How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[ashura]

Heh. I don't mind . Human psychology is the answer. In a world riddled with 'Gods', if someone attained evidence that a real omnipotent life form existed, that evidence would make front page news world wide.

Evidence for us might not necessarily be the same thing as evidence for a single person who witnessed a "miracle".

For example, man goes hiking in the woods, comes up to a cliff, trips and falls off. As he's falling he's going "Oh God, Oh God, Oh God" in a panicked state and suddenly he stops midair and is slowly floated back up to the top of the cliff.

God, using a squirrel as a medium, says "you're welcome" and runs off. No witnesses to this series of events.

Should this man come telling me or you this story, we'd think he was hallucinating. There'd be practically no physical evidence that could corroborate his story... but it could've happened, and you and I would still have absolutely no reason to believe it.

That's why I think firm atheism isn't a satisfactory position.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Evidence for us might not necessarily be the same thing as evidence for a single person who witnessed a "miracle".

For example, man goes hiking in the woods, comes up to a cliff, trips and falls off. As he's falling he's going "Oh God, Oh God, Oh God" in a panicked state and suddenly he stops midair and is slowly floated back up to the top of the cliff.

God, using a squirrel as a medium, says "you're welcome" and runs off. No witnesses to this series of events.

Should this man come telling me or you this story, we'd think he was hallucinating. There'd be practically no physical evidence that could corroborate his story... but it could've happened, and you and I would still have absolutely no reason to believe it.

That's why I think firm atheism isn't a satisfactory position.

In each of these cases, how does the experiencer discern that an omnipotent life form is responsible for either action? Also, how does the experiencer discern that the fantastic experience is objective rather than subjective?

BTW, in the case of the hiker, there would be evidence of a trip at the top of the cliff and possibly at the bottom as well.

 

[(Q)]

Evidence for us might not necessarily be the same thing as evidence for a single person who witnessed a "miracle".

For example, man goes hiking in the woods, comes up to a cliff, trips and falls off. As he's falling he's going "Oh God, Oh God, Oh God" in a panicked state and suddenly he stops midair and is slowly floated back up to the top of the cliff.

God, using a squirrel as a medium, says "you're welcome" and runs off. No witnesses to this series of events.

Should this man come telling me or you this story, we'd think he was hallucinating. There'd be practically no physical evidence that could corroborate his story... but it could've happened, and you and I would still have absolutely no reason to believe it.

That's why I think firm atheism isn't a satisfactory position.

As utterly a ridiculous example as has been offered, one is still left wondering why so many others splatter? Your god must like the peekaboo method of miracles.

 

[VitalOne]

In each of these cases, how does the experiencer discern that an omnipotent life form is responsible for either action? Also, how does the experiencer discern that the fantastic experience is objective rather than subjective?

BTW, in the case of the hiker, there would be evidence of a trip at the top of the cliff and possibly at the bottom as well.

Exactly, so basically atheists have already made up their minds to NEVER believe in God, it has nothing to do with evidence and it never has, otherwise atheists could simply give examples of what can be CONSIDERED evidence of God, but they can't...so basically they're saying "You can't gather evidence, and thats why I don't believe"

 

[VitalOne]

Please provide evidence where I asserted a definition of faith and explicitly stated that no other definitions can co-exist.

You never said no other definitions could co-exist, and neither did I, but I said using YOUR definition you can believe in God and it can require no faith....quit using your atheistic faith to change the subject

Your attitute as a thread starter seems rather poor. I get the impression that you are more interested in trolling than providing any value... so are you bringing any value to the table? If so what is it?

ahahaha...wait this coming from the same person who constantly ridicules religion?

Please provide evidence from an academic theological source that states 'God' is only a theory.

Do you even know what a theory is? I guess not....

According to scripture, it is 'God's word. Are you stating that everything that might be true in scripture is 'God's word and everything that is false in scripture is man's writing?

