Help me to understand

How can someone claim to seek evidence for God while they continue looking/advocating evidences against same God and deride/ridicule same God concept?
How can someone claim to seek evidence for God but affirm he doesn’t exist and tag those who say otherwise delusional?
How can you seek evidence for God when you’re already sure he doesn’t exist, concluded he doesn’t exist and claim you have evidences he doesn’t exist?
I feel like some just hate this whole God stuff not like they sincerely seek any evidence, they blaspheme, they’re much ok when you keep the God thing out of their way and they get mad when you keep parading the God discussion in their face.

1 Like

There are lots of reasons someone might be an atheist. I’m sure you can find an example of any reason you want and plaster all atheists with it. Let me help you: there are people who are atheists because they think UFO’s put them here on this planet. Now you can go back to your friends and tell them that all atheists believe that. Hopefully this will save you some time.


I feel like some just hate that some people don’t swallow this whole God stuff hook, line, and sinker, they annoy people with their public preaching, they’re much ok when you organize society according to the make-believe God norms and they get mad when you keep objecting to their unsubstantiated claims in their face.

Speaking of public preaching - I was at a public bath yesterday, and went to the sauna. There was a person there talking loudly and enthusiastically about his favourite mythology, claiming to know that the “Dark Lord” envied human beings because humans have bodies while the “Dark Lord” does not. The whole thing was rather hilarious, but I did my best to not burst out laughing. I wanted to ask how he knew all those details about the desires of this “Dark Lord”, but I managed to keep quiet. After all, a public sauna filled with random, almost naked people is not the right place to start such a discussion.


well, there is your solution. Keep your god thing out of people’s faces, schools and legislatures and you will not get your panties in a bunch about them not believing in your godofchoice.

Any god is much like a penis, it should be played with privately, never taken out in public and kept away from children. Then there is no problem.

To come on an atheist website and display such ignorance as to the subject and definition of atheism is crass. Maybe come in and ASK some questions in an open handed manner will get you polite response.


You are a little confused. I believe you’re conflating two distinct strains of atheistic thought. First, I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, “No gods exist.”

What most atheists assert is the following; I have never seen good evidence for the existence of God or gods. Now, when an atheist makes the assertion that a god does not exist, they are willing to adopt the burden of proof. For example, the God of the bible is so contradictory that it can not exist. It is all knowing, but gives you free choice. NOT POSSIBLE. Either he knows what you are going to do before you do it, and he is all knowing. And, you don’t have free choice. Or he does not know, in which case he is not all knowing and the Bible is lying and god does not have a plan. This god does not exist. The bible god is also ‘Just’ and ‘merciful.’ This god does not exist. If the god is just, he can not be merciful. Mercy is the suspension of justice. This is a direct contradiction and this god does not exist.

So, when an atheist makes a claim that any god does not exist, you might want to ask them which god they are talking about. I will not tell you that your god does not exist until you make a logical contradiction or posit something you can not possibly know. A god that exists beyond time or space for example. You have absolutely no knowledge of any such place. A god that exists for no time in no space is nothing. All thoughts and movements are temporal.

So here are the two brands of atheism: Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist. Weak Atheists/Agnostic Atheists: They assert there is no good reason to believe in God or gods. Most atheists I know fluctuate between these two positions depending on the definition of God being used.

So, when an atheist asks for evidence of the god claim, he or she is willing to be swayed by argument, examples, or evidence sufficient to support the claim. They are not automatically rejecting the claim. They are measuring the evidence, And as soon as you use Pascal’s Wager, an argument from contingency, a first cause argument, some form of presuppositionalism, or any common argument that has been debunked for hundreds of years, you are going to be laughed at for your ignorance.

You have confused, ‘sincerely seek’ evidence with ‘sincerely sought’ evidence. Most atheists are at the END of their journey. They have spent years seeking. They already know what you are going to say before you say it. It looks like rejection without understanding to you because you have not yet worked through all the arguments.

So why don’t you do this? Post your very best evidence for the existence of the God you believe in and let’s see where it goes.

It is not parading the God discussion in our face that we mind. We actually like honest debates and honest requests for information. It is parading the same rotten shit over and over and over in front of our noses that we mind. It is the dishonesty of the Christian apologists that we mind. Everyone on this site will give you a chance to debate honestly. Hell, we even let the dishonest ramble on for days before banning them. I think we keep hoping they will open their eyes. What about you: are you willing to have an honest conversation or do you just want to play the victim card?

Define the god you believe in and tell us why.


Why would you think those are mutually exclusive? Any evidence that contradicts or refutes a claim would be salient in the decision to withhold belief from it. I don’t always ridicule claims, even when they are idiotic or poorly thought out, but some people invite such ridicule on their claims when they persist or repeat them in the face of evidence or argument that demonstrates them to be so, or when they exhibit arrogance, hubris and dishonesty from the very first post. I try to be patient, but I am after all only an evolved ape, or human if you prefer.

