1712 replies to this topic

[Link]

Shifter, if you look at the figures objectively you will see there is no evidence for a correlation between religious values and morality. Countries like Sweden which have the highest percentage of atheists have some of the world's lowest crime rates.

Think about it, if religion was such a strong force for morality, why have so many Catholic preists been charged with child sex abuse crimes?

Edited by Link, 07 April 2012 - 04:05 AM.

[gamesguru]

And if religion is such a practical and praiseworthy system of morality, then why has it failed to dispel evil forces generally? A clever modernist theologian might retort that evil occurs in the Earthly world because God has dispelled it from the heavenly soul, that God is doing His best in spite of great difficulties.

The bottom line is that "atheism", as such, should not be a word, and it should have never have been added to the Greek language, or the Babylonian. We can handle all cases by labeling people as "theists" who believe in deities, and not giving labels to those who have no such belief in the supernatural or paranormal. This world is real, but they expect us to believe in the supernatural world?? We all have proof that the natural world is real, what is irrational is to behave on the expectation that there will be a life after death. One should only assume the sufferings of the natural world will continue on, and one should make appropriate arrangements prior to death in order to contribute good and take away evils.

[hooter]

One positive thing I will say about Religion (another IMO and specifically I am talking about Christianity/Catholism etc as thats the only ones I am familiar with) are the morals and ethics they place on modern day society (things like 'love thy neighbour', respect for others, compassion for those less fortunate etc). <-I'm not saying these ideals are anti atheist in any way!! But in countries where the governments and its people are predominately Christian etc, these ideals became the society values, no matter the religion.

Excuse me sir. The genital mutiliation community is EXCLUSIVELY faith based. The anti-abortion community is ENTIRELY faith based. People seem to forget that it was Christianity which was used to justify slavery in the United States! The subjugation of women is largely a faith based practice, since ancient societies were more matriarchal or equal. Look at Africa, where women had a higher societal standing until Christianity arrived. Look at what the missionaries have done to their aids rates by forbidding the use of condoms. These people have preyed on starving children to hand them bibles instead of bread, this is utterly despicable.

The anti-gay community is also largely faith based. God says gays are an abomination! There are NO other arguments than appeal to authority of a deity on this manner. Do you know how many children have killed themselves due to religious bullying by teachers and other adults they were supposed to trust? These people, acting on religious ideals, have told them that they are born sinful and wrong. All of the 'gay rehabilitation' camps are ENTIRELY religious. People also seem to forget that prohibition of alcohol (which caused THOUSANDS of deaths and despair to millions) was AN ENTIRELY FAITH BASED ENDEAVOR.

The people who are opposing women's rights to choose about their own body are ALL religious. The people killing abortion doctors are ALL religious. EVERYONE opposing stem-cell research is RELIGIOUS. It's a PURELY religious ideology to claim that stem cell research is amoral! Imagine how many people died as a consequence of slowing down the research of quite possibly the most important medical research since the dawn of mankind! Somehow these delusional fools have gotten it into their mind that the possible life of conglomerate with less brain cells than A FLY is worth more than the life of a suffering child with spinal injury. To those people I say FUCK you. If you truly stood by your ideals, you'd care more about a fly!

No one would ever do any of this ridiculous nonsense if it weren't for the illusory idea of some magical dad commanding them to! People should do right and good because it is inherently right and good, not because they are threatened with an eternal oven or a mystical realm of paradise where every day until eternity consists of eternal praise for a deity who just does something that comes naturally to him. This is grovelling and subjugation to a cruel dictator. If you obey him he will let you among the chosen few into his celestial mansion, if you disobey him he will throw you into an oven. That sounds like Kim Jong Il to me! And these people have the AUDACITY to traumatize and frighten their children with such drivel? We are all humans, there should be no sectarianism! Until religion is abolished, the nations of the world will never unite peacefully. Look at Ireland, at least 4000 people were murdered because of conflict between CATHOLICS and PROTESTANTS. Don't you see this is complete inhumane idiocy?

Science flies people to the moon, while religion flies people into buildings.

Anyone who thinks religion is moral needs to seriously do some more research. Just look at history if you want to see the vile and poisonous vines of religion. If they had the power to kill unbelievers in today's society, trust me they would without batting an eyelash. After all, this is what their doctrine tells them to do.

Edited by hooter, 07 April 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[shifter]

I'm not trying to promote religion as great so everyone should go for it. I just like some of the ideals of Christianity such as love, forgive, compassion etc. Whether Jesus is real or not he makes a good role model. Also, circumsition is not that important for the Christian faith and a Christian should never desire to 'kill unbelievers'. Those that do break their own rules but use religion as an excuse. Religion is used to justify many horrible things including slavery, but if you were to ask "Would 'Jesus' approve" I would guess NO! Same with Hitler killing the Jews! When you talk to many different religious people, you can see many of them dont understand the basics of their own religion. There are certainly some out their that claim to follow Jesus, but at the same time, have a deep seeded hatred for gay people or unbelievers even enough they would kill over it. (whatever happened to 'thou shalt not murder') ??


Plenty of vileness in religion I agree. And one thing that pissed me off about Catholism which drove me to Agnosticism is it's just another form of Politics. And Catholism especially is OLD TESTAMENT. Look at the Popes palace! His throne, his crown. Multi mega billion euro's all for him. His toilet has a solid gold lever with diamonds. WHY?!?! (using their own logic - not mine). Jesus was the son of God, yet lived as an ordinary humble man! What makes the Pope extra special to live greater than their own Lord and King? I'd really like to ask the Pope that!!!


My mind is wired to be scientific. I love science and the wonders of the universe. All we have are ideas about the universe and its creation. Maybe the creation of our universe was an accident that killed its dimwitted creator? If you dont have the answer to how the universe was created FOR SURE, then can you really say that the idea I just put up is TOTALLY wrong? Improbable sure, Impossible? (tell me why and how you know)

One positive thing I will say about Religion (another IMO and specifically I am talking about Christianity/Catholism etc as thats the only ones I am familiar with) are the morals and ethics they place on modern day society (things like 'love thy neighbour', respect for others, compassion for those less fortunate etc). <-I'm not saying these ideals are anti atheist in any way!! But in countries where the governments and its people are predominately Christian etc, these ideals became the society values, no matter the religion.

