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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Tart]

This is pointing out a straw-man between the arguments. It isnt about whether the claim of the Christian God is true or not. It is suggesting to represent Christianity fairly in their claims, not about accepting those claims as true.

Which we can't do if we are to avoid creating a God from our imaginations, and ignore the possibility that the authors of the Bible did so.

Can you allow for the possibility that this is what happened with the God creature of the Bible? That the Bible authors were a bit imaginative? Or is that to be strictly off limits for discussion?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 39 by Tart]

This is pointing out a straw-man between the arguments. It isnt about whether the claim of the Christian God is true or not. It is suggesting to represent Christianity fairly in their claims, not about accepting those claims as true.

Which we can't do if we are to avoid creating a God from our imaginations, and ignore the possibility that the authors of the Bible did so.

Can you allow for the possibility that this is what happened with the God creature of the Bible? That the Bible authors were a bit imaginative? Or is that to be strictly off limits for discussion?

No we can allow that possibility for this discussion...

To suggest the Christian God can not exist, because that God is not accepted by everyone, that is a straw-man of Christianity. If Christianity is true, then we should know not everyone will be convinced and believe in Christianity... The scripture says it...

The claim that the disciples lied, or imagined a false God, is a different claim all together.

[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?

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?

Yes, yes I do. It is known as 'wishful thinking. You also have to look at the culture at the time, where the belief in God/Gods were rampant, low amounts of literacy, and the pressures of the occupancy of Israel by the Roman's at the time, it was something people could cling to for 'hope for the next world.

There is a thing called 'law of parsimony' that says the solution to a problem is often the simplest one. So, I can look at the belief in God, and then look at the alternative. The belief in a deity to bend the laws of the universe to accomplish miracles, and would require a whole bunch of assumptions that can not be shown to be true, or I can look at the quite often demonstrated principle' "People fool themselves" as an explanation. The 'people fool themselves' is much simpler than assuming a deity that can contradict my life experiences , or postulate a way to bend the laws of nature. I also have evidence of the former, and none of the later.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 42 by Tart]

If Christianity is true, then we should know not everyone will be convinced and believe in Christianity... The scripture says it...

The scriptures...which could be a product of someone or multiple someone's imagination(s).
Why is it you want us (people on D C 'n R') to make sure we're not dealing with a God created from our imaginations, but you won't allow for the possibility of the scripture authors?

No we can allow that possibility for this discussion...

Not entirely sure what you mean here. You've got a positive and a negative strung together. Is it
a) No we can't
b) Yes we can
?

[wiploc]

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

And the bible is shot thru with contradictions, absurdities, and vileness. It is evidence against the truth of Christianity, not in favor of it.

We had a long deconversion thread in a previous incarnation of this board. By far the most common explanation of why people gave up Christianity was something like, "I finally sat down and read the bible."

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..

I read it differently. It doesn't say that nobody should have any doubt. It says, I believe, that if we looked for the evidence with an open mind, we would find it. If the gods of the Christians existed, we'd have reason to believe they existed.

Since we don't find such evidence, such reason to believe, it is fair to conclude that there are no gods of the sort that would produce such evidence.

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...

So you're against straw men? Then don't be translating, "I don't see any evidence justifying belief in gods," into, "If gods existed, every single person would believe in them."

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?

Aren't the the person who boldly claims that atheists don't even have any claims? You don't see us making claims? And now you don't understand those same claims you don't see us making?

There may be a limit to how much we can help.

[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?

Yes, yes I do. It is known as 'wishful thinking. You also have to look at the culture at the time, where the belief in God/Gods were rampant, low amounts of literacy, and the pressures of the occupancy of Israel by the Roman's at the time, it was something people could cling to for 'hope for the next world.

There is a thing called 'law of parsimony' that says the solution to a problem is often the simplest one. So, I can look at the belief in God, and then look at the alternative. The belief in a deity to bend the laws of the universe to accomplish miracles, and would require a whole bunch of assumptions that can not be shown to be true, or I can look at the quite often demonstrated principle' "People fool themselves" as an explanation. The 'people fool themselves' is much simpler than assuming a deity that can contradict my life experiences , or postulate a way to bend the laws of nature. I also have evidence of the former, and none of the later.

Ok, well Occam's Razor is not some kind of prove hypothesis, and many reject it as one... I wouldnt reject it or claim it is always true, just a suggestion... But that aside, i think the most reasonable, and simplest explanation of Christianity is Jesus is the Messiah... Its that simple....

Of course if you disagree, I am interested in you making sense out of Christianity, coherently.

If Jesus was not really the Messiah, everything crumbles away and nothing in Christianity makes sense... I dont even know how to make sense out of Christianity, objectively, if Jesus wasnt really the Messiah...

You are suggesting "people fool themselves", so are you suggesting Paul "fooled himself" (does that mean hallucinate or something?), and Peter fooled himself (hallucinated?), and so did John and James? And all the other witnesses?

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later? Or do you think the words in the Bible are lies? Some kind of untold conspiracy?

Why would Paul beleive in Jesus (assuming you are familiar with the evidence)? Paul had no wishful thinking Jesus was anything special... In fact he supported the killing, and imprisonment of anyone who believed in Christ... (or do you think those testifying so lied or something?).. To make Paul turn around, he would have had to come to realize he was wrong.. Terribly wrong... How would that be wwishful thinking (Or fooling himself?)?

