Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.
Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?
But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional....
 
Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.
Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...

geeser said:
the same reasoning, they'd use to determine lenny the Leprechaun's, francis the Fairies, or elsa the Elves, existence.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
No one's asking anyone to prove a negative. You can falsify a positive by proving another positive.
 
Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Jesus explicitly states in the bible that one should NOT ask for proof of the Father...wtf?

Why not? Weren't we given free will to question the validity of...anything?
Wait, let me rephrase that; weren't we given the free will to question the validity of the bible without being condemned to hell? Nope.
 
Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...


No one's asking anyone to prove a negative. You can falsify a positive by proving another positive.

But scientists also don't automatically assume that something is true when it hasn't been proven yet.
Example, the string theory of the universe (and parallel universes). It is a theory, there is no evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. With that said, scientists DON'T assume that the universe(s) are comprised of those strings, because there isn't enough evidence to support it.
 
Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

Can anyone provide third-person verification that consciousness as a phenomenon exists?
 
But scientists also don't automatically assume that something is true when it hasn't been proven yet.
Example, the string theory of the universe (and parallel universes). It is a theory, there is no evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. With that said, scientists DON'T assume that the universe(s) are comprised of those strings, because there isn't enough evidence to support it.
Ofcourse scientists do not automatically assume things, that isn't how science works, the point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that are true that science doesn't know about yet.....you all seem to think "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true" thats why you won't believe in things without evidence because you all really think that evidence makes something true........
 
As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described. God is the origin of all, .
lol, how so? you know this how?
therefore he cannot be a physical entity,
exactly lol, it's imaginary.
before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....
lol, and you know this how?
But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional....
lol, and god is different, how?
Uhm...no like things beyond the scope of science....didn't you get my point? We haven't gained knowledge of everything yet...there's LOTS of missing knowledge...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for.....since most likely there are many innumerable things unknown to us currently that exist...
yes, Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.
 
Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?
When termites infest my house, I just go hop on the computer, go to one of my online forums and make one-line posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You should try it sometime. It's fun!
 
lol, how so? you know this how? exactly lol, it's imaginary.lol, and you know this how?
lol, and god is different, how?
yes, Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.
LOL you've just confirmed what I said you all really believe "evidence causes something to become true" instead of "evidence reveals what is true"......

As for how I know, I base it on own independent reasoning, unlike you I have an independent mind and am able to have beliefs outside of science and what the current evidence upholds....comparing these things to a Leprechaun is really useless.....

You know what electromagnetism never existed in ancient times, the Sun revolved around Earth before too, there was no such thing as blackholes in the past, etc......these are conclusions that you would've drawn from the current evidence of the times......
 
Jesus explicitly states in the bible that one should NOT ask for proof of the Father...wtf?

Why not? Weren't we given free will to question the validity of...anything?
Wait, let me rephrase that; weren't we given the free will to question the validity of the bible without being condemned to hell? Nope.
No, Jesus does not state that...rather in the Gospel of Thomas he states:

" "If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" " (Gospel of Thomas, 50)

This only further adds mystery to what Jesus was trying to communicate to mankind.....

Also you missed the point of the post, why ask for evidence if you admit that gathering evidence is impossible?
 
Jesus did state something to that effect. It was in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Allow me a little bit to sift through those books and find that scripture.

Why the hell would anyone want to add to the mystery of what He was trying to communicate to mankind? His teachings and the wordings of his teachings in scripture are hard enough to decipher...as all the denominations should so blatantly prove.

I also never admitted that gathering evidence is impossible. Gathering evidence for non theists is just like theists reading the bible trying to gather more insight.
I'm pretty sure I got the point of the post. It's merely the same question non theists would ask theists.
 
But we know that Santa, the tooth-fairy, and FSM were made up and fictional..

No you don't.

I don't deny any of these beings you mentioned, nor do I accept them

See, now you're an atheist. Typically atheists don't ultimately deny them, they just lack belief in them, (don't accept them) because there is no evidence.

