I would go so far as to say there is no reliable evidence for God. Jan as usual is being evasive here, she knows there is no evidence other than hearsay and stories in a book.
Atheism and universal loneliness
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
So what are you miserable and disappointed about?
And what is Wynn miserable and disappointed about?
And what is Wynn miserable and disappointed about?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Even if God does exist, what makes you think there would be evidence of his being? Maybe there is evidence and we just can't comprehend it yet.
Then I won't believe it until there is evidence. Why should there be evidence? Because the most common conceptions of God have it interacting with the world.
Jan Ardena
If god exists and has an effect in the real world, that effect would be observable, it hasn't happened yet. So it is not an assumption that there is no evidence of god, it is a fact that no valid evidence has been found, even by theists. All you have is hearsay from people known to accept the supernatural as real, despite the lack of evidence.
Atheism is based on NOT assuming that what religious tomes or adherents of religion say actually have any validity. Finding no such evidence>atheism. In fact science tells us only two assumption should ever be made: 1. The Universe is real and can be known. 2: Man's intellect is capable of knowing the Universe. Occam tells us to not make additional assumptions or add unnecessary entities.
There is plenty of evidence of belief, just none of the thing being believed in being anything but a meme, having no reality.
Not an assumption, you can provide no such evidence.
It is, or it is an emergent property of matter. Just like fire is an emergent property of wood and oxygen subjected to a spark of heat. Again, not assuming anything, have a lifetime of experience with fire.
Faith, you either have it or you don't. I recognize the wisdom in(some of)his words and have zero faith in the supernatural claims made about him.
It certainly isn't based on facts or reality, what else can we conclude but...
Grumpy
If god exists and has an effect in the real world, that effect would be observable, it hasn't happened yet. So it is not an assumption that there is no evidence of god, it is a fact that no valid evidence has been found, even by theists. All you have is hearsay from people known to accept the supernatural as real, despite the lack of evidence.
Atheism is based on NOT assuming that what religious tomes or adherents of religion say actually have any validity. Finding no such evidence>atheism. In fact science tells us only two assumption should ever be made: 1. The Universe is real and can be known. 2: Man's intellect is capable of knowing the Universe. Occam tells us to not make additional assumptions or add unnecessary entities.
There is plenty of evidence of belief, just none of the thing being believed in being anything but a meme, having no reality.
Not an assumption, you can provide no such evidence.
It is, or it is an emergent property of matter. Just like fire is an emergent property of wood and oxygen subjected to a spark of heat. Again, not assuming anything, have a lifetime of experience with fire.
Faith, you either have it or you don't. I recognize the wisdom in(some of)his words and have zero faith in the supernatural claims made about him.
It certainly isn't based on facts or reality, what else can we conclude but...
Grumpy
Your interpretation does not compute. And I notice Jan has avoided the issue.
Oh, Wynn has been temporarily banned. I will refrain from commenting on this thread further until she can respond.
Science does not guarantee that.
Surely you are confusing fundamental nature with mere complexity.There is no apparent consistency in some of the things we do, because we humans are rather complex... and society arguably more so.
Science is merely a tool with which to search for answers.
True, if answers were not consistent then the only answers are either "I don't know" (because you couldn't be sure what the result would actually be) or the unfalsifiable "God did it" (being the catchall for any outcome, given that "God works in mysterious ways").
But science does not offer consistency... science merely relies on consistency... even if that consistency is a consistent probability function.
But please do not confuse complexity with inherent inconsistency.
Define intuition and I will answer your question based on the given definition.
I noticed you used the word "until" rather than "if". This suggests that you consider the likelihood of becoming bored with God to be a certainty.
If God is what religion suggests, how could one become bored with Him?
Of course, you may have been talking about something all together different and just didn't choose words that made any sense in regards to the idea you were actually trying to present, would you like to call for a mulligan?
Your statement makes perfect sense because of the word in bold. "KNOWN laws of nature". They didn't know much about the laws of nature back then so it would be easy to convince people of miracles. And yet some of the disciples still were clever enough to not be duped, at least not right away. Duped may be a bad word. It suggests that Jesus intentionally misled them. I have no doubt that Jesus believed every word he said and trusted his perceptions completely. He had no reason not to. No conflicting evidences were available or offered at the time.
Define Modern atheists please. How does an atheist today differ from an atheist of a previous time period?
One who believes in an all knowing all powerful supernatural being that created and controls the universe and everything in it.
It's a pretty broad description I know but this seems to be the common belief among most theists. Does this not apply to you?
