Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[JohnA]

That's when Jesus came down the companionway and smiled and said:
"Keep it up. You're on the right track"
He looked remarkably like the paintings of him I'd seen in church and Sunday School.

Of course he looked like in the paintings. White, golden brown hair and beard? Nothing like a Jewish man would have looked like at that time. I take this as evidence it was nothing but some kind of product of your brain. Like you said, if you were Muslim, you probably would have seen Mohammad, and he would also look like you'd expect.

The brain is an amazing thing.

Yet Danmark claims that this god does not exist, but has inadmissible evidence (Jesus said he is not god). How is that logical is something that I can not answer. And I suspect neither can Danmark because he refuses to answer it.

For me it is simply: something that is a logical contradiction is illogical. But that is just me, my opinion.

[no evidence no belief]

We don't hate god. We don't hate the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa.

We dislike religion. Hate religion? Some atheists, maybe.

I don't like it when religions (especially Islam and Christianity) expect us to believe what they believe, when it's based on fable and superstition instead of science, and absurdity instead of logic and reason, especially when the argument is so daft it actually insults our intelligence.

Just look at Son's latest comment to John: "Your hatred of god is duly noted."

I suppose this means we're going to suffer for eternity in hell now?

This is the type of nonsense I don't like.

Actually, I totally hate the God of the Bible. I hate Sauron. I hate Allah. I hate the Grinch. I hate Mickey Mouse to be honest. I hate Hannah Montana. I hate the zombies in Resident Evil. I hate Mr. Smith from the Matrix.

There's a bunch of fictional characters I dislike.

I love batman. I like Thor. I kinda like the Tooth Fairy.

There's a bunch of fictional characters I like.

As long as we're discussing fiction, there is nothing wrong with discussing which fictional characters we like and dislike. It doesn't mean we think they are real!

On a more serious note, I do dislike, in a much more real way, religion, dogmatism, stalinism, and any other authoritarian thought numbing attempt to prevent humanity from reaching its true potential.

Yes, you can not hate none-existent entities. But you can dislike fictional characters.
The Christian god can not exist since it's fictional character is contradictory.

If Batman could fly and not fly at the same time, then the fictional character is clearly false.

Fictional characters are allowed to be illogical. They are not real irrespective of whether or not they can fly and not fly at the same time.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1876 by JohnA]

Man, you have a neurotic obsession with Danmark.

[no evidence no belief]

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is God.

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of Allah. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is Allah

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of Zeus. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is Zeus

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of Shiva. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is Shiva

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of Satan. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is Satan

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of Gandalf. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is Gandalf

What I find rather interesting is that it is reported that the first words spoken by God were "let there be light". And recently, scientists have reported that the universe began with light, which for all practical purposes occupied an infinitesimally small space, as if it emanated from nothing at all.

This is not true at all. The universe didn't start with light at all. A ton of things started existing before photons (light particles) even came into the picture.

There was the Planck Epoch, the Grand Unification epoch, the Electroweak epoch, the inflationary epoch, baryogenesis, supersymmetry breaking, the quark epoch, the Hadron epoch, the Lepton epoch and FIIIIIIIINALLY after aaaaall that happened, photons were created.

If God existed, his first words were NOT "Let there be light".

First he said "Let there be a Plank Constant", then he said "Let there be a grand unification", then he said "let there be the electroweak force", then he said "let there be an inflationary period", then he said "let there be baryogenesis", then he said "let the supersymmetry break down", then he said "let there be quarks", then he said "let there be Hadrons", then he said "let there be leptons" and then after he had done all that, he said "let there be light". Ok???

I am often filled with a certain kind of joy when science confirms that which I hypothesize to be true.

Are you often filled with a certain kind of sadness when science utterly destroys that which you hypothesize to be true?

I agree. It would be nice if I could provide a bit of convincing evidence that God exists. I imagine there may exist someone who could provide such evidence for you, but you've apparently not met such a person who holds such evidence. There is plenty of evidence out there, but so far, you are apparently not convinced. You see the world around you. You see the claims made by those who believe. Perhaps you have not noticed the changed lives of those who've been converted to faith in Christ.