Excuse me sir. The genital mutiliation community is EXCLUSIVELY faith based. The anti-abortion community is ENTIRELY faith based. People seem to forget that it was Christianity which was used to justify slavery in the United States! The subjugation of women is largely a faith based practice, since ancient societies were more matriarchal or equal. Look at Africa, where women had a higher societal standing until Christianity arrived. Look at what the missionaries have done to their aids rates by forbidding the use of condoms. These people have preyed on starving children to hand them bibles instead of bread, this is utterly despicable.

The anti-gay community is also largely faith based. God says gays are an abomination! There are NO other arguments than appeal to authority of a deity on this manner. Do you know how many children have killed themselves due to religious bullying by teachers and other adults they were supposed to trust? These people, acting on religious ideals, have told them that they are born sinful and wrong. All of the 'gay rehabilitation' camps are ENTIRELY religious. People also seem to forget that prohibition of alcohol (which caused THOUSANDS of deaths and despair to millions) was AN ENTIRELY FAITH BASED ENDEAVOR.

The people who are opposing women's rights to choose about their own body are ALL religious. The people killing abortion doctors are ALL religious. EVERYONE opposing stem-cell research is RELIGIOUS. It's a PURELY religious ideology to claim that stem cell research is amoral! Imagine how many people died as a consequence of slowing down the research of quite possibly the most important medical research since the dawn of mankind! Somehow these delusional fools have gotten it into their mind that the possible life of conglomerate with less brain cells than A FLY is worth more than the life of a suffering child with spinal injury. To those people I say FUCK you. If you truly stood by your ideals, you'd care more about a fly!

No one would ever do any of this ridiculous nonsense if it weren't for the illusory idea of some magical dad commanding them to! People should do right and good because it is inherently right and good, not because they are threatened with an eternal oven or a mystical realm of paradise where every day until eternity consists of eternal praise for a deity who just does something that comes naturally to him. This is grovelling and subjugation to a cruel dictator. If you obey him he will let you among the chosen few into his celestial mansion, if you disobey him he will throw you into an oven. That sounds like Kim Jong Il to me! And these people have the AUDACITY to traumatize and frighten their children with such drivel? We are all humans, there should be no sectarianism! Until religion is abolished, the nations of the world will never unite peacefully. Look at Ireland, at least 4000 people were murdered because of conflict between CATHOLICS and PROTESTANTS. Don't you see this is complete inhumane idiocy?

Science flies people to the moon, while religion flies people into buildings.

Anyone who thinks religion is moral needs to seriously do some more research. Just look at history if you want to see the vile and poisonous vines of religion. If they had the power to kill unbelievers in today's society, trust me they would without batting an eyelash. After all, this is what their doctrine tells them to do.

[hooter]

I'm not trying to promote religion as great so everyone should go for it. I just like some of the ideals of Christianity such as love, forgive, compassion etc. Whether Jesus is real or not he makes a good role model. Also, circumsition is not that important for the Christian faith and a Christian should never desire to 'kill unbelievers'. Those that do break their own rules but use religion as an excuse. Religion is used to justify many horrible things including slavery, but if you were to ask "Would 'Jesus' approve" I would guess NO! Same with Hitler killing the Jews! When you talk to many different religious people, you can see many of them dont understand the basics of their own religion. There are certainly some out their that claim to follow Jesus, but at the same time, have a deep seeded hatred for gay people or unbelievers even enough they would kill over it. (whatever happened to 'thou shalt not murder') ??

Some if the ideals of Christianity such as love, forgiveness and compassion? Have you read the bible before? Seriously, I don't understand how people can think this.

If people are loving and compassionate and forgiving it's because that's their personality, whether they say it's Christian or not is irrelevant! Also if you read the Bible you'll notice that "thou shalt not murder" doesn't apply to unbelievers.

Jesus would have not approved of Hitler killing the Jews? Don't make me laugh. That was THE reason why the holocaust was even possible! The hatred and segregation towards Jews goes back to biblical times! HISTORY. They blamed the Jews for killing Jesus and being unclean, I think you forget that Germany is a highly Christian nation!



Can you guess what that says? Let me help you, it's German for "GOD WITH US". Not convinced?

Let me quote Hitler for you:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

- Adolf Hitler in a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book "My New Order"

Now let's get to the topic of whether Jesus would approve of slavery. Now, we don't even have to ask outselves that because he CLEARLY did. Jesus mentions slaves many times and uses them as analogies, while completely ignoring their plight. He also actively CONDONES slavery. But don't take my word for it, just look in the New Testament:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

(Ephesians 6:5)

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God

(Colossians 3:22 )

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Timothy 6:1

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

(Peter 2:18-21)

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

(Titus 2:9)

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

(Peter 2:18)

So yes, Jesus approves of slavery. The people who go against these biblical passages are in fact enacting rational and atheistic morality! The more one is a true Christian, the more distorted their morals are! Religion poisons everything.

