show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]They are theists because they believe in God.

They aren't non-religious simply because they don't believe in every God presented them.

Prove otherwise? Look it up in any dictionary. Take any English or Religion course. It's basic linguistics, it has nothing to do with God or not believing in him. Just because a statement or a term involve God, doesn't make the term or statement religious.

Being a theist doesn't mean you believe in every God. Just that you believe in a God, or several Gods within the order. [/B]

You've just disproved your own point.
If they were theists, they wouldn't be agnostics.

Now thats a different thing: As I said: if you dont believe in a god, you are atheistic in regard that god and its religion.

So pretty much everyone of faith in one god, rejects other gods, and will war about it too, as history both ancient AND recent/current has shown us, throughout.

These discussions always strike me as odd because an atheist knows that any christian/muslim/jew etc... cannot prove god exists yet they ask these silly questions.

The whole basis of religion is that your reward is based off of your faith that God exists.

Believe me, I get why people are atheist as I used to be one myself. My reasons as to why I am no longer an atheist are mine and mine alone and could easily be picked apart if put under a microscope but at the end of the day that is what I believe. But just because I believe does not mean that I do not believe in Science.

The point is God wants you to believe and come to your own conclusion about your faith. He does not want to make the decision for you.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You've just disproved your own point.
If they were theists, they wouldn't be agnostics.

Now thats a different thing: As I said: if you dont believe in a god, you are atheistic in regard that god and its religion.

So pretty much everyone of faith in one god, rejects other gods, and will war about it too, as history both ancient AND recent/current has shown us, throughout.

What? I never said an agnostic was a theist. Disproved my own point? I'm simply saying what the English language dictate. How do you possibly intend to make a discussion out of this?

You said that you have never met a non-atheist, and as I interpreted it, because there's always one God out there that they don't believe in.

That doesn't make them atheists. They deny one God, but they don't deny God. That makes them not atheists. An agnostic doubt the existence, or non-existence of God and is the middle-ground. An atheist deny God. A theist believe in God.

Originally posted by Gibson714
These discussions always strike me as odd because an atheist knows that any christian/muslim/jew etc... cannot prove god exists yet they ask these silly questions.

The whole basis of religion is that your reward is based off of your faith that God exists.

Believe me, I get why people are atheist as I used to be one myself. My reasons as to why I am no longer an atheist are mine and mine alone and could easily be picked apart if put under a microscope but at the end of the day that is what I believe. But just because I believe does not mean that I do not believe in Science.

The point is God wants you to believe and come to your own conclusion about your faith. He does not want to make the decision for you.

Well, to be fair this is a discussion about whether it would even be possible to prove "God". To be even more fair, it was actually a question raised by a Religious person, not some sort of entrapment thought up by Atheists.

Its not silly question, as religion asks a lot of the population of earth:
To murder each other, to accept fear of hell for not believing.. to genitally mutilate infants, to surpress questioning and doubt of the faith in regards to condoms, abortion, to kill or threaten anyone publishing what a what a god might look like, to opposed stem cell research that could seriously benefit mankind, to be allowed generally more respect than someone convinced Elvis is alive and talks to them.

Originally posted by Gibson714

The point is God wants you to believe and come to your own conclusion about your faith. He does not want to make the decision for you.

Theres zero proof of that assertion, or any evidence in support of it.
Yet, make it, you did.

Originally posted by Gibson714
The point is God wants you to believe and come to your own conclusion about your faith. He does not want to make the decision for you.

so your God will let me into heaven if I don't believe yet still live a virtuous life?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No the statement itself doesn't, but the fact that no proof exists for God, kinda makes it look very likely, paired with things stated in scriptures that contradict reality/logic/reasoning.
Problem is to state that there is a sentient, creator of the universe is a massive presumption, and theres never been evidence for it.

Religion is still trying to interfere in science, making absolutist statements that impede our natural rights and scientific progress on religious grounds, cause of this God idea.
(Statements relating to science, Cosmology, Abortion, Stem Cell research)
Creationism is a religious statement trying to make a scientific assertion. Christian Science was taught in schools..
The attempts to get anti-blasphemy laws passed......etc etc

All without a shred of proof that a god exists....