Perhaps you have not noticed the changed lives of those who've been converted to faith in Allah.
Perhaps you have not noticed the changed lives of those who've been converted to faith in Scientology.
Perhaps you have not noticed the changed lives of those who've been converted to faith in Krishna.
Perhaps you have not noticed the changed lives of those who've been converted to faith in Voodoo.

I'm not really certain what a religious experience is. If a person subjects himself to partake in the Eucharist, would that be considered a religious experience? Is confessing your sins to a priest having a religious experience? Is being a martyr for God a religious experience? I would say that all of these can be religious experiences. But I have not been talking about religious experiences at all. I've been talking about experiencing God. I do not believe that experiencing God is a religious experience, but rather a God experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in God can have God experiences.

I've been talking about experiencing Allah. I do not believe that experiencing Allah is a religious experience, but rather an allah experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in Allah can have Allah experiences.
I've been talking about experiencing Zeus. I do not believe that experiencing Zeus is a religious experience, but rather a Zeus experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in Zeus can have Zeus experiences.
I've been talking about experiencing Shiva. I do not believe that experiencing Shiva is a religious experience, but rather a Shiva experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in Shiva can have Shiva experiences.
I've been talking about experiencing Satan. I do not believe that experiencing Satan is a religious experience, but rather a Satan experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in Satan can have Satan experiences.
I've been talking about experiencing Gandalf. I do not believe that experiencing Gandalf is a religious experience, but rather a Gandalf experience. In my mind, there is a difference. It is a great difference. Anyone who truly believes in Gandalf can have God experiences.

I am however quite interested in investigating God experiences by Muslims and Buddhists, etc. It would be quite interesting to see what they have to say. It is my guess that you will find more similarities of experience between Muslims who claim to experience God and Christians who claim to experience God than differences. I will have to investigate this. And believe me, I will.

Yeah, could you please? Can you please investigate the similarities between those who believe that only through Christ can you get to heaven, and those who believe that rejecting Christ's divinity is a requirement to attain heaven? Can you please look into the similarities between these mutually exclusive beliefs?

RobertCorfield wrote:

What about reasons for my claim? Here's one to start with. The Christian God is supposed to be all-good yet according to Christianity those who merely commit the act of disbelief will burn forever for all eternity.

I think you may be mistaken. I'm not saying you are, but could you please provide some scriptural evidence that non-believers will burn forever for all eternity? I admit that not all Christians agree on everything, and so I cannot rely on what Christians say. But I do believe the scriptures, and I'd love to see your evidence that God burns certain people forever.

RobertCorfield wrote:

This does not sound to me like the action of a good being. I mean, would you want to do that? Burn somebody forever who did not believe that you existed? I submit that the all-benevolence of God contradicts his habit of dumping disbelievers into hell and so that the Christian God cannot exist. Either he is all-benevolent or he burns people in hell; he can't be both.

Until you prove with scripture that God intends to burn certain people forever, I think it would be rather pointless for me to even try to defend such actions by God. If you can provide this evidence, I may attempt to formulate a defense for God, you know, as if God needed a defense.

RobertCorfield wrote:

Thus the Christian God cannot exist. Of course you could change your claim and say that an evil God exists who dumps people in hell or that an all-benevolent God exist who does not dump people in hell exists but these would be unusual claims for a Christian, I think.

Well, let's see if your right first, then we can talk about the possible unusual claims of a Christian.

I find it absolutely abysmal that you have never read the Bible and that you actually are requesting that ATHEISTS point you to specific passages in YOUR holy book to educate you as to the nature of this God Character.

I hereby claim that, according to the Bible, Yahweh either commits, or commands, or endorses or encourages the following actions: murder, genocide, infanticide, incest, rape, slavery, jealousy, hatred, homophobia, xenophobia, human trafficking, sex slavery, ritual human sacrifice, subjugation of women, abortion, genital mutilation, mind control, manipulation of free will, torture, eternal torture, compulsory adoration.

Here is my question for you: If I can point to specific scripture that backs up my statement above, and thus demonstrate that the God of the Bible is one of the most evil entities ever imagined by man, will you promise to switch to worshiping a more benign invisible friend? Somebody like Santa or Frosty the Snowman, or something?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1876 by JohnA]

Man, you have a neurotic obsession with Danmark.