Edited by hooter, 07 April 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

See I am completely on topic when I say that you cannot expect there to be evidence for atheism, even if the evidence consists of only not seeing a god. I am completely on topic, because when you ask a question, it has to be sensible to answer too, what I mean is the following:
Firstly, note that you seem to believe in an immaterial god, in which case detecting god would be impossible anyway. So in this way, the question of evidence, for atheism and for god-ism (or counterevidence for atheism) is a useless one, since god would not exist in the material world and can thus never be tested and neither can atheism. Yes discussing what is the definition of god is important to define atheism and thus this conversation on evidence for atheism. You first need to define god before you can talk about evidence that there is no god, so please just acknowledge that this is on topic. So please, give us a definition of your god, and then can we start talking 1. whether it is even a sensible question to talk about evidence for it. 2. (optional, if it has proven to be a meaningful question) if there is evidence for or counterevidence against atheism (yes counterevidence, so evidence for god is also relevant for this topic, do not deny this as well). On the first definition ("god is immaterial") I have already given my opinion, namely that we will never be able to test that he yes or no exists. If you have some other definition, then please insert it, so I can give my opinion on 1 and 2 (which are completely relevant to this topic).
Secondly, you are somehow trying to avoid that the question of "is there evidence against the existence of god" is independent of the question "is there evidence for the existence of god". If there was a way to prove the existence of god, it would be necessarily the proof that atheism is wrong, and vice versa: if there was a way to disprove the existence of good, it would be necessarily the proof that god-ism is wrong. Moreover, these proofs, would stem from the same question, namely: "does god exist?"
Another point why the question is pointless (a point relevant to this topic), is that you want evidence for the absense of something. Basically the question is "Is there evidence for the absense of god (in the entire cosmos (or beyond in the fictional "immaterial world"))?" Yes, there is, it is all around us, but somehow you claim that absense of evidence is not evidence for absense. Yes it is. Absense of god was the original question. And the evidence of his absense is all around us. That does not mean that it is a proof for his absense. It does mean that atheists beliefs are more based on present observations, and those observations can be verified by everybody. Whenever we should detect a god, atheism is an hypothesis easily rejected. However, we do not have any observational evidence for a god. So evidence is what you ask, but you seem to dismiss all of what we see as not even being evidence, without providing any reason, any other than perhaps 'god is invisible' or even 'god is immaterial'. While that may be the case, we will have a harder time finding evidence for god, than for the absense of god, perhaps also because would not be omnipresent, and rather located somewhere in the universe (if we are really talking about a material god that is, otherwise, the question is totally senseless to ask).
So if you like to interpret this as that there is no evidence for atheism, do know, that there is even less evidence for god-ism, since the absense of god is omni-present, so far as human inquiry has looked. Again, no absolute proof involved, but we will never be able to prove atheism: atheism claims the absense of something. This is much harder to proof than the existence of something. So, the evidence really is to be provided by the god-believers, since the evidence of the absense is omnipresent, yet is seems not enough to rationalize the non-existence of god for some. So if you ask evidence of the absense of god, it is all around us. However, when we ask: where is your god, you will respond: he is immaterial. In this case no evidence can ever be provided for both sides (atheism and god-ism), only wild speculation of some philosophers like the one in the video. So why, in this immaterial definition of god, even bother? If you have other definitions, you can provide them as well. Then the question becomes more meaningful, so, yes, talking what god is , is relevant to whether there is evidence.

Edited by DAMABO, 08 April 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[drus]

Hardcore Atheism is the height of (intellectual) arrogance; it is equally as dangerous as religious fanaticism, both socially and personally.

[gamesguru]

Are soft agnostics to be considered hardcore atheists?

[hooter]

Hardcore Atheism is the height of (intellectual) arrogance; it is equally as dangerous as religious fanaticism, both socially and personally.

Bullshit. Atheism isn't an ideology/ Show me one case where it leads to problems. Honestly, it's called being a rational human being. And don't give me that Stalin bullshit, he created a cult of personality where he WAS the god to the people.

[shifter]

Religion is a pretense to many wars. Without religion there would still be a lot of wars however. The real reasons are more to do with land/resources. For example, the Israeli and Palestinian people would still be fighting if they were atheist. God can be an easy way to rally people behind your Goal or lust for power.

There is no doubt that Religion causes many wars. No doubt at all. But are they the REAL reasons behind the wars. Or is it more about power, land and resources. Religion is often the excuse.

Some if the ideals of Christianity such as love, forgiveness and compassion? Have you read the bible before? Seriously, I don't understand how people can think this.

You are reading the Old testament which I agree is violent (open a random page and guarantee you find someone killed, such as a man gathering sticks on a Sunday. STONED!) Christianity is based on a lifestyle after Jesus in the New Testament.

Now let's get to the topic of whether Jesus would approve of slavery. Now, we don't even have to ask outselves that because he CLEARLY did.

There is a clear difference between the slaves of that day to sailing halfway around the world, rounding up stealing and killing people of another land to take them back to slaves and in many cases, raped. Just because someone says 'God/Jesus told me to do it or would be cool with it' doesn't make the decision a 'religious' one. These sorts of people use the peoples belief in God to justify their own abhorrent decisions and quest for power.

Jesus would have not approved of Hitler killing the Jews? Don't make me laugh. That was THE reason why the holocaust was even possible!

Jesus always preached to 'love they enemy and those who persecute you' as well as your neighbour. Almost everything Hitlers actions did are in stark contrast to the faith he 'promoted'. He was not some 'prophet' to Jesus as it seems you make out?

His public views on Christianity were positive as its a way to rally the people behind him but in private (looking at wiki) he had rather negative views on it. Hitler was not some prophet of Christianity so to say that what he did was promoting the 'evils' of the religion is wrong. He was a madman who wanted power and land and used 'God' to get people behind him and advance his cause and see out his hatreds.

You say you dont like Stalin to be used as an example to atheism as he created a cult. Well, Hitler created a 'Nazi-ism' which is generally accepted as a 'cult' too. Do you think Christians identify with him??



However here is a list of some of the worst 'Atheists' had to offer. The death toll from a handful of dictators is sadly hundreds of millions.


http://listverse.com...ism-a-bad-name/


Yeah, Stalin is at number one. He (and others like Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung) may have created a cult where they are revered as a 'God' but that came when 'absolute power' had corrupted them. Theism is stamped out and atheism is enforced to keep the dictators power absolute.


Is killing in the name of religion any better than killing in the name of stamping out religion (in all its forms)? Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il... 3 people responsible for at least more than 100 million deaths and hundreds of millions more in suffering. And all of them despised any kind of religion. Imagine if they were laid back Agnostics instead of Atheists. hehe

(dont worry, just because there are a handful of murderous dictator atheists, doesn't mean I associate their behaviour of that with atheism. It's down to personality at the CORE. Just like every other religious bastard who kills people thinking they are acting justly. It's personality and religion is the excuse.


