How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[Nutter]

Exactly. A faith vs faith debate is implicitly pointless and illogical. You can't really say one irrational belief is any meritorious than another ...

Examine what you mean by "irrational" and you will discover that your above quote is irrational.

Typically, its the religious people who believe they posses absolute truth, the mark of the truly delusional.

In order for you to make such a claim, you must believe that you possess absolute truth, thereby rendering you delusional as well as religious. This is as per your own words.

There is no way to use science or reason to test the claim that God exists.

By definition, God is a spirit.

He is an amorphous and vague abstract that can be continually revised in order to evade self-evident rebuttals to claims of his existence.

Correction:He can be continually revised by the infidel in order to concoct the mere notion of His existence.

 

[amishmafia]

What about evidence in God? There's plenty already out there. One could argue there is no proof for the existance of God. There is no proof for the non-existance of God either. How ever we do have evidence. Let us see the end result of the matter. Will the evidence in favor of the Theist out weigh the evidence presented by the Atheist in a court of law? I believe so.
Which story is more " real " that man got here by a higher being, or that man came from rain falling down on a lava rock and that we are headed to a black hole in about 2 billion years? Man isn't evolving..we're devolving.. we're not getting better , we're getting worse. Morals decline, personal convictions decline over time. We come in this world and we leave with the maggots. Ms. America soon becomes Ms Maggot. Are we really to believe this Fairy tale for grown-ups? Are we honestly to believe that it all came about by accident. Could we believe that a type factory blew up and all the peices came down and formed a websters unabridged 1828 dictionary? Or maybe that a tornado hit a junk yard and left a perfectly constructed F-18 Hornet in its wake? That's evolution for ya. Things rust, things rot, people get old, decrepited, and die. Grass withers and turns brown, Fires dwindle down and go out. I could go on and on but I cannot bear the depression I am enduring at the moment.

 

[iceaura]

You can't lack belief. Belief is not based on evidence, it is a faith in a concept,

But my own beliefs are definitely swayed by evidence and argument, justified in evidence and argument, etc.

It's one thing to claim that a belief is somehow not "based on" evidence - another to claim that legitimate beliefs can be maintained in the face of contradictory evidence and sound counter argument. To put belief and reason at odds in such a manner seems a very dubious approach to wisdom.

 

[Fathoms]

Examine what you mean by "irrational" and you will discover that your above quote is irrational.

Are you saying "faith" is rational?

In order for you to make such a claim, you must believe that you possess absolute truth, thereby rendering you delusional as well as religious. This is as per your own words.

Did you read my words out of order? They're intended to be read from the left of the screen to the right. A funny thing happens in your brain when you do that where the words mean what they are intended to mean and not what you want them to mean. Or maybe you don't care what they mean and you just pretend I'm shooting atheism in the foot whenever a buzzword like "irrational" or "religious" registers.

By definition, God is a spirit.

A word that works like a charm when using figurative language but is meaningless if were talking about reality.

Correction:He can be continually revised by the infidel in order to concoct the mere notion of His existence.

superluminal hit the mark, your screen name is truly apt. Perhaps you simply misspoke here because in all honesty, I have no idea what to make of this. Perhaps the word "infidel" felt good on the fingertips and you didn't care about the rest of the sentence?

 

[Nutter]

Are you saying "faith" is rational?

Are you suggesting that faith is irrational? Contemplate all the things that you have faith in.

Did you read my words out of order? They're intended to be read from the left of the screen to the right. A funny thing happens in your brain when you do that where the words mean what they are intended to mean and not what you want them to mean. Or maybe you don't care what they mean and you just pretend I'm shooting atheism in the foot whenever a buzzword like "irrational" or "religious" registers.

That is a red herring and totally irrelevant. If you have nothing of substance to say vis a vis a given issue, it would be in your best interests to say nothing. Hope that helps.

A word that works like a charm when using figurative language but is meaningless if were talking about reality.

That constitutes "begging the question" on your part.

By definition, God is a spirit.

superluminal hit the mark, your screen name is truly apt. Perhaps you simply misspoke here because in all honesty, I have no idea what to make of this. Perhaps the word "infidel" felt good on the fingertips and you didn't care about the rest of the sentence

As I told dear old Superluminal, the family name is "Nutter." And be advised, both of you, that you cannot have my avatar.

If you now feel ashamed because you are an infidel, be of good cheer, as it is part of your healing process.

God bless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What about evidence in God? There's plenty already out there.

Feel free to show it.

