The relentless claim by virtually all atheists is the utter absence of “proof” or for that matter, even “evidence” of God’s existence.
Just because atheists deny powerful evidences does not mean that they cease to exist.
Countless books have been written as evidence. Many of them are thoroughly documented by scientific citations and references.
One such excellent book is The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. It is 985 pages in length and very compelling, unless you have a nihilistic axe to grind.
There is the Anthropic Principle, a statistical and scientific proof if ever there were one.
I have assembled hundreds of points and considerations from a wealth of sources here:
You’ll have a better life here on earth as a believer, which 85% of Nobel Laureates in sciences are, and an incredibly better life after life.
"We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a physical experience.” ― Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Your courtesy and intellectualism are on full display with that childish rant, mr.macabre13. Perhaps you take no stock in any book, but many of us do. What did you read in high school and college, if you ever attended college…
To teach. Nobody in America needs to be taught how wrong they are more than atheists. Many people are intimidated by atheist condescension, name-calling, and ganging up. I am not. At one message board, where they relentlessly attacked me at least 100 to 1, I challenged them to pick out their fearless leader to debate me 1 on 1. The owner of the website stepped up and said “Choose your subject.” I did. We shall debate your hatefulness, your profanity, your bitter diatribes. He said, ‘No pick something else.’
After offering me the choice, he backed out and by default, lost.
Shortly thereafter, he passed away and left his wife practically destitute. His website begged for contributions to help her pay the bills. This was atheist intellectualism in full swing, and it crashed.
Yeah, you really told me off and put me in my place. I was raised in a catholic family and attended their schools for 9 years before escaping to public school. I’ve never believed any of that crap, and your saying that because it’s written in a book means it must be true is basically a childish statement.
There are several of us here that can and will tear everything you try to preach on this forum to shreds. There is zero evidence of your or anyone else’s deities having been shown to be real.
I read horror literature while I was in high school and for the 2 years I wasted in college before I got a real job. I’ve been married to my wife for almost 42 years now, and we have 2 kids and 4 grandkids. I’ll be 65 in a couple of weeks.
What’s your life story, still living with your parents?
Leaving aside the hilarity of your claim to know what “virtually all atheists” think or even claim, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, or is even possible?
Countless books have been written about Superman. You’re using an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Yet despite it’s 985 pages, you’ve managed to offer not one single word as evidence, it seems you don’t know the difference between a bare claim and objective evidence.
This is a debate forum, if you think you have any objective evidence for a deity, or any compelling argument then present it, and we will give it due diligence. Start by accurately defining the deity you believe exists, then present the best or most compelling reason you think “evidences” its existence. The anthropic principle does not objectively evidence a deity though religious apologists do misrepresent it to create subjective arguments that a deity exists.
I am dubious, there are still many believers who would gladly kill anyone who expresses belief in a deity they don’t like, but even were your unevidenced rhetoric true, it would not of course be objective evidence for any deity.
Appeal to authority fallacy, but since you have presented this made up and unevidenced stat, here is some research:
That’s pretty disingenuous since you clearly only claim to take stock in books that espouse the unevidenced superstition you have come here to peddle. Though we should note you offered little to nothing from any of those books to support theistic belief.
Ad hominem fallacy, did they not touch on informal logical fallacies in your college?
Oh I think not, you just responded with ad hominem, maybe you find that kind of irrational argument compelling, but I don’t find irrationality at all compelling.
Wrong about what? Since atheists are as diverse a group as one could imagine, the only thing we know prima facie, that atheists share in common is the lack of belief in any deity or deities, and since that is not a claim or belief, and involves no doctrine or dogma, it cannot be be wrong per se?
Given you sought out an atheist debate forum to hurl ad hominem insults at atheists, you will forgive me for seeing the irony of this trolling.
No one here is responsible for what others say elsewhere, try again.
Why do theists find this kind of unevidenced rhetorical anecdotal claims so compelling? If you want us to be impressed then why not start with the best reason you have for believing a deity exists or is even possible?
Quelle surprise…do you imagine this kind of unevidenced self aggrandising grandiloquence is going to be accepted prima facie without any any evidence? And if it were, do you really imagine it in any way evidences any deity?
If you’re struggling I can answer those for you?
25 Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 27 Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower.
It seems you’re either a hypocrite, or not a very good Christian?
Nope, at best this latest unevidenced anecdotal claim about one atheist, is yet another poisoning of the well fallacy. However if every atheists that ever lived was an utter amoral scumbag, it wouldn’t evidence any deity at all, it’s bizarre, even funny, that you think it does.
NOBODY said “because it’s written in a book means it must be true” except you. A very great deal of what is written in non-fiction books happens to be true, particularly when it is as well documented as the book I cited after reading and taking copious notes.