I wouldn't disparage John's obsession by calling it neurotic. In fact, I don't think it should be referred to as an "obsession" at all. At most, it's a man-crush or something. Hey, we're all adults, and John has the right to express his feelings.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

First, we begin with evidence. More specifically, we begin with observations. The universe exists. Life exists. This existence is evidence of something. Something caused this universe to exist. But what? It may be a weak argument to suggest that evidence of existence is evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps it's not an argument at all, but it certainly is a viable hypothesis that the cause of existence is God.

The existence of the universe is evidence that the universe exists. The existence of life is evidence that life is possible. The stuff that makes up the universe at large and the stuff that makes up life is exactly the same stuff. We call it matter. Matter is made up of combinations of energetic bits; negatively charged electrons combined with positively and negatively charged quarks which have themselves combined together to form protons and neutrons. The reason this occurs is because the positively charged quarks, called up quarks, are massively attracted to the negatively charged quarks, called down quarks, and immediately join together into clumps. A pair of positively charged up quarks joined to a negatively charged down quark represents a proton. A proton has a net charge of positive. A pair of negatively charged down quarks joined to a positively charged up quark represents a neutron. A neutron has a net charge of neutral. While oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other, particles with the like charges are repelled by each other. Because protons and neutrons contain both positively and negatively charged particles they naturally tend to be repelled by each other. However, during high speed collisions, or under the influence of heavy gravity, protons and neutrons bond together as the oppositely charged particles in each are forced together. The energy that caused this to happen is locked into what is now the newly formed nucleus of an atom. A negatively charged electron now becomes attracted to the proton/neutron because of the positively charged quarks it contains. It does not bond with the proton/neutron however, because of the presence of negatively charged quarks. And now we have what is called an atom; a nucleus and a free electron. This is an atom of the basic element known as hydrogen. A nucleus which contains two protons, two neutrons and two free electrons is an atom of the element helium. Both of these elements are gasses over a very wide range of temperatures. An atom containing three protons, three neutrons and three orbiting electrons however is the metal known as lithium, which has very different properties from hydrogen and helium. Because as the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons increases, the inherent property of the element changes. Two or more elements joined together form what are called molecules. Molecules are the stuff of matter.

At the heart of matter however, in the realm of quarks and electrons, there is a constant shifting of position, due to the effects of constant attraction/repulsion. Because oppositely charged particles attract each other, while like charged particles repel each other. This causes a constant roiling to occur at the most basic, the quantum, level, which is known as quantum mechanics. It is the engine that drives all change. It is what is responsible for such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind and rain, earth quakes and volcanoes. It's also the reason that plants grow and you have thoughts flying around in your brain. Thoughts are electrical impulses caused by positive and negative charges. This attraction/repulsion caused by positive and negative charges is responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. It is even responsible for intelligence. And yet it is not itself intelligent. It occurs because these quantum bits, quarks and electrons, vibrate at a certain frequency. The frequency of their vibration determines whether they are positively charged, or negatively charged. The universe is simply reacting to itself you see. Because the universe is made up of energy, and matter is one of the forms that energy takes. And energy, according to all observation and experimentation, can neither be created or destroyed. It is therefore eternal, finite in amount, but infinite in duration. The universe exists in this configuration because energy interacts with itself. If it did not, then there would be NO CHANGE. The "evidence" which the universe provides us with, tells us of ongoing change caused by quantum mechanics. It DOES NOT tell us that it is the result of intelligent creation. You simply made that up and assumed it to be true. Because you, like most people who have ever lived, are ignorant of the actual workings of the universe. Ignorance and make believe have always gone hand in hand. But this is the 21st century you see. Ignorance in the 21st century is no longer an excuse.

Experiencing the Holy Spirit of God is not subjective claim of evidence. Everyone who believes in God's Son experiences God's Holy Spirit. It is a claim that is as testable as is any other scientific claim of evidence. If you follow the procedures of the experiment, you will get the proper results. If you want to experience God, believe in Him, and you will experience the same experience that I experience. It is objective, testable and falsifiable. It is truth.