One could argue there is no proof for the existance of God. There is no proof for the non-existance of God either.

Both statements are true if you are talking about a generic idea of 'God'. The moment you make a detailed claim is the moment it becomes falsifiable... and falsified all human claims of 'God' become.

How ever we do have evidence. Let us see the end result of the matter. Will the evidence in favor of the Theist out weigh the evidence presented by the Atheist in a court of law? I believe so.

Go for it, you'll likely be the first person in the past 200,000 years to provide evidence.

Which story is more " real " that man got here by a higher being, or that man came from rain falling down on a lava rock and that we are headed to a black hole in about 2 billion years?

Which ever assertion reality agrees with (aka: evidence).

Man isn't evolving..we're devolving.. we're not getting better , we're getting worse.

Oh please for the love of the flying spaghetti monster... get an education so you know what the heck you're talking about.

Morals decline, personal convictions decline over time. We come in this world and we leave with the maggots.

Morals change and personal convictions change. We also don't 'come' into or 'leave' the world from some external place.

Ms. America soon becomes Ms Maggot.

That's called anthopmorphism. Read up on it and if you understand then you will know exactly what 'God' really is.

Are we really to believe this Fairy tale for grown-ups? Are we honestly to believe that it all came about by accident. Could we believe that a type factory blew up and all the peices came down and formed a websters unabridged 1828 dictionary? Or maybe that a tornado hit a junk yard and left a perfectly constructed F-18 Hornet in its wake? That's evolution for ya.

That's not evolution. First and foremost you are asserting that something called 'random' / 'accident' objectively exists, and I can guarantee you have no evidence for it. The implication is that there evolution is anything but 'random'. It's a logical process that reality encompasses.

Things rust, things rot, people get old, decrepited, and die. Grass withers and turns brown, Fires dwindle down and go out. I could go on and on but I cannot bear the depression I am enduring at the moment.

If entropy causes you depression then you might consider therappy.

 

[geeser]

Are you suggesting that faith is irrational? Contemplate all the things that you have faith in.

lol, are you at all serious we are on a religious sub-forum, discussing religious faith not any other kind, religious faith is blind faith, so yes it is most definitely irrational. what else could it be.

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
H.L. Mencken


Faith:.

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as deeply held blind faith in organized religions and holy dogmas. The Xian dominated society of this country has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. Beneath the Xian whitewash is the plain hard truth. If a person treated his children half as cruelly as the supposedly divine and omnibenevolent Judeo-Xian blood god has treated his children, the Xians would be out to give him the death penalty. Does belief in cruel gods create cruel people, or do cruel people simply make their gods in their own likeness?

Faith is the nemesis of logic. Where there is religious faith, there can not be logic. The two are quite completely mutually exclusive. In every endeavor other than religion, if a person accepts things as being true with no quality evidence to support such beliefs, then the person is considered foolish and even contemptible by society. When acting exactly the same way regarding religion, the person is considered as perfectly normal. There is in faith an immunity to reality.

Faith is the destroyer of science and progress. Faith in gods creates a horrible aversion to change. The status quo is the rule of thumb and the "faithful" conservative Xian's morals are the worn out morals of liberals from forty or so years before him. Yet along he goes dragging his feet. "Why free the slaves? It's in the bible." The faithful Xians were enraged when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. "It's a sin" they screamed. "God surely controls the lightning and who are you to interfere?" There was Galileo who was tried by the Catholic Church for sacrilege because he claimed the world was round and that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around as the bible says. The Fundies are this very minute all across the country attempting to remove evolution from the science books, even though it is established as fact. The list is endless. Religion and science are mutually exclusive. Xian Science is nothing but an oxymoron.

Faith is the slaughterer of freedom. If there is a concept more hateful to the hearts of the faithful flock than freedom, then it is unimaginable what it would be. Truly the flock pays due lip service to freedom, but their every endeavor is to control and outlaw it. To pass laws to prohibit sexual preferences in the bedroom of two adults is nothing but pure tyranny. Why do these people care who you're sleeping with? What business is it of there's? The faithful claim that they simply want to live life according to the rules of their god, but they want nothing short of making everyone live by those exact rules. Everywhere you find these faithful people you will see them attempting to control the other people around them. They even have the audacity to claim they are persecuted, simply because people resist them and rail against their bids for totalitarian control. The faithful claim they are patriots, but they resemble old Russian Communism much more closely than capitalism.

Faith is the destructor of individuality. Everywhere the faithful are trying to enact their version of god's word into law and force the rest of society to be just like them. The faithful proudly claim the title of "Sheep". What more needs be said?