Really...where does it say that? I'm saying that scriptures were passed down by tradition, and are full of things passed down from tradition, not from God, where as the truth speaks to us to through Jesus, Buddha Krishna, and others who had known the absolute truth

Of course I can point you to objective assertions made by 'God' (btw buddha is not a 'God') that are false. Let's take Jesus for example (seeing as you appear interested in that 'aspect' of 'God'. Similar quotes to this one:

"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

are found all over the bible. A believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it and Jesus even states that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. Despite many attempts by believers, none are able to do so. Logically speaking, if a single believer prayed for all atheists to be converted to Christianity right at this very second then it would be so. Clearly that has not worked.

Yeah, and this really works...but for it to work according to Jesus, there must not be any doubt, so if you find a way to objectively measure doubt then this would testable and great evidence that what Jesus says is true....it ALWAYS works, and it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, you just have to imagine your desire already happening...

Please explain how the MWI would result in an 'afterlife' being a fact? What happens after death is very well known. The matter and energy that made you up are converted to other forms of energy during the process of decomposition. Consciousness consequently ceases due to insufficient brain activity (or absence of brain as it decomposes).

ROFL...ever heard of quantum immortality? Either way it would make an afterlife VERY likely, eventually all the things I say will be confirmed, it will be known that afterdeath you really do enter into another universe (which can be heavenly or hellish, etc...), and that there really is something unborn, unmade, unchanging, eternal, from which all the universes and realities come from....ofcourse after its known atheists, wanting to preserve their atheistic faith will say "oh well, it was just a lucky guess"

Incorrect. It shows exactly what any human claim of 'God' is. Anthropomprhization of reality. Is an objective psychological phenomena. It also shows exacly what any human claim of 'God' is not (i.e. real).

What a fool...let me make this clear so it can register through your thick atheistic skull all beliefs are results of psychological phenomena it does not indicate whether the beliefs are true or false, for instance you believing there is no God is a result of psychological phenomena, as well as you believing what you hear on the news....

Seeing as the bulk of scientists (people who dedicate their lives to the discovery and implementation of truth) are atheists, you are incorrect. Unfortunately for you, you made a claim of absolute truth that is incorrect. You are therefore a liar.

No I'm not, what fool..hahahahaha, atheists don't seek the truth, they seek to promote atheistic propaganda...

Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. For example, it is absolutely true that you can type in English. The evidence shows this conclusively. It is not absolutely true that M-theory is correct even though various pieces of physical and alot of mathematical evidence shows this inconclusively. If you understand the distinction, you will understand why your statement is false.

No...ALL OF THE TIME it isn't....which is amazing that atheists say "I only believe what the current evidence shows" thinking that it is the absolute truth...

Again, thanks for the personal attack.

This distinction you're creating that rests in between belief and disbelief doesn't exist. If one doesn't believe, that's being in a state of disbelief. You can't reject both.

dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef]
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

The inability to believe due to lack of evidence is disbelief.

C'mon VitalOne, there's no good argument here. And there's no reason why agnosticism and atheism can't mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Woah, did you even read the link you posted? It exclusively states that atheism and agnosticism are two completely different things...only that in some circumstances atheists AND theists can identify themselves as agnostic...but you clearly do not, you are just another irrational atheist...favoring irrationality instead of reasoning because it suits you

My problem is that he refuses to believe an atheist can be in the last category. Disbelief due to lack of evidence is the same as an absence of belief. Were he only arguing against strong atheists who fit in the second category I'd probably be agreeing with him.

ROFL!!!!!!!! Did you just say disbelief is the same as an absence of belief? Then you just reconfirmed what I said....ahahahaha, so you basically admit that atheism is entirely faith-based and entirely irrational

The rational response to have no belief nor disbelief...but atheists can't do that, they have to have disbelief, and lack belief...they just can't admit it

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Exactly, so basically atheists have already made up their minds to NEVER believe in God, it has nothing to do with evidence and it never has, otherwise atheists could simply give examples of what can be CONSIDERED evidence of God, but they can't...so basically they're saying "You can't gather evidence, and thats why I don't believe"

There is no 'exactly'. The questions i issued have answers. On a sidenote, there have been some good examples given to you repeatedly across multiple threads of what atheists would consider evidence of 'God'. Inability to understand or refusal to accept / acknowledge is your problem and I nor anybody else will take ownership of your problem.