It was claimed just now that that to be an Agnostic doesnt make the person an Atheist.....'but it doesnt make them a Theist either' was just a balancing point. Nothing more.

I completely disagree with this post. There is plenty of Philosophical evidence for the existence of God. By claiming that there is absolutely none, you have shown your lack of any research into this subject.

If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to consider bringing some rational points to the table.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Its not silly question, as religion asks a lot of the population of earth:
To murder each other, to accept fear of hell for not believing.. to genitally mutilate infants, to surpress questioning and doubt of the faith in regards to condoms, abortion, to kill or threaten anyone publishing what a what a god might look like, to opposed stem cell research that could seriously benefit mankind, to be allowed generally more respect than someone convinced Elvis is alive and talks to them.

Actually, most religions, at least Christianity, do not support the majority of the things you have listed here.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now thats a different thing: As I said: if you dont believe in a god, you are atheistic in regard that god and its religion.

So pretty much everyone of faith in one god, rejects other gods, and will war about it too, as history both ancient AND recent/current has shown us, throughout.

To be an atheist means to deny ALL GODS, not one particular one.

what is philosophical evidence?

their is a subfield of philosophy known as epistemology that attempts to answer what evidence, as a concept, might be, but philosophy proper doesn't have a way to prove things that aren't reliant on other considerations. hell, the scientific method is a philosophy...

I really don't get what you are saying...

Originally posted by inimalist
what is philosophical evidence?

their is a subfield of philosophy known as epistemology that attempts to answer what evidence, as a concept, might be, but philosophy proper doesn't have a way to prove things that aren't reliant on other considerations. hell, the scientific method is a philosophy...

I really don't get what you are saying...

I mean, philosophically, there are reasons to believe God exists. There are philosophical arguments for it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I mean, philosophically, there are reasons to believe God exists. There are philosophical arguments for it.

not to sound like a dick, but that is theory, not evidence. what would be evidence is determined by theory, but simply because I can make an argument doesn't mean any evidence supports it

Originally posted by TacDavey
I completely disagree with this post. There is plenty of Philosophical evidence for the existence of God. By claiming that there is absolutely none, you have shown your lack of any research into this subject.

If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to consider bringing some rational points to the table.

Actually, most religions, at least Christianity, do not support the majority of the things you have listed here.

To be an atheist means to deny ALL GODS, not one particular one.

You're incorrect, sir.

Already have, whereas you've just tried to get me to accept philosophical musings as evidence...
So I'll advise you the same way.

So? Between them all they amassed quite a list, and it goes to show how much horror Man will permit, if he thinks its on god's orders.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I mean, philosophically, there are reasons to believe God exists. There are philosophical arguments for it.

There are many against it too.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Bardock42
A powerful being can prove they are powerful, but how would the creator of a universe prove he created the universe? And is that what you want God to prove? What other traits does the God you want to prove himself have and how should he prove them?

Simple: show me that He created the universe.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Simple: show me that He created the universe.

I'm sure he's got a receipt or something.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm sure he's got a receipt or something.

An almost all powerful God who trascends space-time could surely show me something that occured in what I call the past...but is one "eternal now" with his perception....right? 😄 Surely that's not beyond His abilities...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's at the core of the problem. Any metric you choose is one where you can be deceived by something that isn't God. If you met the real one there's nothing he could do to prove it wasn't a deception.

This entire scenario assumes I have an enternal essence/spirit. The God I believe in accounts for that, easily: my spirit will recognize the other as an imposter OR it will know that it is not the one true God. Sort of like the mind disagrees with the senses "leaving the senses to fend for themselves."

Originally posted by dadudemon
An almost all powerful God who trascends space-time could surely show me something that occured in what I call the past...but is one "eternal now" with his perception....right? 😄 Surely that's not beyond His abilities...