And dont mistake me for a Christian or 'religious promoter'. I am Agnostic, who happens to like some of the ideals of Christianity. Thats it.

Edited by shifter, 09 April 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[gamesguru]

Bullshit. Atheism isn't an ideology/ Show me one case where it leads to problems. Honestly, it's called being a rational human being. And don't give me that Stalin bullshit, he created a cult of personality where he WAS the god to the people.

Atheism is only an ideology when it takes on an antithetical form, such as anti-Christianity. I wouldn't say soft agnosticism is an ideology like atheism, however, since agnosticism claims the question as the existence of God is meaningless for the time be. Irreligion in its widest possible sense is also an ideology IMO, an ideology which has caused untold harm in its own subtle ways. Saying irreligion isn't a doctrine/ideology because it is the absence of belief, is like saying anarchism isn't an ideology because they don't believe in the strictly-defined class struggle.

Edited by dasheenster, 09 April 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

See I am completely on topic when I say that you cannot expect there to be evidence for atheism, even if the evidence consists of only not seeing a god. I am completely on topic, because when you ask a question, it has to be sensible to answer too, what I mean is the following:
Firstly, note that you seem to believe in an immaterial god, in which case detecting god would be impossible anyway. So in this way, the question of evidence, for atheism and for god-ism (or counterevidence for atheism) is a useless one, since god would not exist in the material world and can thus never be tested and neither can atheism. Yes discussing what is the definition of god is important to define atheism and thus this conversation on evidence for atheism. You first need to define god before you can talk about evidence that there is no god, so please just acknowledge that this is on topic. So please, give us a definition of your god, and then can we start talking 1. whether it is even a sensible question to talk about evidence for it. 2. (optional, if it has proven to be a meaningful question) if there is evidence for or counterevidence against atheism (yes counterevidence, so evidence for god is also relevant for this topic, do not deny this as well). On the first definition ("god is immaterial") I have already given my opinion, namely that we will never be able to test that he yes or no exists. If you have some other definition, then please insert it, so I can give my opinion on 1 and 2 (which are completely relevant to this topic).
Secondly, you are somehow trying to avoid that the question of "is there evidence against the existence of god" is independent of the question "is there evidence for the existence of god". If there was a way to prove the existence of god, it would be necessarily the proof that atheism is wrong, and vice versa: if there was a way to disprove the existence of good, it would be necessarily the proof that god-ism is wrong. Moreover, these proofs, would stem from the same question, namely: "does god exist?"
Another point why the question is pointless (a point relevant to this topic), is that you want evidence for the absense of something. Basically the question is "Is there evidence for the absense of god (in the entire cosmos (or beyond in the fictional "immaterial world"))?" Yes, there is, it is all around us, but somehow you claim that absense of evidence is not evidence for absense. Yes it is. Absense of god was the original question. And the evidence of his absense is all around us. That does not mean that it is a proof for his absense. It does mean that atheists beliefs are more based on present observations, and those observations can be verified by everybody. Whenever we should detect a god, atheism is an hypothesis easily rejected. However, we do not have any observational evidence for a god. So evidence is what you ask, but you seem to dismiss all of what we see as not even being evidence, without providing any reason, any other than perhaps 'god is invisible' or even 'god is immaterial'. While that may be the case, we will have a harder time finding evidence for god, than for the absense of god, perhaps also because would not be omnipresent, and rather located somewhere in the universe (if we are really talking about a material god that is, otherwise, the question is totally senseless to ask).
So if you like to interpret this as that there is no evidence for atheism, do know, that there is even less evidence for god-ism, since the absense of god is omni-present, so far as human inquiry has looked. Again, no absolute proof involved, but we will never be able to prove atheism: atheism claims the absense of something. This is much harder to proof than the existence of something. So, the evidence really is to be provided by the god-believers, since the evidence of the absense is omnipresent, yet is seems not enough to rationalize the non-existence of god for some. So if you ask evidence of the absense of god, it is all around us. However, when we ask: where is your god, you will respond: he is immaterial. In this case no evidence can ever be provided for both sides (atheism and god-ism), only wild speculation of some philosophers like the one in the video. So why, in this immaterial definition of god, even bother? If you have other definitions, you can provide them as well. Then the question becomes more meaningful, so, yes, talking what god is , is relevant to whether there is evidence.

I do not disagree with you, there is no evidence for Atheism though many Atheists would not agree with you. The universe is not capable of explaining itself, if it was than there would be evidence for atheism. Asking a completely different question is not an answer either. There are many issues we can discuss about God, elsewhere. You sure are desperate to not discuss the topic as an agnostic. It seems your stance says it all for atheism.

Saying you know there is no evidence for Atheism is a direct answer to the topic. Now if you are interested in another topic so am I and we can carry on at an appropriate place which follows the guidelines for use of the forum.

http://www.longecity...post__p__428913

“Members have the option to utilize moderation powers in their regimen thread. This can be useful for maintaining an up-to-date list in the first post, and keeping the discussion on-topic.

While you have discretion in deciding what constitutes appropriate discussion, I suggest using this ability with tact and restraint. Heavy moderation will reduce the likelihood that users will participate in your thread.

Several buttons should appear at the bottom of posts.

Edit allows you to edit all posts in the thread (note that there is no way to undo edits).
Unapprove will hide the post from view of users. This can also be useful for 'reserving' posts at the top of the thread for later use.
Delete will remove the post from active status: in the next dialog box, clicking Remove will allow the post to be toggled and restored by moderators, while Delete will remove it irreversibly. Using Remove, and typing a brief reason for deletion, is generally better practice.


If you wish to use this function, please PM me with a link to your thread. Implementation by the appropriate administrator may take several days, but feel free to inquire if you think you've been forgotten.