So, what's you first day as an atheist like?

As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described.

It always is :bugeye: *Mine* is different, it's just everyone elses that are crap.

God is the origin of all,

Any evidence? Didn't think so? Why would you expect me to believe it? Let's go through this..

"Lenny the leprechaun is the origin of all".

You're going to just believe that....... right?

before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....

Before there was existence or non-existence Lenny existed just the same.

What now?
 
No you don't.
Yes you do...the creator of FSM made FSM up just to ridicule theism...just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn....

SnakeLord said:
See, now you're an atheist. Typically atheists don't ultimately deny them, they just lack belief in them, (don't accept them) because there is no evidence.

So, what's you first day as an atheist like?
What are you talking about? Most atheists say that God is an imaginary fantasy, everyone else is just another delusional fool besides them (atheists)

SnakeLord said:
It always is :bugeye: *Mine* is different, it's just everyone elses that are crap.

Any evidence? Didn't think so? Why would you expect me to believe it? Let's go through this..
Uhm...I was only describing the characteristics of God to show how its completley different from a Leprechaun....

SnakeLord said:
"Lenny the leprechaun is the origin of all".

You're going to just believe that....... right?



Before there was existence or non-existence Lenny existed just the same.

What now?
If you describe "Lenny the Leprechaun" and "God" with the exact same characteristics then "Lenny the Leprechaun" is simply another word for "God", since there is no difference between the two....

Yes I would believe in "Lenny the Leprechaun" if you described him with the exact identical characteristics as "God" since I would conclude that "Lenny the Leprechaun" is the same as "God" (there being no difference between the two besides the words)
 
Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

But there should be evidence aplenty.

If God is constantly meddling with this world then we should see his thumb print everywhere.

So find evidence of his actions and you have your proof.
 
Yes you do...the creator of FSM made FSM up just to ridicule theism...just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn...

Alright, but the tooth fairy is real. I have seen the evidence to say she is real, (i.e coins under my bed that my parents categorically deny having any influence in), and you'd be very hard pressed to show that santa was created to ridicule anyone... especially considering christians are the very first to celebrate christmas.

What are you talking about? Most atheists say that God is an imaginary fantasy, everyone else is just another delusional fool besides them (atheists)

Your statement is inaccurate, but typical for someone that does not understand what atheism means.

Uhm...I was only describing the characteristics of God to show how its completley different from a Leprechaun....

Since when did "difference" equate to existence or non-existence? A black man is different to a white man.. does that mean one does not exist?

If you describe "Lenny the Leprechaun" and "God" with the exact same characteristics then "Lenny the Leprechaun" is simply another word for "God", since there is no difference between the two...

Right, and since there's no difference, you just believe in leprechauns but give them a different name.. right?

Further to which, Lenny is not the same as gods. gods can perhaps be identified as the same as other gods, (although the evidence suggests otherwise), so when you say you believe in jesus you actually mean you believe in allah. What's it like being a muslim?
 
...because there is much missing knowledge that science does not have there is good reason to believe in things which there is currently no evidence for...

That behavior fills in the gap of missing knowledge with *insert your fantasy here* rather than leaving the gap and waiting for real truth to fill it. When people such as yourself use this "God of the gaps" rationale it sends a clear message that you don't value truth as much as an atheist might.

I would hate to be in your situation. If you were a Muslim in Iraq you might be one of those poor spastards whom blows themselves up because they fill immense gaps from lack of education with Allah, heaven, and virgin rewards from killing the enemy. They have so much missing knowledge and think they have good reason to believe in Allah and heaven.

I'll speculate the reason that Atheists care and challenge theists is because they care far more about the truth and don't want to be negatively impacted by other peoples actions that are based on fantasy. It would piss me off if I had to walk along in some market place worried that some lunatic believing in an omnipotent life form was going to blow himself up. It pisses me off that I live in a country where 20% of the population are evangelicals (christian extremists). Have you ever seen a Christian extremist?
 
Back
Top