Atheism truth, is nonexistent

[Tart]

Can we all just agree, right off the bat, that there is no amount of burden of proof atheism can bare to establish that it is accurate and correct? That atheism has no valid right to claim any truth claims about God, whether He does or does not exist, they simply cant make any determining claims of truth in the regard of Gods existence... And all the truth claims, and positive evidence rest on the side of Christianity (between atheism is Christianity that is)...

Can we just agree, there is no truth claims atheism can make?

[Tart]

atheist make [claims about God not existing] all the time...

I challenge this assertion. Who? When? Provide evidence or justification please.

Ya, so one recently, in just the past few days, is the statement below.. However, once pointed out, in multiple replies, requesting any justification for the statement, no responses are given... Not even an attempt to justify the words they wrote themselves...

"There is no established truth of God's nature. That is speculation on the part of the believer. God has never demonstrated his nature, that is one of the problems surrounding the question of his existence."


Im simply requesting you guys to be consistent with the claims you make... And not just say one thing, and then another thing that is incoherent with beliefs...

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 19 by JoeyKnothead]

To say that the theist is incapable of showing that they speak the truth is a positive claim, Joey.

[FarWanderer]

atheist make [claims about God not existing] all the time...

I challenge this assertion. Who? When? Provide evidence or justification please.

Ya, so one recently, in just the past few days, is the statement below.. However, once pointed out, in multiple replies, requesting any justification for the statement, no responses are given... Not even an attempt to justify the words they wrote themselves...

"There is no established truth of God's nature. That is speculation on the part of the believer. God has never demonstrated his nature, that is one of the problems surrounding the question of his existence."


Im simply requesting you guys to be consistent with the claims you make... And not just say one thing, and then another thing that is incoherent with beliefs...

This is an assertion that God doesn’t exist? Seems clearly to be an example of what I have been saying all along: a claim that evidence for God is lacking.

[Jagella]

Yes, i totally agree with you... Atheism cant make and truth claims about God not existing, yet atheist make these claims all the time... That's the problem... When confronted, usually they backpedal on these statements, claim they have no burden of proving the claims they assert, with no need to justify any of their beliefs... That is the problem.

Thats why Dr. Greg Bahnsen was quoted saying..
"The atheist is satisfied to ignore the need for intellectual justification and explanation, the need to gain consistency within his total beliefs, and the need to demonstrate systematic cogency in his overall perspective on the world, man, and values."

I have no problem saying that no gods exist, and I don't mind taking up the burden of proof. (I'm being very generous in taking up the burden of proof because it is clearly the burden of those who claim god[s] exist to prove they exist.) No gods exist because if they did exist it is reasonable to expect very clear evidence for them. Since we have no such evidence, gods in all probability don't exist save in the imagination.

See how easy that was? All it takes is a village atheist to figure it out.

[Goat]

atheist make [claims about God not existing] all the time...

I challenge this assertion. Who? When? Provide evidence or justification please.

Ya, so one recently, in just the past few days, is the statement below.. However, once pointed out, in multiple replies, requesting any justification for the statement, no responses are given... Not even an attempt to justify the words they wrote themselves...

"There is no established truth of God's nature. That is speculation on the part of the believer. God has never demonstrated his nature, that is one of the problems surrounding the question of his existence."


Im simply requesting you guys to be consistent with the claims you make... And not just say one thing, and then another thing that is incoherent with beliefs...

Why, one reason is that atheism is not a religion. All it is the not believing in any deity. There are thousands of ways people have come to that conclusion.

I will agree, part of the problem is that the theistic claims about God are totally inconsistent with each other. For that matter, even with Christianity, it's inconsistent.

[Tart]

atheist make [claims about God not existing] all the time...

I challenge this assertion. Who? When? Provide evidence or justification please.

Ya, so one recently, in just the past few days, is the statement below.. However, once pointed out, in multiple replies, requesting any justification for the statement, no responses are given... Not even an attempt to justify the words they wrote themselves...

