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?

[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.

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.

The speaker isn't saying God hasn't revealed himself. He or she seems to be saying that even if the revelation is real it never established a coherent understanding of what God even is, which leaves the believer to speculate. This of course is a problem when trying to discuss whether he exists or not.

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

That depends on what God is. We can't even have a serious discussion of the evidence if we don't know what kind of observations we should expect from God's existence or his non-existence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 27 by Tart]

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

Are you saying the Christian God has, by default, a reality apart from the imaginations of those who assert its existence?

Anyway, I'm surprised that you haven't taken the bait, so to speak. I asked you which of two statements (A or B) you were having troubles with, and you haven't bitten.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Sure, I can agree with that. Atheism makes no truth claim about God or anything else.

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.

Are you sure you aren't mixing the two kinds of atheists up? In my experience the weak atheists are very careful about affirming the nonexistence of God; and those strong atheists who goes further are very eager to fulfill their burden.

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...

That much is fine, but I am not seeing any inconsistency with your quote.

[wiploc]

Are you sure you aren't mixing the two kinds of atheists up?

I suspect that this is the whole point of the thread. He wants atheism to mean strong atheism. His fundamental complaint is that when he says, "How do atheists justify their claim that gods don't exist," our response is that atheists don't necessarily say that.

[Tart]

[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.

The Bible is the evidence we have about the Christian God.

And the quote in question is:

"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."~marco

The way i took this quote is that if God exists, there should be no doubt from anyone that God exists. Everyone should agree on such a claim..

However, if the Christian God exists, and is revealed in scripture, then we should NOT expect the above quote to be a quality of God... That is the point... If Christianity is true, and the Bible really is the Word of God, we should actually expect exactly what we see in the world today. That there will be many people who dont believe, because the Christian God says that not everyone will believe... Thus this is creating a quality for God, that is not consistent with the Christian God, and then claiming the Christian God doesnt exist becuase of this quality... It is a straw man...


However brunumb, lets forget about this for a second so we can focus on something else. You keep repeatedly saying that the Bible is not evidence, it shouldn't be counted as evidence, because it is the claim. I have asked you about this many times and you never gave an answer...

The "claim" and "evidence" of the claim can be many many different things... One claim might be "God exists", and the evidence of that claim could be the Bible. One claim might be "Jesus revealed to us the true nature of God", or "Jesus is the Messiah", and the evidence for that claim might be the testimony of the witnesses and the prophets. Another claim might be "the witnesses and prophets have coherent, and reasonable explanations for why they believe what they believe", and the evidence of that claim might be the reasoning the Disciples claimed Jesus was the Messiah, and the Savior, the reasoning they called him the "Lamb of God" (the fulfillment of law and prophecy, and God's will)... Another claim might be "the new testament accurately describes the divinity of Christ", and the evidence of that claim might be all the objective evidence around that claim, whether Jesus was really described accurately in the New Testament, and whether he was accurately called the "Son of God"... Another claim might be "Paul exists" and the evidence of that claim might be the fact we have Paul's written letters, and testimony. "Peter exists" might be a claim supported by the testimony of Paul, and "Jesus exists", might be a claim supported by the testimony of Peter...


This is some examples of "claims" and "evidence"...

Now i dont even know how to understand the idea that there is no evidence for Christianity, or that the Bible isnt evidence for Christianity, or that the Bible is only the claim and isnt evidence... I dont even understand how that makes sense... Can you explain your position on this subject?


I have asked you many times now, and, assuming you didnt answer the questions becuase you cant justify your claim, why do you go on and continue to make such claims?

[Tart]

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?

Great question... So first of all, we should only believe in things that is supported by the evidence, or more accurately, we should only believe in things that are objectively true...

So if we accept the claim that people are hallucinating God, that should be an objective true statement. If it isnt true, then saying "its possible" is meaningless, just throwing mud in the water.

Now, on the basis of Christianity, this claim, that people hallucinated God, is not even a coherent explanation of the evidence... In Christianities case, perhaps the only way you could make this claim is claiming Paul hallucinated Jesus's resurrection, which many people have done so in the past. They say, Paul didnt have food or water (which is a distortion of the evidence in Acts 9, and id be happy to show why), therefor he hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection on the road to Damascus. Which they say is supported by the evidence because none of the other people with Paul could see this vision Paul had....

That is the only claimed hallucination I have seen against Christianity. But this doesnt make sense... Not only Paul saw Jesus's risen body, but a big list of people witnessed such things. And even more importantly, we have their reasoning God raised Christ from the dead. We have a coherent explanation for Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc, in the Epistles of the reasoning why they believed what they believe, and why they claimed Jesus was raised... It isnt just some random hallucination of some nonsensical delusion, it is explained by the witnesses and the prophets... And the explanation makes sense... The Resurrection of Christ was a piece of the puzzle that fell into place. A cornerstone of Christianity, that completed the picture by falling in place...

