How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[spidergoat]

The reason a single case wouldn't prove anything is that sometimes people just recover. If this coincides with someone praying for them, the illogical conclusion is that prayer worked. This is the basic delusion of supernatural thinking. It's like a baseball player who rubs his rabbit's foot and then wins. He might have won anyway, but he sees the correlation and interprets it as causation. It may have been the cause, but a single case is not conclusive.

The only way to see wether there is a real phenomenon is to study a large number of cases.

but there's no convincing you

Not true, I'm open to new information, that is the essence of science.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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...

Yet again, I cannot force you to understand or accept. The information has been laid out. Refusal or inability on your part is your problem.

 

[shaman_]

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...

If god floated down from the sky in front of many people and tv and video cameras then yes we would be gathering evidence.

Right, but there's NO WAY TO GATHER THIS FOOL, its just something that happens,

Does it happen? How do you know that it does?

Yes, I'm being 100% honest, and you and all the other atheistic fools KNOW it...

Actually I’m pretty sure you are being dishonest. It appears to be a habit of yours, like resorting to abuse when you are losing an argument.

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...

There may certainly be some people who say that.

You didn’t answer my question though. I asked why you (not others) don’t think this would be evidence for the existence of god.

The point here is that atheists can give you lots of examples on what would be evidence for god. Many of these examples are claims already made by theists or are in the bible. You just refuse to accept the examples.

That none of these things seem to actually happen is not the fault of the atheists.

 

[VitalOne]

If god floated down from the sky in front of many people and tv and video cameras then yes we would be gathering evidence.

ROFL.....how can you "gather" evidence of this? Are you retarded? Thats just something happens, you just wait for it to happen, you can't gather it or cause it, where as you can gather evidence for prayer at least...

Does it happen? How do you know that it does?

Personal experience..the placebo effect proves belief can heal you doesn't it?

Actually I’m pretty sure you are being dishonest. It appears to be a habit of yours, like resorting to abuse when you are losing an argument.

Where's your evidence of this? Oh wait, I forgot, you just make up lies and then say "he's being dishonest because I say so, case closed" ahahaha try again retard

There may certainly be some people who say that.

You didn’t answer my question though. I asked why you (not others) don’t think this would be evidence for the existence of god.

The point here is that atheists can give you lots of examples on what would be evidence for god. Many of these examples are claims already made by theists or are in the bible. You just refuse to accept the examples.

That none of these things seem to actually happen is not the fault of the atheists.

I did answer it, I'll say it AGAIN (I wonder why you're not hearing me), let me clarify this again, LOGICALLY REVIVING AMPUTEES DOES NOT SHOW THAT AN OMNIPOTENT BEING EXISTS ONLY THAT ITS POSSIBLE TO REVIVE AN AMPUTEE'S LEG how many times do I have to repeat myself before it registers through your dihonest, fraudulent, fake, foolish self?

 

[VitalOne]

Yet again, I cannot force you to understand or accept. The information has been laid out. Refusal or inability on your part is your problem.

Its not my refusal, its yours, logically it doesn't prove than an omnipotent being exists...why do you insist on refusing this?

 

[VitalOne]

The reason a single case wouldn't prove anything is that sometimes people just recover. If this coincides with someone praying for them, the illogical conclusion is that prayer worked. This is the basic delusion of supernatural thinking. It's like a baseball player who rubs his rabbit's foot and then wins. He might have won anyway, but he sees the correlation and interprets it as causation. It may have been the cause, but a single case is not conclusive.

The only way to see wether there is a real phenomenon is to study a large number of cases.


Not true, I'm open to new information, that is the essence of science.

So you agree, you would say just that "oh a single case doesn't prove anything, see atheism is all true, you're wrong", ofcourse whats amazing is the fact that you ignore all the cases which favor prayer, clearly your bias is naked and you refuse to admit your deep-rooted prejudice...

 

[spidergoat]

That is the essence of your mistake in logic.

