Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Jan Ardena]

Numbers 31:
======
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the children of Israel. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” . . . And they warred against the Midianites, just as the Lord commanded Moses, and they killed all the males. They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of those who were killed- Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed with the sword.

And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts. they took all the spoil and all the booty—of man and beast.

Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, across from Jericho. And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp. 1But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, with the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle.

And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
=====

So - these people were told by God to kill all the men, kill all the childen, and almost all the women. Except the virgins, rape them. As the Lord commanded.

As you have no problem accepting this, I take it you will have no problem accepting any part of the Bible. Is that so?
Just as a tester, do you accept that God created the heavens and the earth, along with earthly, and heavenly inhabitants, from His Word?

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If there is no God, as your worldview demands, then there can be no evidence for God.

Are you saying if there is no God then there can be no evidence for God.

Well given there is no evidence of God where does that leave us.

Evidence is evidence and my world view or indeed your world view has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.

I can not , nor can you, accept or reject evidence on the basis of our world view.

If you can suggest evidence do so ....but so far you have not provided any evidence and now seem to be resorting to name calling, which does not worry me or upset me, in fact makes me somewhat happy as that indicates in the absence of being able to provide evidence your frustration of not being able to provide evidence drives you to call me names...but still no evidence and that is the fact that stands notwitstanding your subterfuge.

That statement alone betrays your foolishness, according to the biblical quote.

Firstly quoting something does not make it a fact more so when your quote comes from an era when folk did not know where the Sun went at night.

Secondly as everyone must realise my suggestion was a joke with you, not malicious by the way, at most a dig at your continued failure to provide evidence or indeed a link to the evidence you say is out there...your evidence seems like your God in so far as it just does not seem to be available for close inspection.
And I am sorry to point it out but as I predicted you did your trade mark side step so your failure to come up with anything was entirely expected.
You played the ball exactly as expected, not foolish, but predictable Jan.

Maybe you`re an atheist who thinks he has separated his self from God, by pretending, beautifully, to the point of acceptance, that God does not exist.

Pretending God does not exist???
No need to pretend Jan given all you offer is bronze age insults.
The God claim is yours to bring God into existence it is you who must show your pretending has any substance and so far you have not backed up your claim and your predictable sidestepping suggests most strongly that you simply do not have the goods.

And irrespective of your world view or mine you simply can not as opposed to will not back up your claim.
Quoting bronze age one liners with no substance does not fool anyone other than your good self.

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

And I have a quote for you Jan...I just made it up and it has the authority of coming from a modern human who does know where the Sun goes at night..."the fool does say in his mind that there is a God based on a superstitious narrative from the bronze age". ..
Good one eh..feel free to use it☺

The evidence is hidden in plain sight, because you want it that way.

No Jan.
There is no evidence you dont get away with saying it is hidden particularly when you sidestep all requests to present evidence.
I will not say that is dishonest but you must bear the burden of others forming that view based on your demonstrated evasiveness.

You still have values that are fundamental to human life

Of course I have values but even a believer can have values if they form their morality from decency rather than cherry pick through a book that includes references to slave ownership and encouragement to kill folk mowing their grass on the day of rest.

Get real Jan if you followed the bible to the letter you would be killing every week...

You do not know why you have these values.

I could explain why I have values but you are too far from enlightement to be trusted with such a sensible approach...you need to abandon your primative superstitious ways before there is any hope for you Jan...and now I am not joking...get real man and stop fooling yourself it is tiresome and downright degrading ...I feel sad to have to listen to you babble this way...try to get it together and make some sort of sense....I know you could do so much better if you tried just a little.

Most probably you will buy into the evolution of morals, story, and become satisfied.

You are not making sense..explain what you are trying to say...

This is something we could discuss, if and when you awake from your illusion.

Humour me and treat me as if I were actually a normal person with the ability to know where the Sun goes at night...please try...but type slow because I am a slow reader.