If my perceptions of you are wrong, there could be many reasons for this.
possibility 1:
Perhaps you don't act or speak according to what you REALLY believe. But that would make you a hypocrite. I don't want to assume that about you.
possibility 2: my perceptions of you are correct but your perception of self is skewed. You could be in denial. This doesn't really seem to serve any reasonable purpose that I can see. But then people aren't always reasonable.
possibility 3: my perceptions of you are skewed do to my own denial. Again this does not seem to serve any reasonable purpose considering, what your personal beliefs are, ultimately don't mean diddly squat to me and have no noticeable affect on my life. So there is no motivation to deny any behavioral evidence you display.
possibility 4: your above statement was simply a poorly executed tactic used to invalidate an argument by implying that the definition of terms used in this discussion somehow do not apply to you, or that because you refuse to comprehend or pretend not to comprehend the meanings of words that are commonly accepted in the English language, you can avoid actually addressing the points, and distract readers and/or yourself to something else you think you may be able to sound somewhat sensible in arguing.
Feel free to offer any other possibilities. The weirdness of the human mind is truly boundless and fascinates the hell out of me.
I agree with you 100%. And for some, there is comfort in believing in an omnipotent father figure watching over them and that death is not forever. So they choose to believe in God.
While others find no comfort in believing anything they cannot confirm to be true. Maybe they have trust issues. However, refusing to trust something that has never proven trustworthy is wise. It promotes survival of self and therefore the species. How is that for a purpose. Survival. No belief necessary.
If you were told there was an invisible bridge across a river of lava,and the only evidence of said bridge was the assertion that it was there. Better yet if the bible stated that at very specific coordinates on the earth this bridge existed, would you trust it and attempt to cross said bridge? If the bible said, the only way to God is to cross the bridge, would you follow it and cross the bridge? That would be the ultimate test of faith wouldn't it.
I don't believe that anyone TRULY believes in God. Very few are willing to prove their faith by doing things that would kill them unless God stepped in. There are fraudsters who kiss rattle snakes or drink poison. but like I said they are fraudsters who tell their followers that they are being poisoned but in reality they have reduced the poison to safe levels and use rattle snakes that have outlived their venom. Religion doesn't require strong proof of faith though. How convenient for the "believer". It only requires you to claim a belief. You don't even have to act any differently than you would if you were just a decent human being in absence of the existence of God.
Even the bible demonstrates that one will deny or confirm their beliefs when it is convenient for one to do so.
Just clarifying...
are you saying that morally/ethically right/wrong or factually right/wrong?
First you complain that we make assumptions, then you refuse to answer a question forcing Neverfly to have to make an assumptions. Perhaps if you are more willing to be forthcoming in your position, no one would have to assume what that position is.
Ok, I'll take that. But that implies that God is not concerned with whether or not we know he is there. Being all knowing and all powerful and just, if he WANTED us to know he is there, why wouldn't he present evidence we can all comprehend and not invalidate. Such as my suggestion before, show himself to us with a world wide booming voice or maybe those trumpets he mentioned in the bible. And if he intends to, why wait til the deadline for believing in him has passed, as Revelations suggests it will be. That doesn't seem to be fair or loving.
If he doesn't care whether we know or not, that suggest our lack of importance to him. If we are not important to him, I doubt he cares what we believe or how we act. Forcing me to further assume he would not have gone through the trouble of making a heaven or hell with which to punish or reward us.
I don't have a problem with belief in general. But at least believe in something that is consistent and does not contradict itself. It is hard to take something seriously when its definition changes constantly to fit the mood of the one who declares it a fact. The Greek and Roman myths were more consistent and believable than modern monotheism.
Last edited:
Do you have evidence of Zargux, the overlord of the NGC3810 galaxy?
Even if he does exist, what makes you think there would be evidence of his being? Maybe there is evidence and we just can't comprehend it yet.
Do you, or would you, believe in the existence of Zargux?
For one, this male character known as Yahweh is a human invention. There's plenty of evidence of that, so I won't debase myself by holding out for evidence any more than I would hold out hope that someone will dig up Paul Bunyan's bones.
If we transfer your logic to a more reasonable assertion, which is "Perhaps evidence of deities exists, but we can't comprehend it yet," I would respond that there is no reason to simply assume such a thing, and will go on living my life as if there are none until you can show me some evidence.