Faith is the fountainhead of ignorance. The faithful everywhere cast off logic and science as the temptations of Satan. Any science, theory, or fact which contradicts their religion is perceived to be purely evil. This inevitably leads to the embracing of myths and ignorance and the shunning of rational thinking.

Faith is the procreator of intolerance. Faith like nothing else strengthens intolerance and helps it breed and spread. What else would come about from people who claim as divinely inspired a book which espouses slavery, homophobia, murder, infanticide, genocide, racism, rape and kidnapping in the name of a loving god?

my definition, God is a spirit.

lol and how do you measure that, have you some evidence at all.

 

[Jeff 152]

nobody responded to my post #133. Im curious, do atheists agree with me and do theists understand my point?

 

[VitalOne]

No. They think evidence causes something to be believeable.

If thats true how do atheists say the existence of God is unlikely because there is no evidence when there shouldn't be evidence present since its unverifiable?

 

[VitalOne]

V1...the same amount of circumstantial evidence that there was some intelligent cause behind reality is about the same amount of circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis occured...

Anyone can make wild conjectures without evidence. What is your evidence, then?

The arguments for design, like the anthropic principle,

V1...attributes, properties, and characteristics from the God I believe in....

What are those properties?

unborn, unmade, unformed, causeless, unchanging, the source of all, the origin of all...

V1...Where'd you get that number from? "Oh let me see...whats a good number, oh I know!! 99.9999%....checkmate!!!"

Can you show me how you calculated this? If not, then please STFU

Actually, it's an underestimate. It's more likely that exactly one hour ago you thought about a duck covered with purple spots playing the piano, drew a picture of it, and mailed it to your Aunt Tilly in New Jersey.

Right...so basically you can't explain how you got the number....nice try though

Here's your argument "there's no evidence, and there shouldn't be any evidence present, some how that makes God's existence unlikely...we can NEVER tell what can be considered as concrete, empirical evidence of God, but if you had some hypothetical evidence of which we can never tell you, then we would believe God exists"

 

[VitalOne]

That is a valid definition. Words in the English language typically have multiple definitions. Faith also has the alternative definition of unconditional trust. Ever hear the statement "I have faith in you"?

So then using your definition I can believe in God and it can require no faith?

Here are a few pieces of evidence against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

ROFL!!! 100% illogical, ofcourse there's no evidence, nothing can even be CONSIDERED evidence....because its unverifiable, just like how it took thousands of years before there was any evidence that atoms existed...why? Because it took thousands of years for it to become verifiable....

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

There are also loads of things scriptures say that are true, that the people of the time didn't know to be true and that the science of the time didn't know to be true, atheists just say "yeah well it was a lucky guess"...plus this is also illogical because it doesn't show how God doesn't exist...

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

There's also loads of contradictions in modern physics, yet atheists have no problem believing modern physics...

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

So how does this show that God doesn't exist?

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

So how does this show that God doesn't exist? Another 100% illogical argument, I can also make the same argument against atheists, who usually hate authority figures and say "well the only reason atheists exists is because they don't like authority figures"

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

Well again how does this show that God doesn't exist?

 

[VitalOne]

Without ever having read a holy text, would you be thinking about all the things that are in your religion? Heaven, Hell, angels, all that?

I'm sure most people would at sometime or another think of some kinda creator out there, but they wouldn't go into all the silly details that most religions do. I'm agnostic and believe there's gotta be something out there, but I'm not naive enough to say what it all may be, let alone try and convince other people that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Heaven, Hell, angels, etc etc? Please. That's the silliness with religion, and what people dislike about evangelists, actually claiming and filling in all those gaps that we have no idea about and then trying to force it upon others.

Religion is philosophy, nothing more. All you're doing is believing in some other person's interpretations to the mysteries of life, rather than trying for your own self to figure it out and believe in your own thing. Unlock the mysteries yourself and you'll find enlightenment, not from someone else, although it may help guide you. Why do you think Jesus went on his 40 day journey? To find enlightenment. If you don't do that yourself, you're just a lost soul.

Jesus, or any other prophet for that matter, is no more correct in his or her beliefs than you or I, otherwise, as the athiests say, prove it, and you'll be left fiddling with your lower lip looking silly as you try and come up with a reasonable answer. Otherwise be like other philosophers and prophets and write your own book. Hey, L. Ron Hubbard did it and look at all his followers. It's easy to convince lost souls that haven't gone on their own spiritual journey to figure it all out.