But right now, you`re stuck.

Oh stop being condecending it is boreish and tiresome.

Why do you think God would need to come from anywhere?

I dont have that need.
Clearly my point has gone over your head.
Read what I said again and if you still dont understand ask again but I suspect if you dont gloss over what I have said you should get my point.

Every theist can see the foolishness of atheism.

Tiresome.

But now we can discuss it in a scientific way, as per article. But you refuse, still wanting to play games.

Get some rest Jan you are so off your game today I feel like I might crush you by accident.
Science eh...I look forward to hear what you can offer when well rested.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you saying if there is no God then there can be no evidence for God.

As your world view demands, yes.

Well given there is no evidence of God where does that leave us.

Given that there is evidence for God, but you deny, and reject it, it leaves you being an atheist.

Evidence is evidence and my world view or indeed your world view has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.

That being said, what`s your problem.

If you can suggest evidence do so ....but so far you have not provided any evidence and now seem to be resorting to name calling, which does not worry me or upset me, in fact makes me somewhat happy as that indicates in the absence of being able to provide evidence your frustration of not being able to provide evidence drives you to call me names...but still no evidence and that is the fact that stands notwitstanding your subterfuge.

Quoting a piece of writing, hardly amounts to name calling, especially when the quote can be rationally explained. As I have done.

There is no evidence that you accept as evidence, on the basis of you atheism. Namely, the subconscious affirmation of, there is no God.
All of what you say, regarding God, and theism, has that affirmation as its basis.

Secondly as everyone must realise my suggestion was a joke with you, not malicious by the way, at most a dig at your continued failure to provide evidence or indeed a link to the evidence you say is out there...your evidence seems like your God in so far as it just does not seem to be available for close inspection.

You`re not joking, Alex. You are very serious.
I take nothing you say, as merely a joke. It is backed by your subconscious affirmation.

Pretending God does not exist???
No need to pretend Jan given all you offer is bronze age insults.
The God claim is yours to bring God into existence it is you who must show your pretending has any substance and so far you have not backed up your claim and your predictable sidestepping suggests most strongly that you simply do not have the goods.

And irrespective of your world view or mine you simply can not as opposed to will not back up your claim.
Quoting bronze age one liners with no substance does not fool anyone other than your good self.

There is a need to pretend.
You have to maintain your world view. That`s most probably why you make jokes, and openly blaspheme.
You can only sustain it, if you block the reality of God, out. The best, and easiest way to do this, is to make jokes.

I have as much desire to back up my claim of theism, as you do to back up your claim of atheism. I think the claim, there is no God, is extraordinary claim.

And I have a quote for you Jan...I just made it up and it has the authority of coming from a modern human who does know where the Sun goes at night..."the fool does say in his mind that there is a God based on a superstitious narrative from the bronze age". ..
Good one eh..feel free to use it☺

The operative point being, you have to make things up.
It means your world view has no basis of it`s own. Your world view is made up.

No Jan.
There is no evidence you dont get away with saying it is hidden particularly when you sidestep all requests to present evidence.
I will not say that is dishonest but you must bear the burden of others forming that view based on your demonstrated evasiveness.

What is this thread about?
You present evidence!
Who am I presenting evidence to? Atheists? Why?
There is no God, as far as they are aware. What do they want evidence for?
If there is no God (the atheist position), what God have they concocted, that they think they need evidence for.
It can`t be the theist God, because if that were the case, they would know what God they wanted evidence for. But then, they would be theist
and put away the silly questions. So which God do you imagine you need evidence for, and what type of evidence would suit your sensibilities?

Of course I have values but even a believer can have values if they form their morality from decency rather than cherry pick through a book that includes references to slave ownership and encouragement to kill folk mowing their grass on the day of rest.

Get real Jan if you followed the bible to the letter you would be killing every week...

You see, here is a great example of how you get around serious discussion.
Which is why discussions about God with you, end up being pretty pointless.
You are simply, blissfully caught up in this delusion, that there is no God.

