Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

Do you mean UFOs as most do, which equates to space aliens visiting our planet from far, far away? Or do you mean UFOs in the literal sense, which are simply "unidentified objects" that seem to "fly?"

If the latter, then, yes, they "absolutely" exist. If you are referring to the former... then they deserve to be lumped in with demons and spirits and all other supernatural/paranormal mumbo jumbo.
 
Fathoms said:
Strawman. An atheist doesn't have to know how the universe came into being to figure out that "God" had absolutely nothing to do with it. Wherever there is mystery, the default explanation can't simply be "God did it". Did what exactly, wave his big ol' magic wand and make stuff happen? Just because no concrete rational explantion exists for something isn't a liscence to advocate a decidedly irrational one.
Click to expand...

Well when i way God im simply talking about a 'first cause', something that caused the universe to be created.
It's simple cause - and effect, its entirely rational to suspect that the universe may have had a creative or non-creative casual agent, since everything know to us our senses follows this trend.

Again - we're talking past each other here, which to be fair was probably my fault in this instance since i didnt explain what concept of god i was infering.

But essentially this is what a strong atheist is doing, someone like dawkins is fully aware of the first cause argument but insists that this absolutely cannot be a possiblity.
Which is a pretty strange position to take when you think about it, and is why strong atheism is equally as wrong-footed as theism (in this sense).
 
SkinWalker said:
Do you mean UFOs as most do, which equates to space aliens visiting our planet from far, far away? Or do you mean UFOs in the literal sense, which are simply "unidentified objects" that seem to "fly?"

If the latter, then, yes, they "absolutely" exist. If you are referring to the former... then they deserve to be lumped in with demons and spirits and all other supernatural/paranormal mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

When i use UFO, i am simply saying unidentified flying object (personally).

Although in certain cirumstances i like to make it clear that im talking about a 'craft with esoteric means of propulsion' when i can infer that it A. it is a craft, and B. lies outside of widely known classes of craft.

So im saying UFOs exist 'absolutely' in the sense of them being both airborne objects which we cant indentify.
And in the sense that there are anomalous craft using esoteric forms of propulsion in our skies and around our planet.
Aliens? its a possiblity, but no we dont 'absolutely' know they exist, or at least i dont.
 
A prick with semantics aren't we? Usually when most people talk, of UFO's they refer to space aliens!! That's what was implied, suggested and meant!!!!!!!!!!
 
Godless said:
A prick with semantics aren't we? Usually when most people talk, of UFO's they refer to space aliens!! That's what was implied, suggested and meant!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

...uh..."UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". If you meant aliens, as opposed to just any old "UFO", then say aliens.
 
SkinWalker said:
Do you mean UFOs as most do, which equates to space aliens visiting our planet from far, far away? Or do you mean UFOs in the literal sense, which are simply "unidentified objects" that seem to "fly?"

If the latter, then, yes, they "absolutely" exist. If you are referring to the former... then they deserve to be lumped in with demons and spirits and all other supernatural/paranormal mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...


People used to say that it was mumbo jumbo that the earth was round and were absolutely certain of that fact.
 
grover said:
People used to say that it was mumbo jumbo that the earth was round and were absolutely certain of that fact.
Click to expand...

What makes you so absolutely certain that it was absolutely certain?

Most used to crap out their windows, too.
 
...uh..."UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". If you meant aliens, as opposed to just any old "UFO", then say aliens.
Click to expand...
Erm, the general term for non-alien-flying-saucer these days is UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, to distinguish it from something that's actually flying. Flying would imply control.

People used to say that it was mumbo jumbo that the earth was round and were absolutely certain of that fact.
Click to expand...
Not for a good thousand or more years they didn't.
 