Jan Ardena said:
I think the other side of that idea is that sometimes people become conditioned to see things that aren't there. In that case the discipline would seem to require outside help.
seagypsy said:
both of those intone a common right/wrong, common to ALL ppl.
not talking about right/wrong as a commonality..
but my point is more of there is a personal right/wrong that each of us have that does not apply to everyone else..
there are some things in your life that are 'fact' to you but no one else,a subjective fact, and just because it is subjective doesn't make it any less valuable to you.
don't ask me 'like what?', i don't know you well enough to answer that..
the best i can do is remind you about Love..Love is not objective, it is VERY subjective, but that doesn't devalue it..
point me to evidence that he is a human invention..
DO NOT point me to statements of lack of evidence..
(i will concede, if you admit your statement was grammatically inaccurate )
lack of evidence is not proof.
There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:
sm . bny . yw . ilt
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.
sm . bny . yw . ilt
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
(esp. section 4)
Oh there's plenty of evidence against the existence of Yahweh. First and foremost, many of the stories found in Jewish tradition are based on older Mesopotamian myths, and those folks were decidedly polytheistic. Secondly, Christianity is simply an amalgamation of Jewish and contemporary pagan traditions. In turn, Islam is a plagiarism of Christianity.
I'd also have to disagree with your charge that lack of evidence doesn't mean anything. The events depicted in Exodus, for example, most likely never happened. We know this because there is zero archaeological evidence for it, despite the claim that three million people wandered the desert. A group that large would have left many clues behind, and yet there isn't a shred of evidence.
Another instance would be the alleged census of Quirinius. While we do know that no Roman census was conducted in this manner, we could also have gleaned the inaccuracy of this fable by the fact that there is no evidence that the whole of the empire up and shuffled about the continent. An upheaval that large would have left something behind, yet again we are empty handed.
So when you claim something for which there should be some sign, and no sign is found, it is reasonable to conclude that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I think that's a very strong point.
Ramesses II (c.1279-1213 BC) Also known as Ramesses the Great, he is the most commonly imagined figure in popular culture, but there is no documentary or archaeological evidence that he had to deal with the Plagues of Egypt or anything similar or that he chased Hebrew slaves fleeing Egypt. Ramesses II's late 13th century BC stela in Beth Shan mentions two conquered peoples who came to "make obeisance to him" in his city of Raameses or Pi-Ramesses but mentions neither the building of the city nor, as some have written, the Israelites or Hapiru.[5] Additionally, the historical Pithom was built in the 7th century BC, during the Saite period.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaohs_in_the_Bible#Pharaohs_in_the_book_of_Exodus
Also:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Nefertiti's_son_die_as_described_in_the_Bible
Jdawg..
I will concede the argument as a blanket excuse , as yes there are stories that should have evidence as to the validity,
if someone claimed that a meteoroid struck the earth at a certain location, then there would be evidence of it, and if there was no evidence at that location that would be pretty evident that it did not strike that location..
but..
we are talking about a person here, not a phenomenon..
3000 years from now if someone was to say prove to me that Jdawg existed, lack of evidence would not be proof that you did not exist..(i seriously doubt SciForums would last 3000 years.:shrug
same with Aqueous's evidence, although compelling, there is the argument about that name not being limited to one individual..
I will concede the argument as a blanket excuse , as yes there are stories that should have evidence as to the validity,
if someone claimed that a meteoroid struck the earth at a certain location, then there would be evidence of it, and if there was no evidence at that location that would be pretty evident that it did not strike that location..
but..
we are talking about a person here, not a phenomenon..
3000 years from now if someone was to say prove to me that Jdawg existed, lack of evidence would not be proof that you did not exist..(i seriously doubt SciForums would last 3000 years.:shrug
same with Aqueous's evidence, although compelling, there is the argument about that name not being limited to one individual..
Actually, no. We're talking about a god, who supposedly spoke to various people across generations and made fantastic miracles happen and set into motion numerous events. And please, I did not limit my argument to the fact that there is no evidence where there should be evidence. I also pointed out that scholarship of the texts will show you that there is very little original to the Jewish myth. You can't simply overlook the fact that Judaism is just parts of other religions cobbled together.
3000 years from now if someone was to say prove to me that Jdawg existed, lack of evidence would not be proof that you did not exist..(i seriously doubt SciForums would last 3000 years.:shrug
But if you were to say that "I know JDawg existed because I've seen his posts from Scidawg.net," and then future historians were able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Scidawg.net did not exist, then there's every reason to believe that this JDawg character may have been mythological rather than historical. And if you said that millions of people wandered the desert because of JDawg, and then future archaeologists were able to determine that millions of people in fact did not wander the desert, again we find myth where there should be history, and another strike against this JDawg fellow.
The point is, I don't have to show you the empty physical space where Yahweh should be. All I have to do is show you that the stuff written about him is bogus.