I could explain why I have values but you are too far from enlightement to be trusted with such a sensible approach...you need to abandon your primative superstitious ways before there is any hope for you Jan...and now I am not joking...get real man and stop fooling yourself it is tiresome and downright degrading ...I feel sad to have to listen to you babble this way...try to get it together and make some sort of sense....I know you could do so much better if you tried just a little.

Such foolishness Alex.

Oh stop being condecending it is boreish and tiresome.

Are you denying that you are condescending?

Being ``stuck`` is not a condescending description, unless you are not stuck. But everything about what you write sounds like you`re stuck.
This is why I ignore the bulk of your posts. Because you make me sound as though I`m stuck, having to repeat the same responses over and over again.

You should start from the fact that there are two positions. Atheist, and Theist, and they`re both correct in their particular genres.
It is the atheist that makes claims that there is no God, against the theist position (not claim). The onus is on the atheist, to prove his position correct.

Tiresome.

It can be. I agree.

Get some rest Jan you are so off your game today I feel like I might crush you by accident.
Science eh...I look forward to hear what you can offer when well rested.
Alex

Thanks Alex.
I get the feeling you`re still going to maintain your position.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Are you saying if there is no God then there can be no evidence for God.

Well given there is no evidence of God where does that leave us.

Evidence is evidence and my world view or indeed your world view has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.

Not sure I agree with this.
If your world view is that God was the cause of everything, then necessarily everything is evidence of God.
If your world view is not that God was the cause of everything, then everything is not evidence of God (but everything is also not evidence of not-God).
Yes, the former is circular reasoning, but if that is your worldview, if that is where you start from, then what you see as evidence stems from that.
If you have been told, and fully believe, that you were brought about because of your parents, then your existence is surely evidence, to you at least, that you had parents.
Now, whether what you consider to be evidence actually is evidence for what you think it is evidence of... that is another matter.
Bear in mind that evidence is not proof, but rather something that supports your case from the assumptions you begin with.

 

[Musika]

I do that so it must be right☺.



I have no spiritual knowledge so what am I doing wrong?

Well, if atheists do not exist, then technically no human being can be totally bereft of spiritual knowledge.

I think it is no more than "lets pretend" ... is that not all we deal with when we talk of spirituality.

In philosophy they term the issue as principles of "illusion" and "reality".

I realise you have your belief in a God and I get the impression you are a very intelligent person, clearly well educated, extremely good at expression, in fact a person with many wonderful qualities... so I find it difficult to understand why you believe there is a God when all I can see is the belief comes from speculation over two thousand years ago that has no support in reality and just not consistent with critical thinking.

Part of the problem in declaring something as illusion is that it has to be based on something real. So yes, ideas of something being illusion are usually followed up by explanations of "what is really going on".

Do you see the flaws but bound to give support because it is part of your culture or its what your friends believe so you must go along?

No.
Maybe there are a few exceptions, but in general, most places are adverse to spiritual life so alot of it involves swimming against the predominant cultural current. It was actually driven, in part, by seeing the flaws of materialistic life.

I could say these superstitions that created a God come from a time when they did not know where the Sun went at night but I think I mentioned that earlier.

Sure, we have a wealth of information and facility in this age, but I'm not sure how that automatically makes us more brilliant. In fact I think there is a strong argument for it making us more stupid. It is like a body that has strong arms and legs, but no head, so it inevitably just runs into a ditch (in spectacalur fashion).

I dont know if saying there is no logic to the idea is correct as I have not studied formal logic.

It seems you are just saying it is illusion. It is not real, because all that is really going on is a bunch of speculation that has taken cultural root from an era that had no access to the trappings of modern culture. But all of this coming from you is just speculation also. You are sitting down and having a good think about it all and coming to the conclusion that that is exactly what went on previously in history, yet they didn't have the advantage of thinking about things in the midst of modern culture, and all its glory. I guess what is working in the background of all this is whether one thinks there is an essential problem(s) to existing in this world or whether technological advancement provides radical new territory.