- N

Man what an idiot...first of all in the past I use to be skeptical too, I thought that heaven, hell, karma, a soul, God, etc...didn't really exist and maybe it was all symbolic at best, and if God did exists then it would be an impersonal type of God....so nothing I derive comes from religious scripture, just my own experiences, which confirm religious scriptures...

 

[VitalOne]

Oh, you're lying. How nice.

Why do people - I mean beyond being stupid, or dishonest or both - have this hangup about athiests admitting that our beliefs are faith-based? Do you think that we're going to magically say "oh! our beliefs are equally irrational, I'll give everyone who believes in God a crisp $20 bill!"

The most you could prove would be irrationality, which doesn't bother the existentialists or nihilists among us that much, so why do you keep beating your dead horse? Even if you're right, you're still ugly and your arguments are still boring.

Woah, look at all the ad hominems...what a cheap muthafucker

 

[Tiassa]

nobody responded to my post #133. Im curious, do atheists agree with me and do theists understand my point?

The coin-flip analogy doesn't exactly work; in that case, we can see that the coin has a heads side and a tails side. The assertion of God hasn't even that going for it.

• • •​

just like how it took thousands of years before there was any evidence that atoms existed...why? Because it took thousands of years for it to become verifiable.

Unlike God, atoms have effects that can be observed.

 

[VitalOne]

Unlike God, atoms have effects that can be observed.

Uhm...you know the effects that atoms have couldn't have been directly known as effects before it was verfiable, right? Just as the effects of electromagnetism wouldn't be known before it was unverifiable...Similarly, the effects God has, although constantly affecting us, is not directly known, because it is still unverifiable...

 

[ashura]

Uhm...you know the effects that atoms have couldn't have been directly known as effects before it was verfiable, right? Just as the effects of electromagnetism wouldn't be known before it was unverifiable...Similarly, the effects God has, although constantly affecting us, is not directly known, because it is still unverifiable...

Simple chemical reactions are effects of atoms, although it wasn't known thousands of years ago when the same effects were taking place. However, you'll notice that the effect came first, and the explanation came second. This is because atoms were around even then, and their effects, although the explanation/cause was unknown, were observable.

You're claiming the exact opposite, that we should accept your explanation even though we can't observe any effects.

Is it that hard to see why I have trouble swallowing that?

 

[superluminal]

Uhm...you know the effects that atoms have couldn't have been directly known as effects before it was verfiable, right? Just as the effects of electromagnetism wouldn't be known before it was unverifiable...Similarly, the effects God has, although constantly affecting us, is not directly known, because it is still unverifiable...

Hey VO, give me a few testable ideas about god. Go on. Let's see what you got.

Humans had testable ideas about matter. They had testable ideas about EM. They tested them. We now can use both in predictable ways.

Before they were testable, we thought they were caused by gods. But even so, there were measurable things going on (rocks were hard, sparks flew from amber rubbed with wool (electron is the Greek word for "amber"), and so on).

We used god as the cause. Now, you need to show some phenomenon that is currently unexplained, test it, and show that the only remotely reasonable explanation is the hand of god.

Go on. Put the fuck up, or shut the fuck up.

 

[amishmafia]

Feel free to show it.



Both statements are true if you are talking about a generic idea of 'God'. The moment you make a detailed claim is the moment it becomes falsifiable... and falsified all human claims of 'God' become.



Go for it, you'll likely be the first person in the past 200,000 years to provide evidence.



Which ever assertion reality agrees with (aka: evidence).



Oh please for the love of the flying spaghetti monster... get an education so you know what the heck you're talking about.



Morals change and personal convictions change. We also don't 'come' into or 'leave' the world from some external place.



That's called anthopmorphism. Read up on it and if you understand then you will know exactly what 'God' really is.



That's not evolution. First and foremost you are asserting that something called 'random' / 'accident' objectively exists, and I can guarantee you have no evidence for it. The implication is that there evolution is anything but 'random'. It's a logical process that reality encompasses.



If entropy causes you depression then you might consider therappy.

Think about it... T-H-I-N-K (!!) I gather from your response that you are an evolutionist/theist. care to remark on that? I could give you a detailed explanation for each and every thing I posted here, that you brought out. However, I doubt it could do any good so someone with " education" . But tell me.........

here's an example of evidence of the existance of God....