When this test was carried out, there was no difference in the rate of recovery from surgery between people that were prayed for and people that weren't prayed for. Even if some of the prayers were of the "correct" form, that should show up in a difference in recovery rate.

Could it be that sometimes when people are prayed for, they do recover, and you interpret that as support of the God Hypothesis? You would also ignore the times they are prayed-for and don't recover?

So if something positive happens in correlation to a random event, you would attribute that random event as the cause? It's just like my example of a baseball player. When he carried the rabbit's foot once, he won a game. He interprets this as a "good luck charm". He keeps it with him to provide good luck, and continues to only notice the good luck it brings and not the bad, not seeing that winning has more to do with his performance than a rabbit's foot.

The same supernatural psychology is behind religion. You lack a method to distinguish between correlation and causation.

 

[VitalOne]

That is the essence of your mistake in logic.

When this test was carried out, there was no difference in the rate of recovery from surgery between people that were prayed for and people that weren't prayed for. Even if some of the prayers were of the "correct" form, that should show up in a difference in recovery rate.

Could it be that sometimes when people are prayed for, they do recover, and you interpret that as support of the God Hypothesis? You would also ignore the times they are prayed-for and don't recover?

So if something positive happens in correlation to a random event, you would attribute that random event as the cause? It's just like my example of a baseball player. When he carried the rabbit's foot once, he won a game. He interprets this as a "good luck charm". He keeps it with him to provide good luck, and continues to only notice the good luck it brings and not the bad, not seeing that winning has more to do with his performance than a rabbit's foot.

The same supernatural psychology is behind religion. You lack a method to distinguish between correlation and causation.

Thanks for re-confirming exactly what I said atheists would do, whenever something favors religion, it just can't be, just as I said, atheists would say "there's no reason to believe God or anything supernatural was involved", it can never ever be that prayer actually worked...right spidergoat? Clearly out of all the 10+ studies done on prayer, showing mixed results, you only consider the ones that favor prayer having no effect...

Thanks for re-confirming what these foolish atheists denied, so just as if someone revived an amputee's leg, you would say the samething, "there's no reason to believe God or anything supernatural was involved"..clearly, you agree with me on this...

 

[shaman_]

ROFL.....how can you "gather" evidence of this? Are you retarded? Thats just something happens, you just wait for it to happen, you can't gather it or cause it, where as you can gather evidence for prayer at least...

If it happened it could be observed. Then you have evidence. Why can't you understand this?

You are a little confused. You seem to think that you need to cause an event to be able to prove that it occurred.

Personal experience..the placebo effect proves belief can heal you doesn't it?

You were referring to god coming down. How do you know this happens? Have you seen him?

Where's your evidence of this? Oh wait, I forgot, you just make up lies and then say "he's being dishonest because I say so, case closed" ahahaha try again retard

Simple.

The evidence for you lying would be the posts where you say “atheists can’t give examples for what would be evidence for god’s existence”.

The evidence for you resorting to insults when you are losing an argument is in the above quote.

I did answer it, I'll say it AGAIN (I wonder why you're not hearing me), let me clarify this again, LOGICALLY REVIVING AMPUTEES DOES NOT SHOW THAT AN OMNIPOTENT BEING EXISTS ONLY THAT ITS POSSIBLE TO REVIVE AN AMPUTEE'S LEG how many times do I have to repeat myself before it registers through your dihonest, fraudulent, fake, foolish self?

Could you please point out where I have been dishonest, fraudulent or fake.
:shrug:

 

[VitalOne]

If it happened it could be observed. Then you have evidence. Why can't you understand this?

You are a little confused. You seem to think that you need to cause an event to be able to prove that it occurred.

Right...so you agree (Mr.Retard), you can't gather evidence of this, ofcourse "if it happened" then you could...but you can't cause the event to happen there's no experiment you can setup, you just wait for it to happen (Mr.Dumbass)

You were referring to god coming down. How do you know this happens? Have you seen him?

Simple.