Registered users: please consider joining as a full member. Doing so will afford you several benefits, help with site upkeep, and show support for our mission! “

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

See I am completely on topic when I say that you cannot expect there to be evidence for atheism, even if the evidence consists of only not seeing a god. I am completely on topic, because when you ask a question, it has to be sensible to answer too, what I mean is the following:
Firstly, note that you seem to believe in an immaterial god, in which case detecting god would be impossible anyway. So in this way, the question of evidence, for atheism and for god-ism (or counterevidence for atheism) is a useless one, since god would not exist in the material world and can thus never be tested and neither can atheism. Yes discussing what is the definition of god is important to define atheism and thus this conversation on evidence for atheism. You first need to define god before you can talk about evidence that there is no god, so please just acknowledge that this is on topic. So please, give us a definition of your god, and then can we start talking 1. whether it is even a sensible question to talk about evidence for it. 2. (optional, if it has proven to be a meaningful question) if there is evidence for or counterevidence against atheism (yes counterevidence, so evidence for god is also relevant for this topic, do not deny this as well). On the first definition ("god is immaterial") I have already given my opinion, namely that we will never be able to test that he yes or no exists. If you have some other definition, then please insert it, so I can give my opinion on 1 and 2 (which are completely relevant to this topic).
Secondly, you are somehow trying to avoid that the question of "is there evidence against the existence of god" is independent of the question "is there evidence for the existence of god". If there was a way to prove the existence of god, it would be necessarily the proof that atheism is wrong, and vice versa: if there was a way to disprove the existence of good, it would be necessarily the proof that god-ism is wrong. Moreover, these proofs, would stem from the same question, namely: "does god exist?"
Another point why the question is pointless (a point relevant to this topic), is that you want evidence for the absense of something. Basically the question is "Is there evidence for the absense of god (in the entire cosmos (or beyond in the fictional "immaterial world"))?" Yes, there is, it is all around us, but somehow you claim that absense of evidence is not evidence for absense. Yes it is. Absense of god was the original question. And the evidence of his absense is all around us. That does not mean that it is a proof for his absense. It does mean that atheists beliefs are more based on present observations, and those observations can be verified by everybody. Whenever we should detect a god, atheism is an hypothesis easily rejected. However, we do not have any observational evidence for a god. So evidence is what you ask, but you seem to dismiss all of what we see as not even being evidence, without providing any reason, any other than perhaps 'god is invisible' or even 'god is immaterial'. While that may be the case, we will have a harder time finding evidence for god, than for the absense of god, perhaps also because would not be omnipresent, and rather located somewhere in the universe (if we are really talking about a material god that is, otherwise, the question is totally senseless to ask).
So if you like to interpret this as that there is no evidence for atheism, do know, that there is even less evidence for god-ism, since the absense of god is omni-present, so far as human inquiry has looked. Again, no absolute proof involved, but we will never be able to prove atheism: atheism claims the absense of something. This is much harder to proof than the existence of something. So, the evidence really is to be provided by the god-believers, since the evidence of the absense is omnipresent, yet is seems not enough to rationalize the non-existence of god for some. So if you ask evidence of the absense of god, it is all around us. However, when we ask: where is your god, you will respond: he is immaterial. In this case no evidence can ever be provided for both sides (atheism and god-ism), only wild speculation of some philosophers like the one in the video. So why, in this immaterial definition of god, even bother? If you have other definitions, you can provide them as well. Then the question becomes more meaningful, so, yes, talking what god is , is relevant to whether there is evidence.

I do not disagree with you, there is no evidence for Atheism though many Atheists would not agree with you. The universe is not capable of explaining itself, if it was than there would be evidence for atheism. Asking a completely different question is not an answer either. There are many issues we can discuss about God, elsewhere. You sure are desperate to not discuss the topic as an agnostic. It seems your stance says it all for atheism.

Saying you know there is no evidence for Atheism is a direct answer to the topic. Now if you are interested in another topic so am I and we can carry on at an appropriate place which follows the guidelines for use of the forum.

http://www.longecity...post__p__428913

“Members have the option to utilize moderation powers in their regimen thread. This can be useful for maintaining an up-to-date list in the first post, and keeping the discussion on-topic.

While you have discretion in deciding what constitutes appropriate discussion, I suggest using this ability with tact and restraint. Heavy moderation will reduce the likelihood that users will participate in your thread.

Several buttons should appear at the bottom of posts.

Edit allows you to edit all posts in the thread (note that there is no way to undo edits).
Unapprove will hide the post from view of users. This can also be useful for 'reserving' posts at the top of the thread for later use.
Delete will remove the post from active status: in the next dialog box, clicking Remove will allow the post to be toggled and restored by moderators, while Delete will remove it irreversibly. Using Remove, and typing a brief reason for deletion, is generally better practice.


If you wish to use this function, please PM me with a link to your thread. Implementation by the appropriate administrator may take several days, but feel free to inquire if you think you've been forgotten.

Registered users: please consider joining as a full member. Doing so will afford you several benefits, help with site upkeep, and show support for our mission! “

[gamesguru]

I see no reason for supposing the universe cannot be its own sufficient reason.

I also see no reason for supposing that if the universe is not its own sufficient reason, how the "ontological regress problem" is resolved by putting the blame on God. Well then wise guy, who created God? Or if no one created God, why may God be His own sufficient reason without the universe being its own sufficient reason. I agree it might be that God is necessary, but I don't think it is proven that God is necessary.

To put it simply, why can immaterial create itself from nothing if material cannot create itself from nothing? What's special about immaterial that's lacking in material, or vice versa?

Edited by dasheenster, 10 April 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Change the topic. Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? I will address this here where it is on topic. Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098
.

2. If you're not interested in discussing evidence for god, I don't think you would take this much energy into this forum. So please just tell me directly what are the best arguments for the existence of god. why do you narrow down your topic so much, when you clearly know the only 'evidence for atheism' is that there is no evidence for god? This is not to say that god should not exist, but what will be most informative: scanning the entire cosmos if god really exists nowhere? This would be the strategy that an atheist looking for evidence must adhere to.