But do you have to study logic to realise that the bible is very much flawed?

If there is indeed a God on what grounds could a human believe that that God has any interest in humans given God appears to have left the building.
And the suffering the inexcusable suffering.

Running out free will is a cop out and was invented to head off the observation that God could do so much more.

A sex fiend molested and killed my child why did God not help...oh cause God wants the fiend to have free will but will forgive him if he accepts God..sure but my child is still dead and I cant bear the loss...free will sure what a great way for a God to give humans dignity.


If there was a God could one not expect that things would be made much clearer than having to sort through non specific prophesy and unsupported "relevation".

Could not a God do better?

The problem of theodicy is driven by ideas on the purpose of this world and the nature of the living entity.
So that's probably where you have to start when you look at this problem.

Well a real God that actually did exist and was not a mere invention would I have no doubt.

I just can not accept that relevation has any merit ...I mean any fool can rattle on but why should we take his rambling seriously.

Think of it this way...say I come on here and say God has spoken to me and has told me that the destiny of the world is in my hands and that I must lead the world to a new understanding of God...Would you not think that I was crazy...maybe you would not...

There is a saying, "example is better than precept." Why limit it to religion? Practically the entire world is full of people who believe the number 1 problem is that no one or not enough people is/are willing to listen to their ideas on how to improve things. It doesn't appear to be the "preceot" dept that has the shortage.

But trusting the various claims of two thousand years ago is really no different.

Well, yeah, if you have to travel back in time 2000 years to find something better than precept, trust issues will naturally arise.

It is crazy today and it was crazy two thousand plus years ago.

Well I guess you can't find fault with consistency then

Then look at thebible which is made up...at least the story of creation is made up and is incorrect...how can you regard any book that has flaws as something that could be considered credible and indeed offerred up as good cosmology or a decent guide to good morality.

If we have a book on cooking rice that says you know the rice is cooked if it is hot but still crunchy, which is clearly incorrect, why would you hold up that book as a good cook book.

So you realise the cook book is wrong on that point which must cause one to regard it as possibly wrong through out...but you still use it and ignore the fact that although hot your rice makes a crunchy sound when you try to chew it...but then it says the best way to cook an animal is to do so whilst it is still alive so as to preserve its nutrition. ..seems cruel but you go on...and page after page you find stuff that is both incorrect and wrong.

I think discerning the normative from the descriptive and the essential from the peripheral is what the whole rice grain testing thing is all about.

Do you throw the book out or treasure it proclaiming the author was a good cook and as stuff is cooked by everyone that is proof that it is a good cook book.

Facts...
The bible on page one has been made up and that is beyong arguement.

The bible contains encouragement to do illegal acts and although there are many examples I point to only one which calls upon a believer to kill anyone working on the day of rest.

The bible endorses many immoral acts but lets look at just one...slavery...and would not any decent person say ownership of another human is wrong.

I am not a scholar and a simple relatively uneducated man but my observations I feel are valid and if not perhaps you with your superior education and presumably higher intellect can explain my observations away.

What other book would be offered as authority if it contained only one single mistake...not one...absolutely not a single one...my thought is no book is worth reading if it is wrong and supportive of immoral and illegal encouragement.

Can you say I am wrong?

It gets back to whether one thinks there are timeless problems with existence or whether its all about the flavour of the day.
I mean if there are scriptural injunctions regarding the care and maintenance of camels, do you think the devout should go out purchase a few just for the sake of applying scripture?

I know you like to think simple folk like me dont understand but honestly I think you have become so wrapped up in finer detail that you miss the real issue which is the bible has enough parts either wrong or encouraging illegal or immoral action to be banned.

Its not so much that you are simple but rather that you are overly complex.

Yes banned.