"There is no established truth of God's nature. That is speculation on the part of the believer. God has never demonstrated his nature, that is one of the problems surrounding the question of his existence."


Im simply requesting you guys to be consistent with the claims you make... And not just say one thing, and then another thing that is incoherent with beliefs...

This is an assertion that God doesn’t exist? Seems clearly to be an example of what I have been saying all along: a claim that evidence for God is lacking.

Claim God has never demonstrated his nature, in the context of the conversation, is saying God has never revealed himself. period.... That is what we are talking about.


What evidence or reasoning does anyone have to establish God has never revealed himself to anyone?

[Tart]

Yes, i totally agree with you... Atheism cant make and truth claims about God not existing, yet atheist make these claims all the time... That's the problem... When confronted, usually they backpedal on these statements, claim they have no burden of proving the claims they assert, with no need to justify any of their beliefs... That is the problem.

Thats why Dr. Greg Bahnsen was quoted saying..
"The atheist is satisfied to ignore the need for intellectual justification and explanation, the need to gain consistency within his total beliefs, and the need to demonstrate systematic cogency in his overall perspective on the world, man, and values."

I have no problem saying that no gods exist, and I don't mind taking up the burden of proof. (I'm being very generous in taking up the burden of proof because it is clearly the burden of those who claim god[s] exist to prove they exist.) No gods exist because if they did exist it is reasonable to expect very clear evidence for them. Since we have no such evidence, gods in all probability don't exist save in the imagination.

See how easy that was? All it takes is a village atheist to figure it out.

Ya, so lets talk about the Christian God, and steer clear from creating what we think God should be like (in our imaginations)... Right?

Christianity tells us not everyone will believe, and people will be convinced in the "lie" (of non belief)... (id be happy to give you verses if you want)...


So clearly your argument that God doesnt exist, isnt a valid one against the Christian God. Do you agree? Why or why not?

This is precisely the problem of creating what you think god should be like in your head, and putting it in place of the Christian God, and then refuting your own beliefs about God... This is like a straw man against God...

atheists dont believe in god because the atheism god doesnt exist... Id agree with you there..

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 19 by JoeyKnothead]

To say that the theist is incapable of showing that they speak the truth is a positive claim, Joey.

And don't it beat all, there they sit bein' 'em incapable of 'em a-doin' it.

The fact remains, a rejection of, or disbelief in a claim that can't be shown to be truth is not in and of itself an assertion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 27 by Tart]

Christianity tells us not everyone will believe, and people will be convinced in the "lie" (of non belief)... (id be happy to give you verses if you want)...

Quotes from the Christian propaganda manual don't make any sort of case. The Bible is a book of claims pertaining to the supernatural, none of which has ever been verified.

By the way, saying that not everyone will believe is no great shakes. The same can be said of any extraordinary claim. Also, non-belief is not a lie. Not accepting unverified fantastic claims as being true should be the default position, otherwise it is so easy to get led down the garden path. Christianity is a prime example of that.

[Goat]

Claim God has never demonstrated his nature, in the context of the conversation, is saying God has never revealed himself. period.... That is what we are talking about.


What evidence or reasoning does anyone have to establish God has never revealed himself to anyone?

Let's look at the claim 'God has demonstrated his nature'. and 'God has revealed himself'.

Both those claims are done through testimony, either through the writing down of a book or verbally. NOw, there are people who believe that. But, let's propose an alternate hypothesis.

Those people who though God has revealed himself to them are mistaken. They are misinterpreting their experiences , emotions, etc etc, to be god, when their experience is either a natural phenomenon that isn't god, or is something that was en experience only within the brain that they misinterpreted due to social condition and personal desire.

People being fooled by their senses can be demonstrated all the time, for example with optical illusions. States that can mimic people thinking that 'god is revealed to them can be induced with magnetic pulses, and also drugs, showing it can be condition in the brain.

Can you falsify the thesis that people are just plain fooling themselves? How woudl you do it, and what evidence do you have?