Or the prophecies... We have dozens of prophets prophesying a Messiah to come... Why?... How is it Jesus could come fulfilling it?

In fact Judaism doesnt even make sense, without Christ... A "blood sacrifice for sin"? How bizarre... The "Passover" by the blood of the Lamb? The festival of the unleavened bread? Abraham sacrifice of his "only begotten"?

these are just bizarre examples, that have no reasonable explanation logically, until Christ came and made sense out of all this. Because he was the fulfillment of the prophecies, of the Law, of the Will of God. Destiny... The Bible is like 1/3, total, of prophecy.. 33%... But Why? "People fooling themselves"?

I just want a coherent answer for the evidence.. That makes sense of it.... certainly the most reasonable, and simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Im just trying to make sense of Christianity is all. Like a scholar seeking to make sense of the evidence... "they fooled themselves", would not pass for a freshman paper, right? That would be a gross generalization of the evidence, that doesnt work in its totality.... But "Jesus is the Messiah", does work... It is certainly the simplest answer we can get.

How do you make sense of the evidence? Im seeking a comprehensive answer, for all the evidence, and coherent...

[Tart]

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

And the bible is shot thru with contradictions, absurdities, and vileness. It is evidence against the truth of Christianity, not in favor of it.

We had a long deconversion thread in a previous incarnation of this board. By far the most common explanation of why people gave up Christianity was something like, "I finally sat down and read the bible."

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..

I read it differently. It doesn't say that nobody should have any doubt. It says, I believe, that if we looked for the evidence with an open mind, we would find it. If the gods of the Christians existed, we'd have reason to believe they existed.

Since we don't find such evidence, such reason to believe, it is fair to conclude that there are no gods of the sort that would produce such evidence.

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...

So you're against straw men? Then don't be translating, "I don't see any evidence justifying belief in gods," into, "If gods existed, every single person would believe in them."

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?

Aren't the the person who boldly claims that atheists don't even have any claims? You don't see us making claims? And now you don't understand those same claims you don't see us making?

There may be a limit to how much we can help.

Hi wiploc... Id certainly be willing to admit my interpretation of the statement from marco could be a bad one...

With the quote in question below:
"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

I assumed this would be meant for everyone... The quote was meaning basically everyone should believe in God, if God exists... Which clearly isnt a reasonable thing top believe if Christianity is true (like for example 2 Thessalonians 2:1-11)...

Because The case marco is making is saying, "if they [God] did exist it is reasonable to expect very clear evidence for them."... He is not speicific about this.. Evidence for him alone? Evidence for everyone? (Neither need to be true for the Christian God... marco may not be convinced for himself, or everyone might not be convinced, both is compatible with the Christian God).

And more so, I think we have very clear evidence of the Christianity God... Christ, the Messiah. The testimony of the Disciples and witnesses, and the Holy Spirit... Personally i think we have undeniable evidence for people to "seek and find"... Im just trying to make sense out of marco's words, his positive claim to truth why God doesnt exist.

Like for example I completely agree with Simon Greenland, expert in evidence, when he was quoted saying
"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."


This contradicts marco's claim to why God doesnt exist.. It is another example... I just assumed he was saying "everyone should believe in God"... But there may very well be different interpretations of his quote...

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 35 by Tart]

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?

Christianity exists because people believe that the Bible is true. The problem is that they cannot demonstrate that the Bible is true. Even the existence of the biblical Jesus character can be called into question. The stories surrounding the apostles, the alleged witnesses, the miraculous events, and so on are all hearsay at best. Based on all the errors, contradictions and scientifically refuted events like the great flood, the Bible is most likely religious propaganda clothed in historical fiction. If the Bible is actually false it's no wonder that people do not believe it.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 35 by Tart]

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?

Christianity exists because people believe that the Bible is true. The problem is that they cannot demonstrate that the Bible is true. Even the existence of the biblical Jesus character can be called into question. The stories surrounding the apostles, the alleged witnesses, the miraculous events, and so on are all hearsay at best. Based on all the errors, contradictions and scientifically refuted events like the great flood, the Bible is most likely religious propaganda clothed in historical fiction. If the Bible is actually false it's no wonder that people do not believe it.

Ok, so you can understand the statement "there is no evidence for [God] or [Christianity]" is not a justified statement. Right? I understand you believe the evidence is false, but claiming it is nonexistent isnt accurate... Right?

[wiploc]

Ok, so you can understand the statement "there is no evidence for [God] or [Christianity]" is not a justified statement. Right? I understand you believe the evidence is false, but claiming it is nonexistent isnt accurate... Right?

I've seen Dwayne Gish quoted as saying something like, "There is no fact--real or imagined--that cannot be used as evidence of God's existence."

He thought he could spin anything as evidence for his cause.

I've seen people claim that Christianity is true because the bible doesn't have errors, but I've also seen it argued that Christianity must be true because the bible does have errors.

So the question isn't whether there is something that people will claim to be evidence. The question is whether we can look at this alleged evidence and logically conclude that it makes Christianity likely to be true.

I don't know of any evidence like that. If you come up with evidence like that, you'll become world famous in no time.