Lets say I publish a call to kill folk who mow their lawn on the day of rest would I not be arrested as a terrorist?

If I advocated slavery would decent folk support me? Of course not yet believers offer all sorts of excuses to sidestep the slavery reference..dishonest attempts actually...ask a believer about slavery in the bible...oh the waffle...dishonest waffle.

Before you try any of this you should first purchase a camel.

If I presented a paper on anything claiming an observation that I could not have made (and I point to the fact no witness could be present at creation and yet gives an eye witness account) and further getting it wrong do you think I would get a Noble and praised for supreme wisdom and ability.


No...absolutely not.

Does that include God?
Or is God not allowed to be a person?
Or is the real crime that 2000+ year old literature does not use the language of 20th century science?

So why do you tolerate this double standard and in fact hold up such a book as authority?

I ask how you can reconcile these issues.


Alex

To make things brief, I generally look for philosophical issues that tackle the big questions. For me, scripture may have elements of history or cosmology, but the purpose of scripture is neither a history nor astronomy text book. It is an external representation of God. Its a means to develop a clue on how God sees the world, as opposed to a how-to manual for ambitious humans.

Granted, scriptures originating from the middle east have some very particular historiography issues, but if one insists on using them exclusively as source material, one can still go the distance to the degree one is set on tackling the big problems.

 

[Michael 345]

Bear in mind that evidence is not proof,

So what is proof?

 

[Musika]

This was a statement in context of the OP .
No, your clever and duplicitous twisting two different perspectives does not make you less wrong. Moreover, your obvious disdain for Humanists does not speak in your favor.

I think that a better example of pomp and glitter can be found in the various houses of worship.

I am not Atheist first and Humanist second. I do not practice atheism, whatever that even means.

I am Humanist first and foremost, who happens to be atheist. As Humanist, I judge people by their individual character and behavior.

As atheist, I merely disagree with theist's belief in a God as presented and codified in scripture. But even as atheist I would not dream of discriminating against theists. There are no scriptures to tell an atheist to discriminate.

As atheist I was speaking against organized and codified Religions, with their demonstrable inherent flaws of exclusive and declared prejudicial stance against all other beliefs, including other believers and non-believers alike.

As Humanist I try to live up to the standards as set forth in my quote of Humanist values, which in no way discriminate against theists. See post # 1282

IIRC, you set this in motion by asking if I, as a theist, had reservations about wars or conflicts based on religious persecution. This struck me as a strange q to ask, but nonetheless I replied, sure, its not like you have to be an atheist to launch an effective critique of such things.

This set you off on a tangent about how being an atheist/humanist is in fact required to launch an effective critique of such things and that all theists are effectively tarred by the same brush.

This immediately set off alarm bells. The whole position of humanist thought is that morality can function independently from ideological injunctions ... that there is an objective foundation for morality that can be discerned via its own merits. External affiliation is completely irrelevant. A meritous deed is sufficiently validated by its performance alone.
That is principled inclusivism.

But you say that if a meritious deed is performed by a theist (such as critiquing religious conflict), it is not up to the task . The irony is that this is the exact position a religious bigot, the so called enemy in your sights, takes to delegitimize their opponents.

IOW you are saying that morality cannot function independently from ideological injunctions ... that there is no objective foundation for morality that can be discerned via its own merits. External affiliation is completely relevant. A meritous deed is not sufficiently validated by its performance alone.
That is principled exclusivism.

Your views are at odds with Humanist thought. There is more at stake than simply hating theists.

Let's take a look at your original response:

Yes there is, if you are dealing with a religion where violent acts in the name of God are kinda "negotiable".

One of the problems with exclusive religions is that the adherents do not recognize the legitimacy of other religions and conveniently distance themselves from each other by proclaiming they are not the bad religion, it is the other guy.

To an atheist all theistic religions are similar and their apparent flaws are included in the greater picture ofreligious prejudice and persecution.