 

[VitalOne]

There is no 'exactly'. The questions i issued have answers. On a sidenote, there have been some good examples given to you repeatedly across multiple threads of what atheists would consider evidence of 'God'. Inability to understand or refusal to accept / acknowledge is your problem and I nor anybody else will take ownership of your problem.

What examples? The amputee thing or the if God came down and appeared to every at once? The latter is not an example since there's no way to gather evidence of that, the amputee thing would only logically prove that its possible to reivive an amputee's leg, not that God exists, just as you stated, why would that experience convince anyone that an omnipotent being exists?

 

[ashura]

Woah, did you even read the link you posted? It exclusively states that atheism and agnosticism are two completely different things...only that in some circumstances atheists AND theists can identify themselves as agnostic...but you clearly do not, you are just another irrational atheist...favoring irrationality instead of reasoning because it suits you

Woah, good job attacking a point I didn't even make! I said there's no reason why it can't mix, not that it always does. And did YOU read the link? I think I fit the definition of an agnostic atheist (what we consider weak atheism) fairly closely. Can you point out how I don't?

Also from the link: "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."

ROFL!!!!!!!! Did you just say disbelief is the same as an absence of belief? Then you just reconfirmed what I said....ahahahaha, so you basically admit that atheism is entirely faith-based and entirely irrational

The rational response to have no belief nor disbelief...but atheists can't do that, they have to have disbelief, and lack belief...they just can't admit it

Another good job, this time in completely ignoring the point I made. A definition of disbelief is inability to believe, in this case due to lack of evidence. If you do not believe, then you are in a state of disbelief. It's that simple. You can't have it both ways like you're claiming. This rational response that you repeatedly talk about doesn't exist.

Can you give me an example of something to which you personally have this great rational response of yours?

 

[shaman_]

What examples?

You were given plenty of examples. You ignored them or refuse to accept them. I am respectfully asking, for the second time, that you stop repeating this lie.

I also ask that you stop resorting to personal insults. If you really have an argument to make then you won’t need ad hominem.

The amputee thing or the if God came down and appeared to every at once? The latter is not an example since there's no way to gather evidence of that,

Why not? If god appeared to people then yes you could gather evidence of that. Do you think god is capable of doing these things?

Either he cooses not to do it, he can't or he never existed.

the amputee thing would only logically prove that its possible to reivive an amputee's leg, not that God exists, just as you stated, why would that experience convince anyone that an omnipotent being exists?

Are you really being honest here VitalOne? If this actually happened tomorrow are you telling me that you wouldn’t accept it as proof that your god exists? You wouldn’t think that finally you can prove all those atheists wrong?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You never said no other definitions could co-exist, and neither did I, but I said using YOUR definition you can believe in God and it can require no faith....quit using your atheistic faith to change the subject

I get the suspicion that you are just refusing any information coming forth. I'll make it explicitly clear. That definition I used has a direct 1:1 correlation with how human beings use the word 'faith' in the context of trust. To use that definition in the context of belief is incorrect; therefore, your assertion of using the definition in the context of belief is also incorrect. Take the word 'charge' for example. In one context it might mean 'a financial bill' and in another context it might mean 'to advance upon an opponent'. It is incorrect to assert that to use a foreign ATM machine it will make you an opponent and advance upon you. It is correct to assert that to use a foreign ATM machine it will do so with a charge of $1.50. To purposely use the wrong word in an incorrect context shows a political motive and intellectual dishonsty.

ahahaha...wait this coming from the same person who constantly ridicules religion?

Please provide evidence where I constantly ridicule religion. Also this is a science site and any idea is open to scrutiny.

Do you even know what a theory is? I guess not....

That is not evidence to my request. I can only presume you are uncapable of providing it; hence, your claim would be a lie. Yes I know excactly what a theory is (I can spell it out for you if required) and I should note that thories tend to use the word 'theory' in their titles and / or descriptions.