Well in the case of God coming down, we don't know if it happens, its just as I said something that happens...which is why it doesn't constitute as an example of evidence....you can't gather it, there's no way to verify it, it just "happens"

The evidence for you lying would be the posts where you say “atheists can’t give examples for what would be evidence for god’s existence”.

Thats not a lie, its the truth, I've repeatedly backed it up and no atheist has yet given me an example that logically proves than an omnipotent being exists, other than "well if one day God came down" (which I acknowledged) but there's no way to gather evidence of that, it just happens, (I wonder if your retarded mind can understand what this means)

The evidence for you resorting to insults when you are losing an argument is in the above quote.

I'm not losing, I'm winning, clearly, you're the one losing which is why you've resorted to making an statement like this, in fact you can't even point out how I'm losing, everything I said it completely backed up..ROFL good one

Could you please point out where I have been dishonest, fraudulent or fake?
:shrug:

Sure, you lied and I said I was being dishonest when I wasn't the entire time...

 

[ashura]

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...

I've always said I'm a weak atheist which is practically the same thing as an agnostic atheist. You're so ready to shoot your gun of ad homs it's ridiculous.

And there really is no such thing as agnostic atheism? From what authority are you claiming this from?

Try to read slowly this time: The existence of God is unknown due to lack of evidence -> I do not believe in God due to lack of evidence -> I am in a state of disbelief in regards to God's existence. Nowhere in there is a claim that says "God does not exist."

Where. Is. The. Problem?

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"

It IS disbelief. Don't you see, what you want to argue against are strong atheists! Not weak ones! They're two different mindsets.

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

You don't have belief in the superstring theory. Ergo, you are in a state of disbelief in regards to it. What you are NOT doing, and what weak atheists don't do in regards to God, is saying superstring theory is wrong.

Any of this making sense yet?

 

[shaman_]

Right...so you agree (Mr.Retard), you can't gather evidence of this, ofcourse "if it happened" then you could...but you can't cause the event to happen there's no experiment you can setup, you just wait for it to happen (Mr.Dumbass)

So you agree that you can gather evidence for it if it happens. Gather means “assemble or get together”. We are able to prove that lightning exists right?

You don’t have to be able to cause an event to prove that it happened. That is the point here. You could still have evidence for god’s existence.

Thats not a lie, its the truth, I've repeatedly backed it up and no atheist has yet given me an example that logically proves than an omnipotent being exists, other than "well if one day God came down" (which I acknowledged) but there's no way to gather evidence of that, it just happens, (I wonder if your retarded mind can understand what this means)

So are you agreeing that if god chose to visit us it could be evidence that “logically proves than an omnipotent being exists” ?

Sure, you lied and I said I was being dishonest when I wasn't the entire time...

..just some of the time.

It isn't a lie if I think it's true.

 

[VitalOne]

I've always said I'm a weak atheist which is practically the same thing as an agnostic atheist. You're so ready to shoot your gun of ad homs it's ridiculous.

And there really is no such thing as agnostic atheism? From what authority are you claiming this from?

Try to read slowly this time: The existence of God is unknown due to lack of evidence -> I do not believe in God due to lack of evidence -> I am in a state of disbelief in regards to God's existence. Nowhere in there is a claim that says "God does not exist."

Where. Is. The. Problem?

ahahaha...ahahahaha, weak atheism is not the same agnostic atheism, weak atheism is basically the same as strong atheism, except weak atheists have to lie and instead of saying "There is no God" they "I lack the positive belief that there is a God (although I have disbelief that there is a God", its practically the same...

ROFL at your last paragraph, the existence of God is unknown because it is unverifiable, untestable, there is no way to know if it's true or false, thats why its unknown, not because of a lack of evidence...

It IS disbelief. Don't you see, what you want to argue against are strong atheists! Not weak ones! They're two different mindsets.

Right...so how is weak atheism different from atheism?

You don't have belief in the superstring theory. Ergo, you are in a state of disbelief in regards to it. What you are NOT doing, and what weak atheists don't do in regards to God, is saying superstring theory is wrong.