THE THEORIES...
1.) the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTLY
2.) The universe has always been here
3.) The universe does not really exist
4.)The universe came from NOTHING. ie SUPERNATURALLY

THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES
--------------------------------

THE REALITIES
1.) This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, neither matter no energy can be created or destroyed

2.) This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, dealing with the conservation of energy think "entropy"

3.)This theory is the road to drugs and the insane asylum

4.) THIS IS THE ONLY THEORY THAT MATCHES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND ANY REAL SCIENCE ( 1 TIM 6:20 )

( ALL others are "non-scientific" )

God verbally challenges any man to put his words to the test (ISAIAH 41:21-24) By computerized/ mathematical systems (ISA 42:9 , 43:10-13 , 44:6-8 , 45:11 , 46:5 ,9-10 )

In the BOOK, , 48 prophecies are given concerning one individual-- and they are given 400 to 2000 years before HE is born. All come to pass to the last detail. The chances of such a thing happening any time in history, anywhere on earth, under any set of conditions are ONE OUT OF 10 TO THE 157th power 1 out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
don't trust me, do the research for YOURSELF

 

[Tiassa]

And ...?

4.) THIS IS THE ONLY THEORY THAT MATCHES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND ANY REAL SCIENCE ( 1 TIM 6:20 )

• O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge .... (1 Tim. 6.20, RSV)

• O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called .... (1 Tim. 6.20, KJV)​

You've forgotten the notion that we humans do not yet understand the full implications of time. Without something to recognize "time", the concept would be meaningless. Why should we attempt to limit something so grand as the Universe to the scale of our mortal, human brains?

Do not pretend that refusing a question is the best way to answer it.

God verbally challenges any man to put his words to the test (ISAIAH 41:21-24) By computerized/ mathematical systems (ISA 42:9 , 43:10-13 , 44:6-8 , 45:11 , 46:5 ,9-10 )

So we should trust that which is said to be falsely called knowledge? You do recognize the contradiction in your post, right?

• Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is nought; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Isa. 41.21-24, RSV)

• Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. (Isa. 41.21-24, KJV)

• Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa. 42.9, RSV)

• Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa. 42.9, KJV)

• "You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior ...." (Isa. 43.10-11, RSV)

• Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isa. 43.10-11, KJV)

• Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any." (Isa. 44.6-8, RSV)

• Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isa. 44.6-9, KJV)

• Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands?" (Isa. 45.11, RSV)

• Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. (Isa. 45.11, KJV)

• To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike? .... remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose' .... (Isa. 46.5, 9-10, RSV)

• To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? .... Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure .... (Isa. 46.5, 9-10, KJV)​

Aside from using the Bible to call people's names and to use a story of God beating his chest in lieu of an argument, the relevant point is?

In the BOOK, , 48 prophecies are given concerning one individual-- and they are given 400 to 2000 years before HE is born. All come to pass to the last detail. The chances of such a thing happening any time in history, anywhere on earth, under any set of conditions are ONE OUT OF 10 TO THE 157th power 1 out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000.
don't trust me, do the research for YOURSELF

It does make for a good story, doesn't it?

Are we pretending that Jesus was not aware of the scriptures that preceded him?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So then using your definition I can believe in God and it can require no faith?

You can accept 'God's existence as truth without evidence and you can trust 'God' unconditionally. The distinction is how the word is used within a grammatical context.

ROFL!!! 100% illogical, ofcourse there's no evidence, nothing can even be CONSIDERED evidence....because its unverifiable, just like how it took thousands of years before there was any evidence that atoms existed...why? Because it took thousands of years for it to become verifiable....

Atoms were asserted as theory until they could be objectivley detected... and now they are asserted as truth as a result. 'God' has always been asserted as truth. It is a claim and not a theory.

There are also loads of things scriptures say that are true, that the people of the time didn't know to be true and that the science of the time didn't know to be true, atheists just say "yeah well it was a lucky guess"...plus this is also illogical because it doesn't show how God doesn't exist...

It doesn't matter if 50% of scripture claims are true. 'God' is an infallable life form. Being incorrect contradicts that notion.

There's also loads of contradictions in modern physics, yet atheists have no problem believing modern physics...

Atheists aren't claiming every assertion of modern physics to be absolute truth.

So how does this show that God doesn't exist?

It shows you what 'God' is. A psychological phenomena... and of course by knowing what it is, you know what it is not.

So how does this show that God doesn't exist? Another 100% illogical argument, I can also make the same argument against atheists, who usually hate authority figures and say "well the only reason atheists exists is because they don't like authority figures"
...
...
...
Well again how does this show that God doesn't exist?

It shows that people value their psychological needs more than truth.