I can do that too. Behold: HISTORY!!!

And even if you mean physically take you there, well Q did that to Picrd in TNG, he even changed the present.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This entire scenario assumes I have an enternal essence/spirit. The God I believe in accounts for that, easily: my spirit will recognize the other as an imposter OR it will know that it is not the one true God. Sort of like the mind disagrees with the senses "leaving the senses to fend for themselves."

That "you'll just know" is a different argument.

The question, which is more important to science than religion since they're the ones looking for evidence, comes in two parts:
What could god do that modern humans could not fake?
What could god do that an alien or wizard could not fake?

ie How could god provide good evidence of his identity? If I apply for loan they'll do a background check. With enough time and effort they could become reasonably sure that I am who I say I am. Mostly it would involve me providing things that only I am suppose to be able to provide. There doesn't seem to be any way for us to audit someone claiming to be God in a similar way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can do that too. Behold: HISTORY!!!

And even if you mean physically take you there, well Q did that to Picrd in TNG, he even changed the present.

Like I said before, I do not conside Q all that different from my own recognition of God. The difference: my God would be more powerful and have geometrically more complex perception.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That "you'll just know" is a different argument.

No, I consider it that same. I reject any ideas of a transcendent reality and/or Being other than the one that makes the most sense to me, especially since I have what I feel is an inexorable confirmation from that Being and a connection which proves my thoughts on "feeling" Him. Imposters would be seen as just that: imposters, for my perceptions.

This is the difference between an atheist or agnostic and someone I derogatorily refer to as a "faither."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The question, which is more important to science than religion since they're the ones looking for evidence, comes in two parts:
What could god do that modern humans could not fake?

The list for that question is near infinite.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What could god do that an alien or wizard could not fake?

Theoretical constructs that are just as unprovable as my own internal experience that says I could tell who the imposters would be.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
ie How could god provide good evidence of his identity? If I apply for loan they'll do a background check. With enough time and effort they could become reasonably sure that I am who I say I am. Mostly it would involve me providing things that only I am suppose to be able to provide. There doesn't seem to be any way for us to audit someone claiming to be God in a similar way.

I believe I answered that already. If we have an eternal creator and we have eternal spirits, then we have a connection and built-in failsafes that allow us to know which is the real "Father" and which is just an advanced being...which would also be a creation of the real "Father."

Granted, every time I use "He", "Father", "Him", etc...I fully accept that that is just a "feel good" label we have placed on such a being. No-gender actually seems more appropriate, but I am not entirely sure.

Originally posted by inimalist
not to sound like a dick, but that is theory, not evidence. what would be evidence is determined by theory, but simply because I can make an argument doesn't mean any evidence supports it

Mmm. Perhaps "evidence" was technically the wrong word. There are logical reasons to believe then.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You're incorrect, sir.

I don't think I am.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Already have, whereas you've just tried to get me to accept philosophical musings as evidence...
So I'll advise you the same way.

It was you who claimed to be certain there was no God, not I. It is you who must back up your claims.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
So? Between them all they amassed quite a list, and it goes to show how much horror Man will permit, if he thinks its on god's orders.

Irrelevant. You can't take "evils" from separate religions and then condemn all of them for them. That's just ignorance.

Furthermore, if someone thinks they are doing God's will when they perform an evil, it is the PERSONS fault for misinterpreting it, not the religions.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There are many against it too.

Mmmm... I wouldn't say there are many argument AGAINST the existence of God, more like there are arguments against the arguments for God.

And at any rate, the claim that there is zero evidence supporting the existence of God is quite simply incorrect. It's a very highly debated topic today.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So now you're writing off inimalist as crazy and unreasonable right?

I mean either that or you think that the thoughts you had in the process of making that decision are unreasonable... (or maybe you don't think at all?)

You're either having reading comprehension issues or you're trolling.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess what I'm having difficulty with is where to draw the line between what your point is and you literally saying I'm arrogant for not seeing the world as you do.

really, how wrong would she be?

I guess you are.