I dont even know how to make sense out of the idea people hallucinated God.. Can you?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 27 by Tart]

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

Are you saying the Christian God has, by default, a reality apart from the imaginations of those who assert its existence?

No, what im saying is that we shouldnt imagine the Christian God to be any difrent then what is said about him in the scripture

Anyway, I'm surprised that you haven't taken the bait, so to speak. I asked you which of two statements (A or B) you were having troubles with, and you haven't bitten.

sorry i havent read many posts in the thread becuase im very busy

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 35 by Tart]

The way i took this quote is that if God exists, there should be no doubt from anyone that God exists. Everyone should agree on such a claim..

However, if the Christian God exists, and is revealed in scripture, then we should NOT expect the above quote to be a quality of God... That is the point... If Christianity is true, and the Bible really is the Word of God, we should actually expect exactly what we see in the world today. That there will be many people who dont believe, because the Christian God says that not everyone will believe...

How do you know, that what you attribute God as saying here, is what God said? Remember, in Post 35, you said

and steer clear from creating what we think God should be like (in our imaginations)... Right?

Well...how do we know that God supposedly saying not everyone will believe wasn't just something from someone's imagination?
You're making huge assumptions here that the Christian God exists, as described by the Bible, even while saying to us to 'steer clear from creating what we think God should be like in our imaginations'.
The authors of the Bible had imaginations. How do you know that what you believe God to be (from the Bible) wasn't simply from their imaginations?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 35 by Tart]

The way i took this quote is that if God exists, there should be no doubt from anyone that God exists. Everyone should agree on such a claim..

However, if the Christian God exists, and is revealed in scripture, then we should NOT expect the above quote to be a quality of God... That is the point... If Christianity is true, and the Bible really is the Word of God, we should actually expect exactly what we see in the world today. That there will be many people who dont believe, because the Christian God says that not everyone will believe...

How do you know, that what you attribute God as saying here, is what God said? Remember, in Post 35, you said

and steer clear from creating what we think God should be like (in our imaginations)... Right?

Well...how do we know that God supposedly saying not everyone will believe wasn't just something from someone's imagination?
You're making huge assumptions here that the Christian God exists, as described by the Bible, even while saying to us to 'steer clear from creating what we think God should be like in our imaginations'.
The authors of the Bible had imaginations. How do you know that what you believe God to be (from the Bible) wasn't simply from their imaginations?

I dont think you understand this conversation. This is pointing out a straw-man between the arguments. It isnt about whether the claim of the Christian God is true or not. What i am pointing out is suggesting to represent Christianity fairly in their claims, not about accepting those claims as true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by Tart]

So if we accept the claim that people are hallucinating God, that should be an objective true statement. If it isnt true, then saying "its possible" is meaningless, just throwing mud in the water.

How is it meaningless? People hallucinating things, even hallucinating what they say is God, is a thing that you and I both know happens. Why should we ignore this possibility, dismiss it as meaningless when it comes to your particular God?

perhaps the only way you could make this claim is claiming Paul hallucinated Jesus's resurrection,

It's certainly a possibility. Just to remind you, Paul himself doesn't go into detail in what happened. We have the author of Luke-Acts claiming this is what happened, after being told by Paul. Not only that, but within the work, the two times the author recounts the story, he contradicts himself.
It's hearsay.

They say, Paul didnt have food or water (which is a distortion of the evidence in Acts 9, and id be happy to show why),

How do you know Paul DID have food/water? This is the Middle East we're talking about. Not exactly temperate Ireland here we're talking about, where anything above 28 degrees C causes me to melt, and they don't exactly have the best tools and technology to carry supplies.

Which they say is supported by the evidence because none of the other people with Paul could see this vision Paul had....

It would explain why his supposed companions said nothing, are not quoted even by the author of Luke-Acts or by Paul himself.

Not only Paul saw Jesus's risen body, but a big list of people witnessed such things.

You mean Paul's phantom 500 people? The people who exist solely within a single line of text, from whom we have no corroboration?

And even more importantly, we have their reasoning God raised Christ from the dead.

Their reasoning? No, we have Paul's reasoning. We have the author of Luke-Acts. We have the authors of the other Gospels.
What we do not have (apart from Paul), is first-hand testimony from these people, or their reasoning.
It's all too easy and simple to put "reasoning" into someone else's mouth.

We have a coherent explanation for Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc, in the Epistles of the reasoning why they believed what they believe, and why they claimed Jesus was raised

And so did plenty of other people all throughout history for a whole host of gods, demons, spirits and whatnot. Heck, I had what I would have described as a 'coherent explanation' for why I believed I was a resurrected robot prince from Jupiter.

I dont even know how to make sense out of the idea people hallucinated God.. Can you?

Simple. They did so. Nothing more to it than that.