Really...where does it say that? I'm saying that scriptures were passed down by tradition, and are full of things passed down from tradition, not from God, where as the truth speaks to us to through Jesus, Buddha Krishna, and others who had known the absolute truth

Here is an example for the bible:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/276.html

Yeah, and this really works...but for it to work according to Jesus, there must not be any doubt, so if you find a way to objectively measure doubt then this would testable and great evidence that what Jesus says is true....it ALWAYS works, and it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, you just have to imagine your desire already happening...

Good please demonstrate it or find someone who can. Snag a tree, toss it into the ocean, and get it all on video. Maybe pray a tree into diamond? That would be impressive.

ROFL...ever heard of quantum immortality? Either way it would make an afterlife VERY likely, eventually all the things I say will be confirmed, it will be known that afterdeath you really do enter into another universe (which can be heavenly or hellish, etc...), and that there really is something unborn, unmade, unchanging, eternal, from which all the universes and realities come from....ofcourse after its known atheists, wanting to preserve their atheistic faith will say "oh well, it was just a lucky guess"

You didn't explain anything.

"Quantum immortality is a metaphysical speculation derived from the quantum suicide thought experiment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality

In other words its a not science, not a theory, and is nothing more than a hopeful speculation.

What a fool...let me make this clear so it can register through your thick atheistic skull all beliefs are results of psychological phenomena it does not indicate whether the beliefs are true or false, for instance you believing there is no God is a result of psychological phenomena, as well as you believing what you hear on the news....

The psychological phenomena I am of course referring to is anthropomprhization:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.shtml

It is not a belief. I does however strongly and predictably influence belief.

This sub-forum has very explicit rules and one of those rules is that personal attacks will not be tolerated. I bet I can find enough personal attacks made by you explicitly to lobby for a truckload of infraction points. Your behavior is an easy trend to follow and because I don't particularly like you I am going to hunt down plenty of evidence of you breaking that rule and show it to the moderation unless your behavior changes and sustains.

No I'm not, what fool..hahahahaha, atheists don't seek the truth, they seek to promote atheistic propaganda...

Well, I just proved you wrong point blank so I can only presume that you simply refuse to accept the truth. That's you're problem now.

No...ALL OF THE TIME it isn't....which is amazing that atheists say "I only believe what the current evidence shows" thinking that it is the absolute truth...

Again, I had just proved you wront point blank. Your refusal to accept the truth is once again your problem now.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What examples? The amputee thing or the if God came down and appeared to every at once? The latter is not an example since there's no way to gather evidence of that, the amputee thing would only logically prove that its possible to reivive an amputee's leg, not that God exists, just as you stated, why would that experience convince anyone that an omnipotent being exists?

For fucks sake, are you for real? Can't you find your own threads? The amputee example and 'God' came down and appeared to everyone at once example would be just fine for 99%-100% of atheists. According to the bible, you can achieve both with prayer so make it happen already! As an alternative please consider praying a severly retarded person into an intelligent person or praying a 10x10 block of wood into diamond.

The reason these items would convince atheists is because they directly support the claim that fantastic miracles can be accomplished through prayer to 'God'. It also becomes very strong indirect evidence to the claim that 'God' exists.

 

[VitalOne]

You were given plenty of examples. You ignored them or refuse to accept them. I am respectfully asking, for the second time, that you stop repeating this lie.

I also ask that you stop resorting to personal insults. If you really have an argument to make then you won’t need ad hominem.

No, I only accept logic, logically the amputee thing does not prove God exists...also there's no way to gather evidence of God coming down, its just something that happens...

Why not? If god appeared to people then yes you could gather evidence of that. Do you think god is capable of doing these things?

Either he cooses not to do it, he can't or he never existed.

Right, but there's NO WAY TO GATHER THIS FOOL, its just something that happens, that God chooses to do, its like a foolish person saying "well I'd believe that some comet exists if it comes down and hits Earth, otherwise its just another delusional lie, an imaginary fantasy, and I'll never believe"

Are you really being honest here VitalOne? If this actually happened tomorrow are you telling me that you wouldn’t accept it as proof that your god exists? You wouldn’t think that finally you can prove all those atheists wrong?