I am here interested in giving Atheists a chance to present the evidence for their case since they love to demand evidence from theists. I have discovered this only goes one way because they don’t want to give any proof. They play the child’s game of “why” to anything Theists say without any reasons of their own. I take from your answer that your vote for the topic is “none.” Good, what I was after.

I have dealt extensively with evidence for God but again that is not the subject here. If you don’t think there is any evidence for the hiddenness of God, deal with it there.

Both sides, Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Look at the topics in this forum. I don’t think the topic of Religion is narrow.

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

4. I did provide evidence in one sentence (which I encourage you to do as well on your stance), namely that we don't observe a god. And no I don't believe only what I see. I did not say anything about my underlying beliefs. It is not just, to say that, just because I am giving evidence for atheism, that I am an atheist. You should know that. So, just because I make an argument for one position, doesn't mean anything about my underlying beliefs.

OK More than one sentence however..

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

I will discuss this here.
Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

No I don't believe that that which we can't see is not real (for example, electricity, subatomic particles are invisble, yet do exist in the material world). I do however believe that immateriality is impossible, for materiality is that which exists. ( So God is materialistic?) See the other two posts.
So just to be clear: you believe in an immaterial god? Is that more evidence-based than the claim that there is no god? Immateriality may be nice to invent, whenever we just don't know the answer: for example: "what happened before the big bang?" we don't know so, let's invent something that can explain everything, yet can not be falsified, something immaterial. If however somehow you believed this god to be invisible but not immaterial, then the argument of being a god that created all matter doesn't hold up, for the matter in god himself already existed (and thus not all matter was created by god).
If you don't count the absense of god anywhere in our side at least as evidence (surely not proof, I will never claim that), then you know the answer (no). As I have said, it is impractical to try to confirm the 'there is no god'-hypothesis, namely to have an absolute proof, we would have to scan the entire cosmos with every technology that can be dreamed of.
And why insist that I should post in another topic, while clearly this is a more practical and direct way to engage in conversation?
I have read somewhere on one of the threads that you take these issues from a pure philosophical standpoint. In this line of thought, you argued mere existence is so wonderous, and things like this. I can't agree more of course on the latter. But then comes the step to an immaterial being.
I think it is quite clear that atheists have no way to ever find confirmatory evidence, as atheism is a negation of something (again, should we present evidence in the line of : "we have scanned galaxy CF257. No God. Now only 999 999999 more galaxies to go, and we'll know if our hypothesis has reasonable probability." As I have explained thus, in line with much of the comments here made, is that only the existence of god can be confirmed. So in this way, the question "Is there evidence for atheism?" is bound to give negative results, if you don't count in that all that we have observed ever, is, in most definitions, not god.

Sorry but I have continued this off topic "God" conversation elsewhere as i referenced above. Stick to the subject. You have already voted there is no evidence for Atheism. Want to talk about God? Sure. see below.

http://www.longecity...post__p__510269

http://www.longecity...post__p__510247

See I am completely on topic when I say that you cannot expect there to be evidence for atheism, even if the evidence consists of only not seeing a god. I am completely on topic, because when you ask a question, it has to be sensible to answer too, what I mean is the following:
Firstly, note that you seem to believe in an immaterial god, in which case detecting god would be impossible anyway. So in this way, the question of evidence, for atheism and for god-ism (or counterevidence for atheism) is a useless one, since god would not exist in the material world and can thus never be tested and neither can atheism. Yes discussing what is the definition of god is important to define atheism and thus this conversation on evidence for atheism. You first need to define god before you can talk about evidence that there is no god, so please just acknowledge that this is on topic. So please, give us a definition of your god, and then can we start talking 1. whether it is even a sensible question to talk about evidence for it. 2. (optional, if it has proven to be a meaningful question) if there is evidence for or counterevidence against atheism (yes counterevidence, so evidence for god is also relevant for this topic, do not deny this as well). On the first definition ("god is immaterial") I have already given my opinion, namely that we will never be able to test that he yes or no exists. If you have some other definition, then please insert it, so I can give my opinion on 1 and 2 (which are completely relevant to this topic).
Secondly, you are somehow trying to avoid that the question of "is there evidence against the existence of god" is independent of the question "is there evidence for the existence of god". If there was a way to prove the existence of god, it would be necessarily the proof that atheism is wrong, and vice versa: if there was a way to disprove the existence of good, it would be necessarily the proof that god-ism is wrong. Moreover, these proofs, would stem from the same question, namely: "does god exist?"
Another point why the question is pointless (a point relevant to this topic), is that you want evidence for the absense of something. Basically the question is "Is there evidence for the absense of god (in the entire cosmos (or beyond in the fictional "immaterial world"))?" Yes, there is, it is all around us, but somehow you claim that absense of evidence is not evidence for absense. Yes it is. Absense of god was the original question. And the evidence of his absense is all around us. That does not mean that it is a proof for his absense. It does mean that atheists beliefs are more based on present observations, and those observations can be verified by everybody. Whenever we should detect a god, atheism is an hypothesis easily rejected. However, we do not have any observational evidence for a god. So evidence is what you ask, but you seem to dismiss all of what we see as not even being evidence, without providing any reason, any other than perhaps 'god is invisible' or even 'god is immaterial'. While that may be the case, we will have a harder time finding evidence for god, than for the absense of god, perhaps also because would not be omnipresent, and rather located somewhere in the universe (if we are really talking about a material god that is, otherwise, the question is totally senseless to ask).
So if you like to interpret this as that there is no evidence for atheism, do know, that there is even less evidence for god-ism, since the absense of god is omni-present, so far as human inquiry has looked. Again, no absolute proof involved, but we will never be able to prove atheism: atheism claims the absense of something. This is much harder to proof than the existence of something. So, the evidence really is to be provided by the god-believers, since the evidence of the absense is omnipresent, yet is seems not enough to rationalize the non-existence of god for some. So if you ask evidence of the absense of god, it is all around us. However, when we ask: where is your god, you will respond: he is immaterial. In this case no evidence can ever be provided for both sides (atheism and god-ism), only wild speculation of some philosophers like the one in the video. So why, in this immaterial definition of god, even bother? If you have other definitions, you can provide them as well. Then the question becomes more meaningful, so, yes, talking what god is , is relevant to whether there is evidence.

