is why I say it would be better not to use it.

So we disagree as to what the word 'atheism' "correctly" means. I think that's really where much of our disagreement lies. Otherwise, I think that we're seeing this topic in a similar light.

1) God exists. --- faith based belief [Into The Night and I are both in this category]
2) God does not exist. --- faith based belief [ZenMode is in this category]
3) There are some people who don't accept either of those statements as true (the "fence sitters", if you will). There is no belief involved there, faith based or otherwise, as none has been expressed by those people. [IBDaMann is in this category]

 

[ZenMode]

Pretty much everyone uses the term "atheist" incorrectly these days. That's why I use the words 'Church of No God' so that there is clarity as to what is being discussed.

Your 1) and 2) above are just varying levels of confidence regarding the same belief (that gods do not exist).

Such people are expressing a belief that is faith-based.

I'm not "buying anything".

The belief that gods do not exist is a faith-based belief.
The belief that gods DO exist is a faith-based belief.
The position "I don't hold either of those beliefs" is a lack of belief re: theism. Ergo, the CORRECT usage of the term "atheism". IOW, a "lack of theism".

What is your definition of "faith"?

 

[Into the Night]

Which is why I said, if you lower your standards for evidence enough, basically anything can be evident for anything, And once you believe, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where you are finding evidence in everyday events that have nothing to do with a God, much less your God.

Evidence is not a 'standard'. It simply exists.
Evidence is not a prophecy.
Evidence is not speculation.
You cannot make it just disappear.

You asked for objective evidence. I gave some.