So the problem with religion IYHO: they all think they are the good guys and all other religions/people are the bad guys.

And the solution, IYHO: get atheists on the scene, because they are the good guys and all the religionists are the bad guys.

Well, yes. You are certainly bringing a fresh perspective.

 

[Write4U]

Musika said;
Or is the real crime that 2000+ year old literature does not use the language of 20th century science?

The real crime is that 2000+ years ago people had many gods, and according to you, they were all false, except for the ONE true god... and.... blah, blah....lots of words, no content or context. You did not answer my question...

Is this your fundamental position?

Eventually they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Theological_doctrine

 

[Musika]

The real crime is that 2000+ years ago people had many gods, and according to you, they were all false, except for the ONE true god... and.... blah, blah....lots of words, no content or context.

The only part that makes sense here are the parts that say no content and no context

You did not answer my question...

Sorry.
I didn't realize it was a serious one.

Is this your fundamental position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Theological_doctrine

No.

 

[Baldeee]

So what is proof?

Proof is an argument (or observation) that necessitates the veracity of a claim or explanation.
Evidence is merely that which is seen to lend credence to some claim or explanation but in and of itself need not rule out alternative theories.
My point is really that while evidence could itself be proof, the two are not synonymous.

E.g. If I say that all swans are white, then each subsequent swan I see that is white i would consider to be evidence in support of my claim.
The more white swans I see the more evidence I have for my claim but without it being proven.
However the first black swan I see would not only be evidence that the claim is wrong but it would indeed be actual proof that it is wrong.

Something like that, anyway.

 

[Write4U]

The only part that makes sense here are the parts that say no content and no context

I am glad you agree with me. So when are you going to offer content and context?

W4U said,
Is this your fundamental position?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Theological_doctrine

Musika said,
No.

So what is your belief system? Don't you think it is only fair? You demand I declare my belief system so you can tear it down as being disingenuous, but you refuse to give even a hint of what the statement "God IS" means to you.

 

[Write4U]

Well, if atheists do not exist, then technically no human being can be totally bereft of spiritual knowledge.

That is a false claim. Atheists do exist and can have an abundance of metaphysical knowledge, which would be the scientific version of theist spiritual knowledge. And so far metaphysics have not given a single hint of the existence of a metaphysical but sentient and motivated being which could be identified as the spiritual god having the potential you speak of.

Metaphysics have proven the existence of very small or even virtual particles, alas, not sentient and motivated to interact other than their inherent potential allows.

 

[billvon]

As you have no problem accepting this, I take it you will have no problem accepting any part of the Bible. Is that so?

No, that is not so.

Just as a tester, do you accept that God created the heavens and the earth, along with earthly, and heavenly inhabitants, from His Word?

Nope. I don't accept Genesis 1. (Or 2, which of course is a different creation myth.)

 

[billvon]

Well, if atheists do not exist, then technically no human being can be totally bereft of spiritual knowledge.

And if atheists _do_ exist, it means there are people out there who actually have critical thinking facilities. Which is cool.

 

[billvon]

Pretty messy family, if you ask me.

Most omnipotent families are.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If your world view is that God was the cause of everything, then necessarily everything is evidence of God.

I spent part of life in the law game and I can tell you that you dont stand before a judge and get anywhere with your approach.

If you wish to claim something you must present more than mere belief.

That is the problem the believer can not grasp let alone overcome.

You say everything is evidence of creation but I am afraid you actually need much more than such a hollow claim.

Think about it this way...if you say you own a race car and I say you are full of it well you remain full of it until you open your garage and roll it out.

If you cant back up a claim then the best idea would be to remain silent.

I guess that is where the saying comes from...put up or shut up...or money talks bullshit walks..or if there are no photos it didnt happen.

The bottom line is unevidenced speculation is simply no more than unevidenced speculation.

If you have been told, and fully believe, that you were brought about because of your parents, then your existence is surely evidence, to you at least, that you had parents.