There you go with the “zero evidence” trope.
The 85% of Nobel Laureates in science who are believers makes a complete lie of your trope of “zero evidence.”
Ad hominem fallacy, odd how the religious apologists who come here are always relentlessly irrational.
You referenced two book titles and claimed they were “great” books, with nothing but the titles decrying atheism to lend any clue what the books contain, so you actually did make this absurd appeal to authority fallacy.
I am still waiting for you to explain which principle of logic is violated by not believing in any deity, and I am guessing wait we will.
No it isn’t, assuming this unevidenced claim made without any context is true, not one of those Nobel Laureates can offer any scientific evidence for any deity, obviously.
Vapid rhetoric, yes we see that, now are you here to troll, or did you want to debate, or offer a shred of objective evidence for any deity? Or is linking book titles from religious apologists, making sweeping unevidenced claims all you’ve got? As that just seems like trolling.
Hmm…well I must say you have already taught me a thing or two about honesty, respect, pseudo intellectualism, self-aggrandizement, smarminess, delusions of grandeur, misinterpretations of reality, confirmation bias, misplaced and projected insecurities,
underdeveloped or non-existent social interaction skills, and above all, the sad reality that there are still those out there, so blinded by their own self-congratulatory fantasies, that they cannot imagine how self-deluded they have become.
Since you fancy yourself to be a “teacher”, I sincerely suggest that you take a little of your time away from your “teaching” to make at least a cursory perusal of common logical fallacies. I think you will likely recognize some old “friends” in there.
Here, I will be “teacher’s helper” today… https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Who were the “detractors” that were killed off before the French Enlightenment? Be specific. Cite credible references for your claims.
Why didn’t the Nobel Laureates think of your ‘brilliant’ contention.
Why they must not be as smart as you, right?
“Alfred Nobel” - an atheist! This is supposed to negate the 85% of Nobel Laureates who have been believers… how, exactly?
You atheists pull nonsense out and sling it as if it means something.
The Nobel Prize and money are offered for science discoveries, which YOU atheists lay claim to having well more than “fundies” and “flat-earthers.” The winners’ beliefs refute your lies and you can’t come up with anything better than those sillinesses?
Your ass was just handed to you and you don’t even realize it.
This is the nature of evil. It never relents. Take Hamas please.
It’s no wonder that many parents object to their children marrying an atheist. Similarly, atheists marry far less often than believers, and have fewer children.
The statistics for atheists are dismal wherever one looks. You bring on your own misery and then blame everyone else for the misery you created yourself.
“Every thinking man is an atheist.” - Ernest Hemingway who subsequently blew his brains out with his shotgun for his FOURTH wife to find.
If he was as smart as the typical atheist, why was he married four times? Why didn’t he think about his fourth wife’s feelings?
Because that’s the way atheists roll. All folly, all the time.
Simon Greenleaf was a world class authority on “evidence.”
He accepted his students’ challenge to examine Christianity and this followed.
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.” Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts.
UM… There is an absence of “proof.” This is a ‘FACT.’ At no time in human history has the existence of any ‘God’ been proved. If you could “prove” your god thing was real, no one would be able to deny it. We might not worship the murdering piece of shit, but we would not be able to deny he was real. There is, in fact, an utter absence of proof. If you think you have a proof, we would love to hear it.
The evidence for your God thing is incredibly weak, and so it is easily dismissed. What you have are stories, and nothing more. You have ancient stories and modern stories of people attributing shit to a god. They do this without evidence, and in the face of logic and reason. Most often, they use a “God of the gaps” approach to their evidence. “No one can explain it, therefore god.” That is not the way things work. If there is a god, you must demonstrate its existence.
No book has ever contained anything more than an anecdotal story. That is a claim by the author that has not been confirmed. Or cited facts that do not lead to the conclusion that a God exists.
Please share anything you have that would come near to contradicting my rebuttal. You have nothing.
A book about the existence of Jesus. Who cares. I can give you the existence of Jesus. It says nothing at all about him having magical properties. It says nothing at all about him being a god. There were likley hundreds of itinerant preachers in the first century with the name Jesus. Can you demonstrate any one of them was magical?
The Anthropic Principle - The universe has been fine turned for human existence. An argument that asserts the universe was created without demonstrating it was in fact a creation and not something that occurred naturally or something that was eternal. How did the anthropic principle rule out an eternal universe or a naturally occurring universe? How did the anthropic principle rule out blue universe creating bunnies. The anthropic principle is nothing more than blind assertion without facts or evidence supporting it.
Why don’t you try picking a single argument out of your “HUNDREDS” you have amassed, post it and see how it does. Your sweeping generalizations are getting you nowhere.