Any of this making sense yet?

No, thats not true, thats false, I have neither belief nor disbelief in the superstring theory, its not the same as only Not believing the superstring theory (which would disbelief), clearly you have mixed up...I neither believe nor disbelieve the superstring theory...

 

[VitalOne]

So you agree that you can gather evidence for it if it happens. Gather means “assemble or get together”. We are able to prove that lightning exists right?

You don’t have to be able to cause an event to prove that it happened. That is the point here. You could still have evidence for god’s existence.

No, I don't agree, you can't gather evidence for it, you must not know what gather means, its just something that happens, you have no control over it, there's no way to know if it'll happen, etc...

So are you agreeing that if god chose to visit us it could be evidence that “logically proves than an omnipotent being exists” ?

Well not really, atheists would insist its simply an extraterrestial-like being appearing God-like to us, ofcourse the being displayed his omnipotence then it would be evidence..

..just some of the time.

So I’m a fake because I didn’t claim to be something? What are you talking about? I have never misrepresenting my beliefs. Clearly you just enjoy insulting anyone you disagree with.

Sorry I got you mixed up with someone else (ashura), but you did lie when you said I was lying about atheists not being able to give examples of what can even be CONSIDERED evidence of God...which is why they reject and deny all evidence is given, atheists are always able to say something is a "god of gaps" in any case or scenario, they cleverly use this to their advantage making it seem as if there is no evidence God exists...

 

[ashura]

ahahaha...ahahahaha, weak atheism is not the same agnostic atheism, weak atheism is basically the same as strong atheism, except weak atheists have to lie and instead of saying "There is no God" they "I lack the positive belief that there is a God (although I have disbelief that there is a God", its practically the same...

Oh, so now you can look into my head and see if I'm lying about what I say. That's a pretty incredible ability, did God give it to you?

ROFL at your last paragraph, the existence of God is unknown because it is unverifiable, untestable, there is no way to know if it's true or false, thats why its unknown, not because of a lack of evidence...

Fine, that doesn't change the point of the original post. Just sub lack of evidence with God being unverifiable.

The existence of God is unknown due to it being unverifiable -> I do not believe in God because I can't verify it's existence -> I am in a state of disbelief in regards to God's existence. Again, nowhere in there is a claim that says "God does not exist."

Right...so how is weak atheism different from atheism?

It's this sentence that makes me think that it's not that my arguments are at fault. It's that your grasp of english sucks.

Different from what atheism?

No, thats not true, thats false, I have neither belief nor disbelief in the superstring theory, its not the same as only Not believing the superstring theory (which would disbelief), clearly you have mixed up...I neither believe nor disbelieve the superstring theory...

If you don't have belief in it, you are in a state of disbelief. This is a fact. If you argue against this, you're not arguing against me; you're arguing against the dictionary. And I think it's obvious who the winner of that is.

 

[shaman_]

No, I don't agree, you can't gather evidence for it, you must not know what gather means, its just something that happens, you have no control over it, there's no way to know if it'll happen, etc...

Please re-read. I posted a definition for ‘gather’. We are able to gather evidence that proves the existence of many things that we have no control over. See lightning example.

Well not really, atheists would insist its simply an extraterrestial-like being appearing God-like to us,

Some may certainly think it that but many would probably convert on the spot. You are not going to be able to convince everyone but that doesn’t change that many atheists have given you examples of what could be considered evidence. I just have a problem with you saying over and over that “atheists can’t even give examples”. If you want to rephrase it some way then I will let the issue drop.

 

[SnakeLord]

Vital:

I think an appropriate method in this instance would be to go to the book that god believers espouse is god's book. One such example would be where this supposed god says that you can drink deadly poison and survive.

I would personally consider that quite viable, so I ask you nicely if you'll come round to my house and drink some deadly poison I provide you. Hell, I'll even come to your house. If you survive I shall become a believer.

Deal or no deal?