Every individual who has ever subscribed heart-and-soul to a religious belief, has experienced the truth and presence of their chosen deity. The depth of devotion you feel for your chosen belief is not in and of itself any greater or held with more certainty then the depth of devotion felt by the committed adherent of other religious beliefs. People around the world are just as sincerely and completely devoted to their beliefs as you are to yours. Having a personal relationship with one's deity is the defining act of the religious experience. It occurs among the adherents of non Christian religions today, just as it occurred among the adherents of religious beliefs of the past. Beliefs now dead and nearly forgotten. Were these deities all extent, and the relationships therefore valid and real? CLEARLY NOT! They were in fact, nothing more then make believe. Does that then mean that all of these billions of individuals, past and present, were deluded in their belief that they were experiencing the presence of their chosen supernatural Being? CLEARLY SO! It is impossible to have an actual relationship with something which never existed to begin with. What does this then clearly prove? It proves, unmistakably, that even the most devoted of belief in the truth and power of a personal experience with a supernatural presence IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, and only serves as evidence that it is completely possible for people to be entirely and unmistakably convinced of the truth of that which never was anything more than make believe to begin with.

[Danmark]

Are you suggesting that you have discounted your own personal experience? I find that very sad. It may have been quite a divine revelation. I see no reason to think that your personal experience discounts any other person's experience. Why do you discount your experience as being real. Or why exactly does your experience cause you to discount the experiences of others? I see no contradiction here. Perhaps you can explain.

What you claim to have heard, I do not contest. What you heard may very well have been the truth. At least it seems so to me.

I specifically said I won't label the experience, that includes 'discounting' it. That others have had similar experiences that told them Jesus and god are one only demonstrates the problem with subjective evidence in general and 'divine' revelation in particular.

Answering another issue you've mentioned: The fact that the universe exists does not imply causation. If 'god' can have always been, with no cause and no beginning, the same can be said of the universe. I see know compelling reason to grant that the universe has a personality.

[JohnA]

We don't hate god. We don't hate the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa.

We dislike religion. Hate religion? Some atheists, maybe.

I don't like it when religions (especially Islam and Christianity) expect us to believe what they believe, when it's based on fable and superstition instead of science, and absurdity instead of logic and reason, especially when the argument is so daft it actually insults our intelligence.

Just look at Son's latest comment to John: "Your hatred of god is duly noted."

I suppose this means we're going to suffer for eternity in hell now?

This is the type of nonsense I don't like.

Actually, I totally hate the God of the Bible. I hate Sauron. I hate Allah. I hate the Grinch. I hate Mickey Mouse to be honest. I hate Hannah Montana. I hate the zombies in Resident Evil. I hate Mr. Smith from the Matrix.

There's a bunch of fictional characters I dislike.

I love batman. I like Thor. I kinda like the Tooth Fairy.

There's a bunch of fictional characters I like.

As long as we're discussing fiction, there is nothing wrong with discussing which fictional characters we like and dislike. It doesn't mean we think they are real!

On a more serious note, I do dislike, in a much more real way, religion, dogmatism, stalinism, and any other authoritarian thought numbing attempt to prevent humanity from reaching its true potential.

Yes, you can not hate none-existent entities. But you can dislike fictional characters.
The Christian god can not exist since it's fictional character is contradictory.

If Batman could fly and not fly at the same time, then the fictional character is clearly false.

Fictional characters are allowed to be illogical. They are not real irrespective of whether or not they can fly and not fly at the same time.

The god of the bible is not portrayed as illogical: he can not exist inside/outside nothing before he created everything.
Where the contradiction come in is that this god's attributes and actions that are contradictory: an evil god can not be a good god. Therefore it's actions and attributes are contradicting; therefore that is what is illogical.
I have never read about any fictional character that is illogical. Birds can fly, so why can't superman fly?

1. If a god is omnipotent, then it can create a square-circle.
2. Square-circles are contradictory, and therefore cannot exist.
3. A god cannot exist. (from 1 and 2)
This argument above is justified because it uses an external example of illogic " square-circles " to disprove the god.

There is an epistemic difference between an illogical entity and external illogical actions/attributes.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 1876 by JohnA]

Man, you have a neurotic obsession with Danmark.

Actually, I think that is a poor reflection on your part.

I thought that the burden of proof should be applied to anyone making a claim.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe people like Danmark is excused from this. Is he?

We point of when theists blabber contradictions and reject known epistemology, why can this not be applied to everyone? Are you suggesting we are to discriminate against theists only? I do not support that, sorry.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Danmark]

I see know compelling reason to grant that the universe has a personality.

If the universe could be said to have any personality at all it would be one of total indifference.