I do understand what you are saying but just remember in the parent thing you have examples all around you...all most real and tangible so the application of your approach hardley is justified when we move to an area where folk make an unsupported claim about an unevidenced God.

You must see that is a problem that makes your example little more than a ruff guide to your thinking but in no way justifies an approach that pulls a God out of thin air.

Finally in your example there are various ways to arrive at the truth above mere speculation.

Perhaps you could consider why I for example can look at the world and not need to inject a creator using circular reasoning.
The fact I dont find the need to inject a creator means your answer is not the only conclusion one can reach..it is not the only conclusion available I have just pointed that out..so dont say it is the only conclusion..it is not.

Bear in mind that evidence is not proof, but rather something that supports your case from the assumptions you begin with.

Well that sounds nice but evidence is more than what you suggest.

Evidence presents an objective picture and actually does amount to proof if it objectively demonstrates the validity of the point that it is introduced to support...all you suggest is that evidence is subjective and that is just wrong.
You need to take that on board.
All you claim to be evidence is mere opinion...opinion is not evidence do you find that so difficult to accept?
There is no place for opinion.

If you want to attribute creation to a God you cant just say that because you make a speculative finding that is evidence...opinion is not evidence and certainly has no bearing on proof.

Try that approach in court and if you persist with that line the judge will find you in contempt of court.

You have a statue of justice showing a figure with scales in one hand with a blind fold over the face...think about what the message is there.

It does not mean blind faith is acceptable☺

Your "evidence" (opinion) wont move those scales...

I realise the whole deal requires blind faith but really if you want to claim there is a God back up your claim.

The default is there is no God just like you have no race car and the only way you can aquire credibility is to open the garage and roll out your race car and for God similar until then your claims are less than believable.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

As your world view demands, yes.

World view is irrelevant.
No evidence ..no God and that remains if your world view holds there are aliens in the white house.
Your qualification is wrong.

Given that there is evidence for God

Your claim is unsupported and meaningless.

Jan I must go I have a very full day ahead of me.
Before I do I day sorry if I was or sounded condesending...I think we can get carried away and end up talking down to folk.
I will pick up maybe in 15 hours or when my task is complete.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well, if atheists do not exist, then technically no human being can be totally bereft of spiritua

Nice post but I have to go so I will address a reply in about 15 hours at earliest.
Have a nice day.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

World view is irrelevant.
No evidence ..no God and that remains if your world view holds there are aliens in the white house.
Your qualification is wrong.

World view is everything.
Yours holds that, there is no God, period.
You have to maintain that, so you will deny, and reject any evidence, or explanation, without even examining it.
Or if you do look at it, you will deem it not evidence, by default.

Your claim is unsupported and meaningless.

It`s neither of those accusations.
It`s simply not desirable, as far as you`re concerned.

Before I do I day sorry if I was or sounded condesending...I think we can get carried away and end up talking down to folk.

Stop with the apologising, Alex.
You purposely condescend, and you get away with it.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

You are signed on to Jan's behavior here as "having a discussion". You said that. So any claim by you to be "fine" with any actual discussion is specious.

There is a penalty for behaving as Jan does, here, and loss of any standing for criticism is part of it. The OP is a falsehood, defended by slander and lies and evasions. You are fine with that - not "discussion", which you have no interest in.

You act as if you are immune to such repercussions.

And you support my observation by example.

I'm not wrong in what I posted. What I posted was an accurate and fair description of the situation.
When you sign on with Jan's posting here, you sign on with falsehood and slander and bad faith and all manner of unethical behavior, beginning with the OP - that OP is a serious breach of standards in a science forum. A moderator here would be within their purview to expunge it, without comment, as trolling.

You are fine with it, and all the rest. That means you are not, as you claimed, "fine" with actual discussion in this matter. Do you want to be?

Then deal with that, first. Get the log out of your eye, and other people's actions will come into clearer focus.