I do not disagree with you, there is no evidence for Atheism though many Atheists would not agree with you. The universe is not capable of explaining itself, if it was than there would be evidence for atheism. Asking a completely different question is not an answer either. There are many issues we can discuss about God, elsewhere. You sure are desperate to not discuss the topic as an agnostic. It seems your stance says it all for atheism.

Saying you know there is no evidence for Atheism is a direct answer to the topic. Now if you are interested in another topic so am I and we can carry on at an appropriate place which follows the guidelines for use of the forum.

http://www.longecity...post__p__428913

“Members have the option to utilize moderation powers in their regimen thread. This can be useful for maintaining an up-to-date list in the first post, and keeping the discussion on-topic.

While you have discretion in deciding what constitutes appropriate discussion, I suggest using this ability with tact and restraint. Heavy moderation will reduce the likelihood that users will participate in your thread.

Several buttons should appear at the bottom of posts.

Edit allows you to edit all posts in the thread (note that there is no way to undo edits).
Unapprove will hide the post from view of users. This can also be useful for 'reserving' posts at the top of the thread for later use.
Delete will remove the post from active status: in the next dialog box, clicking Remove will allow the post to be toggled and restored by moderators, while Delete will remove it irreversibly. Using Remove, and typing a brief reason for deletion, is generally better practice.


If you wish to use this function, please PM me with a link to your thread. Implementation by the appropriate administrator may take several days, but feel free to inquire if you think you've been forgotten.

Registered users: please consider joining as a full member. Doing so will afford you several benefits, help with site upkeep, and show support for our mission! “

very creative misinterpretation of my post. and you also ignored the bulk of my points, by saying 'asking a completely different question is not an answer either'. moderate whatever you wish, I have explained why the definition of god is crucial to the question. I have also explained that evidence for god and for no god is an obsolete question to ask, if you define god as being immaterial. if you interpret not believing in 'immateriality' (the least evidence-based approach to the god-question possible) as atheism, then I am willing to subscribe to atheism.

Edited by DAMABO, 10 April 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

very creative misinterpretation of my post. and you also ignored the bulk of my points, by saying 'asking a completely different question is not an answer either'. moderate whatever you wish, I have explained why the definition of god is crucial to the question. I have also explained that evidence for god and for no god is an obsolete question to ask, if you define god as being immaterial. if you interpret not believing in 'immateriality' (the least evidence-based approach to the god-question possible) as atheism, then I am willing to subscribe to atheism.

Get used to it. Honestly, it would probably be best if all of us just put him on ignore because he brings absolutely nothing to discussion except for reposting links to other people's arguments. Given that we should all be capable of doing google searches ourselves, there is no real reason to continue feeding his attention whoring.

[mikeinnaples]

On topic.....

I cannot believe in something without direct evidence or enough indirect evidence to support the likely inevitibility of something. To me, faith is a VERY real concept, but only when applied to something tangible. I can have faith in my child to do the right thing when given a choice, but I cannot have faith in mythological beings without enough evidence to support thier existence. Can I say without a doubt that a god, gods, or some other higher being doesn't exist? No, I can't. I am not that arrogant.

For the most part, people practicing religion might as well be practicing hypocrisy. It was this very hypocrisy that I noticed in abundance in 'good christian' people that led me to open my eyes and start thinking for myself. When I did open my eyes, all I can really say to describe it is 'wow'. Life is so much different when you see clearly and you value it far far more. Ask yourself this, who values life more ...the person that believes they will get a mansion when they die, want for nothing in paradise, and spend eternity with all thier loved ones -OR- the person the sees through the insanity, understands mortality, and realizes once they die or a loved one dies, they are gone forever?

(Yes I partially took something from The Invention of Lying .....but I can't help myself because the movie does such a good job making fun of religious beliefs. It captured the willingness and desperation of people to believe in something other than the harsh reality of life quite nicely).

[DAMABO]

On topic.....

I cannot believe in something without direct evidence or enough indirect evidence to support the likely inevitibility of something. To me, faith is a VERY real concept, but only when applied to something tangible. I can have faith in my child to do the right thing when given a choice, but I cannot have faith in mythological beings without enough evidence to support thier existence. Can I say without a doubt that a god, gods, or some other higher being doesn't exist? No, I can't. I am not that arrogant.

For the most part, people practicing religion might as well be practicing hypocrisy. It was this very hypocrisy that I noticed in abundance in 'good christian' people that led me to open my eyes and start thinking for myself. When I did open my eyes, all I can really say to describe it is 'wow'. Life is so much different when you see clearly and you value it far far more. Ask yourself this, who values life more ...the person that believes they will get a mansion when they die, want for nothing in paradise, and spend eternity with all thier loved ones -OR- the person the sees through the insanity, understands mortality, and realizes once they die or a loved one dies, they are gone forever?

(Yes I partially took something from The Invention of Lying .....but I can't help myself because the movie does such a good job making fun of religious beliefs. It captured the willingness and desperation of people to believe in something other than the harsh reality of life quite nicely).

Not to forget that some people who believe in afterlife also believe that indefinite lifespans are bad. Or given that they believe in the afterlife, that the afterlife somehow is only waiting for those who choose to die early. These beliefs are fundamentally against the ideology of imminst. Not that I believe shadowhawk to have these beliefs, since he seems to know a little more than those people, and he seems to support the thought of immortality by being member of this forum.

[mikeinnaples]

Not to forget that some people who believe in afterlife also believe that indefinite lifespans are bad. Or given that they believe in the afterlife, that the afterlife somehow is only waiting for those who choose to die early. These beliefs are fundamentally against the ideology of imminst. Not that I believe shadowhawk to have these beliefs, since he seems to know a little more than those people, and he seems to support the thought of immortality by being member of this forum.