Yes, I'm being 100% honest, and you and all the other atheistic fools KNOW it...here's what would happen if someone managed to revive an amputee's leg and it was confirmed to be 100% real....

Atheists (like Dawkins and others) would say "Although its an interesting strange phenomenon, there's no reason to jump to conclusions that it is caused by God or anything supernatural, how it happens is currently unknown and scientists are working to find out how it happened, anyone who says its the result of God or anything supernatural is just using a 'god of the gaps'"

Now you admit that you aren't being honest, while I am...

 

[VitalOne]

For fucks sake, are you for real? Can't you find your own threads? The amputee example and 'God' came down and appeared to everyone at once example would be just fine for 99%-100% of atheists. According to the bible, you can achieve both with prayer so make it happen already! As an alternative please consider praying a severly retarded person into an intelligent person or praying a 10x10 block of wood into diamond.

The reason these items would convince atheists is because they directly support the claim that fantastic miracles can be accomplished through prayer to 'God'. It also becomes very strong indirect evidence to the claim that 'God' exists.

No it wouldn't, see post above, stop lying to yourself, its just like you said previously "why would someone be convinced that an omnipotent being is responsible?"...even YOU said it, now admit that you are in error, and a liar, a fraud, a fake...

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly, so basically atheists have already made up their minds to NEVER believe in God, it has nothing to do with evidence and it never has, otherwise atheists could simply give examples of what can be CONSIDERED evidence of God, but they can't...so basically they're saying "You can't gather evidence, and thats why I don't believe"

I already did that.

 

[VitalOne]

I already did that.

Where?

 

[spidergoat]

Remember, the idea that if people who were prayed for (without their knowledge) recovered from sickness faster?

 

[VitalOne]

Woah, good job attacking a point I didn't even make! I said there's no reason why it can't mix, not that it always does. And did YOU read the link? I think I fit the definition of an agnostic atheist (what we consider weak atheism) fairly closely. Can you point out how I don't?

Also from the link: "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one."

Well, why is it that you never identified yourself as an agnostic atheist before? Clearly you are a liar, a fraud, a fake....but there really is no such thing as agnostic atheism...how can you both "not believe in God" and "believe the existence of God is unknown", if you believe the existence of God is unknown then its different from not believing in God..., it is neither believing nor disbelieving in God...

Another good job, this time in completely ignoring the point I made. A definition of disbelief is inability to believe, in this case due to lack of evidence. If you do not believe, then you are in a state of disbelief. It's that simple. You can't have it both ways like you're claiming. This rational response that you repeatedly talk about doesn't exist.

Right...so absence of belief = disbelief...so can foolish atheists say "I'm a weak atheist, I lack belief, but its not the same as disbelief"

Can you give me an example of something to which you personally have this great rational response of yours?

Sure, when it comes to physics, I have neither belief nor disbelief whether the superstring theory is true, it is unknown...

 

[VitalOne]

Remember, the idea that if people who were prayed for (without their knowledge) recovered from sickness faster?

Yeah, that was a good example, I should try a real case study, ofcourse many studies already showed this but atheists intentionally rejected all of those in place of studies that showed that it had no real effect, but for it to work people must pray correctly, otherwise it won't work...

 

[spidergoat]

A single case study wouldn't prove a thing. It would have to be statistically significant, like all other scientific studies.

Of course people like you will try to weasel out of it by saying they weren't praying right.

 

[VitalOne]

A single case study wouldn't prove a thing. It would have to be statistically significant, like all other scientific studies.

Of course people like you will try to weasel out of it by saying they weren't praying right.

I'm not weaseling out of anything, but there's no convincing you, you really believe that not following how Jesus describes how to pray will work...just another atheistic tactic, just like the 'god of the gaps' , you are the ones doing the weaseling out...

After it works you'll say just what you said "oh well a single case study doesn't prove anything" just to weasel out of it