Oli said:
Erm, the general term for non-alien-flying-saucer these days is UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, to distinguish it from something that's actually flying. Flying would imply control.
Click to expand...

really? didn't know that. o_O (no, not sarcasm)
 
(Q) said:
Perhaps. But, for sure, you're argument is rather dated.
Click to expand...
So its not true that humans have again and again throughout history been wrong about that which they took to be obvious and unquestionable truths and said things were impossible that later turned out not to be?
Or that is true but somehow it no longer applies?
 
grover said:
So its not true that humans have again and again throughout history been wrong about that which they took to be obvious and unquestionable truths and said things were impossible that later turned out not to be?
Or that is true but somehow it no longer applies?
Click to expand...

Certainly for religion, of which still applies today.

And, until the advent of the scientific method, it did apply, but no longer.
 
Sarkus said:
Please explain how someone can "believe in God" but not "know that God exists"?
Click to expand...

Quite simple and I will use analogy. I can believe that the rainforest actually has a blue shin frog that can kill people with a touch of it's skin. However if I find evidence that the frogs do in fact exist I stop being a believer. Belief stops, becuase instead of believing I know. Onece you know something for certain it is no longer a belief, it's knowledge.


Is this "belief" then just nothing more than wishful thinking? :eek:
Click to expand...

Well perhaps, or maybe it is a way of thinking.

And please explain how you can "believe" in something without any evidence of that things existence without being irrational?
Click to expand...

Actually, I do have evidence, anecdoctal evidence, but it is there none the less. Would it stand up to scientific scrutiny? Perhaps not, but that is why I believe instead of know.

Oh and in case you want an example, try to prove that you have Free Will. Just try to come up with criteria that everyone agrees with and a test that can measure it. Same thing with Altruism, Greed,Love, hate, humor, and so on. All these things exist, but you cannot prove them scientifically.
 
(Q) said:
Certainly for religion, of which still applies today.

And, until the advent of the scientific method, it did apply, but no longer.
Click to expand...

Even just a few years ago it was considered scientific truth that the adult human brain wasn't neuroplastic. Now they know better. I can't believe you actually think the scientific method provides absolute certainty.
 
grover said:
Even just a few years ago it was considered scientific truth that the adult human brain wasn't neuroplastic. Now they know better. I can't believe you actually think the scientific method provides absolute certainty.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're unaware of what comprises the scientific method, in that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Where did you get the notion there was?

Absolute certainty is encapsulated in religion, not science.
 
TW Scott said:
Quite simple and I will use analogy. I can believe that the rainforest actually has a blue shin frog that can kill people with a touch of it's skin. However if I find evidence that the frogs do in fact exist I stop being a believer. Belief stops, becuase instead of believing I know. Onece you know something for certain it is no longer a belief, it's knowledge.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - but then the original belief, without evidence, is irrational.
And if there is evidence then the "belief" is nothing more than an (subconscious) assessment of probability of existence.

Well perhaps, or maybe it is a way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking is indeed a way of thinking.

Actually, I do have evidence, anecdoctal evidence, but it is there none the less. Would it stand up to scientific scrutiny? Perhaps not, but that is why I believe instead of know.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal evidence is very weak - as ANYTHING written down could be evidence for existence of that thing.
If in 2,000 years time a copy of the Lord of the Rings was found that was missing it's "All characters in this book are fictional..." etc - would it be reasonable to assume that the stories actually happened, the characters actually existed?

Oh and in case you want an example, try to prove that you have Free Will. Just try to come up with criteria that everyone agrees with and a test that can measure it. Same thing with Altruism, Greed,Love, hate, humor, and so on. All these things exist, but you cannot prove them scientifically.
Click to expand...
Jeez - the old arguments come pouring back out.
You claim they exist - so YOU provide the definition - and YOU then provide the evidence.
But no, I guess you'll fall back on "well, it's obvious they exist, it's self-evident". :rolleyes:

Just saying "all these things exist" is not enough.

Furthermore, all these examples are merely aspects of our personality / consciousness.
If you are happily admitting that God is merely another aspect of some people's personalities / consciousnesses...?
 
(Q) said:
Perhaps you're unaware of what comprises the scientific method, in that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Where did you get the notion there was?

Absolute certainty is encapsulated in religion, not science.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a contradiction with your statement that
with the "advent of the scientific method" we no longer have to worry about being wrong about things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top