Or that some of the most religious zealots support ideology that limits research into and availability of possible life saving therapy on one hand (which has resulted in the unneccesary deaths of many), and on the other profess to love others while driving around in thier SUVs with pro-life stickers.

Religion is a breeding ground for hypocrisy.... but its ok to be a hypocrite and violate the very foundation of your religion if you ask your god for forgiveness, well if you are a christian.

[mikeinnaples]

On a side note, I wonder how many suicide bombings would be carried out if the would be bombers were atheist rather than radical muslims. Ceasing to exist is much less appealing than dying a martyr and getting your virgins in the afterlife. Of course, islam is a peaceful religion. So is christianity. lmao

Edited by mikeinnaples, 10 April 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[Billybear185]

These arguments are completely pointless. The question of God does not lie within science or anything that we can objectively understand, therefore it is most appropriate to have no opinion on the matter. The problem with this argument is that it lies within two different fields of study. More specifically, one of facts and evidence, science, and one of faith. However, both of these must make one or more assumptions in order for their claim to mean anything. Faith or religion has to make an assumption that something much more powerful than human intelligence must have created the universe. On the other hand, science must assume that our perception of the world can be objective. In that everything that you perceive as reality is truth. The former is much harder to believe, however they both have to function on a basic assumption. That is why I think the argument of atheism and religion is pointless. The truth of the matter is, nobody knows whether or not a God exists.

[hooter]

Please read some more history books and ACTUALLY READ THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM START TO FINISH. It seems like I'm the only one who has done so. this thread is embarrassing.

[mikeinnaples]

The truth of the matter is, nobody knows whether or not a God exists.

Of course not, because the very act of ruling out the existence of a god would require the very powers of a god you are trying to debunk.

On the other hand, a god certainly has the power to make its existence known. Not only that, according to the religious texts of various religions, these very same gods have had no trouble making themselves known in the past. Why suddenly clam up to the modern world?

I venture to say if the fire/brimstone version of the christian god exists, there would be a whole helluva lot of smoking craters where peoples, cities, nations used to be. He certainly had no problem giving man the business when they overstepped thier bounds.

[mikeinnaples]

Please read some more history books and ACTUALLY READ THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM START TO FINISH. It seems like I'm the only one who has done so. this thread is embarrassing.

Actually, I propose that you read something of real value instead rather than a work of fiction like the New Testament.

[hooter]

You say you dont like Stalin to be used as an example to atheism as he created a cult. Well, Hitler created a 'Nazi-ism' which is generally accepted as a 'cult' too. Do you think Christians identify with him??

Yeah, Stalin is at number one. He (and others like Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung) may have created a cult where they are revered as a 'God' but that came when 'absolute power' had corrupted them. Theism is stamped out and atheism is enforced to keep the dictators power absolute.

Is killing in the name of religion any better than killing in the name of stamping out religion (in all its forms)? Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il... 3 people responsible for at least more than 100 million deaths and hundreds of millions more in suffering. And all of them despised any kind of religion. Imagine if they were laid back Agnostics instead of Atheists. hehe

I don't know why you whine about the Old Testament, when all the quotes I provided are from the New Testament? Not to mention that Jesus personally says that one should never ignore the Old Testament. What exactly is differentabout today's slaves?

Stalin did not kill in the name of stomping out religion, he created his own religion as evidenced by the mythology. Mao did the same. Hitler would have been laughed out of the country if there weren't already existent anti-semitic ideals stemming from the Christianity in Germany. Talk to someone in a deeply catholic family and see what they have to say about the Jews. I've talked to many highly religious families in SLOVAKIA, and they despise the Jews and treat them as lesser people. Keep in mind these are folks who were thrown into ovens along with the Jews, so why would they sympathize with Hitler? The point is that they don't, they sympathize with the biblical perspective towards Jews. Please read more history books...

You do not seem to be familiar with North Korea or Kim Jong-il whatsoever. Here are some facts about NK, please try to convince me that this is not religion:

• North Korean children are taught to believe that Kim Sung-il created the world.
• North Korean's believe that Kim Jong-Il was born of a virgin and that his birth coincided with the appearance of a new star.
• The current president is Kim Sung-il, who has been dead since 1994. They believe that his spirit is eternally watchful.
• North Korean's believe that Kim Jong-il and his son have godlike powers and a healing touch, which is why people want to hold his hands in most photographs.

This is exactly like the trinity in Christianity. The father, the son and the Juche spirit. You can continue being ignorant as much as you want, but it's not going to change the facts. It's no sense arguing with someone who has not done their research.

Actually, I propose that you read something of real value instead rather than a work of fiction like the New Testament.

More people have given up their faith after an indepth reading of the Bible than any other book.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Edited by hooter, 10 April 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Actually, I propose that you read something of real value instead rather than a work of fiction like the New Testament.

More people have given up their faith after an indepth reading of the Bible than any other book.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Interesting.

[Billybear185]

Please read some more history books and ACTUALLY READ THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM START TO FINISH. It seems like I'm the only one who has done so. this thread is embarrassing.

I don't think you have any idea what I said. It had nothing to do with history. I was suggesting that science and religion are separate entities.

[mikeinnaples]

Talk to someone in a deeply catholic family and see what they have to say about the Jews. I've talked to many highly religious families in SLOVAKIA, and they despise the Jews and treat them as lesser people. Keep in mind these are folks who were thrown into ovens along with the Jews, so why would they sympathize with Hitler? The point is that they don't, they sympathize with the biblical perspective towards Jews. Please read more history books...

Hypocrisy on SO many levels. So much so that it makes me sick.

[hooter]

I don't think you have any idea what I said. It had nothing to do with history. I was suggesting that science and religion are separate entities.

I ignored that because such a statement suggests that you neither understand what science is nor have even basic understanding of philosophical logic.

[mikeinnaples]

I have to wonder is Jesus himself would approve of the deep seeded hatred towards Jews from many of his Catholic followers. Such hypocrisy.