Well I can’t speak for other atheists, but the decision to accept a claim as likely true would be based on a critical scrutiny of all data provided by those advocating the belief.

Put simply, I need sufficient objective evidence to believe a claim, otherwise my default position is disbelief, I do not need to hold a contrary belief.

This is not my position, I am an atheist, which means I don’t believe in any deity or deities, how sure I am that what is being claimed is true would vary according to the individual claims. I am always sceptical of all claims, and I start with the default position of lacking belief, I cannot do otherwise, and I disbelieve all claims presented with insufficient or without any objective evidence, and I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and also must remain agnostic about them.

Some aspects of religion are deeply pernicious and deserving of antipathy. This may be hard for you to grasp, but nonetheless you don’t get to tell others how they feel about any beliefs.

You’re simply wrong, I subject god claims to exactly the same standard of scrutiny and belief as all other claims, and this is the very definition of open minded.

Blaspheme is often a way for theists to try and bully those who don’t share their beliefs, and ringfence those beliefs from criticism. You can demand respect for yourself, but not for anything you believe, this is simply bias. Blaspheme means no more to me than someone insulting flat earthers or mermaids would to you.

Well naturally, how would you feel if atheists knocked your door, or screamed atheism from pulpits, and threatened you for not being an atheist?

I don’t base my beliefs on how others feel about those beliefs, as how they feel lends no credence to any belief, any more than you would base your beliefs on how I feel about them.

Now since you have brought your beliefs to an atheist forum, can you tell us if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is even possible? If not then please feel free to offer what you feel is your most compelling reason for your theistic belief. Be warned though, this is a debate forum, and those claims and beliefs will be subjected to critical scrutiny.


I see a lot of misunderstandings here . . . although I only speak for myself.

There is a difference between ridiculing God and ridiculing religion.

I don’t wake up in the morning and put “how can I spite God today” on my to-do list while I’m drinking coffee.

I’m perfectly willing to examine the idea of God with an open mind . . . but religion is a different matter. Religion is fair game for ridicule, satire, and hostility because religion kills so many people. An example is how the child of a Jehova’s Witness may die for want of a blood transfusion. Another example are all those people in Iran who are being executed for violating Sharia law.

Another reason why you may perceive ridicule is that the arguments for God’s existence have become rather standard, and we are mostly all aquainted with them.

These arguments have been repeatedly debunked, yet we keep hearing them over and over again.

I won’t summarize what they are, as it’s beyond the scope of this thread . . . but they are listed and itemized in many other threads on this forum.

So, some of the perceived ridicule may be coming from the frustration of hearing the same debunked points over and over again.

Please . . . if you have evidence of God’s existence, then show us, but you should also become aquainted with what’s already been done.

You should review:

  1. “Watchmaker on the heath”
  2. Pasquale’s Wager
  3. Irreducible Complexity
  4. Appeal to popularity fallacy
  5. The fallacy that a sense of right and wrong come from God
  6. The Anthropic Principle
  7. The “fine-tuning of the Universe” fallacy
  8. Fallacy based on personal experience (the “anectdotal fallacy”)
  9. The idea that the existence of life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
  10. “Ontological arguments”

There are a few others . . . but this list is a very good start.

For myself, I’ll add another point: God (if He exists) has made such a thorough effort to eliminate all physical evidence of His existence that we may as well not believe in Him . . . because we can reasonably conclude that this is what He wants.

I wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t include an interesting idea that may point to God’s existence.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson (a renouned atheistic astronomer) moderated a debate that explored the idea that the entire Universe may be a computer simulation. Please see below:

Evidently, a subatomic particle called a “quark” seems to follow the same rules as a “byte” of information in a computer program, and there might be error-correction software “written” in the numbers that describe string theory.

I still don’t believe that these ideas automatically points us to God . . . but they are justification for being open-minded.

Just not so open-minded that my brains fall out.


Personally, I think it’s easy to deduce God. From your replies, you guys are obviously concerned with the evidence. But I guess the point I’m driving at is that, it’s not about evidence, positive deduction has always been enough in important issues of life, some people only hide under the evidence thing.
Many atheists are atheists, not because of evidence rather because of all other reasons they’re not saying. Anyone who “sincerely” seeks evidence to his initial deduction will not end up an atheist in the first place, worst case, he would end up as someone sitting on the fence.

1 Like

May I ask the atheists if they have seen “bad” evidence for the existence of god or gods?

Secondly, what makes the atheist an authority on “good” or “bad” evidence?

Thirdly, since when are gods subject to the rules and regular functioning of the world? Gods by definition are superior to man and the world.

What if contradiction is a character trait of this god? This god could very well be amusing itself by giving contradictory instructions or this works could be a project to determine how beings with intelligence would act given contradictory instructions. The god could also be a disinterested observer who has run this world experiment countless times so that he knows what will happen 99.99 percent of the time and it only acts when that 0.01 deviation from norm occurs.
My point is that the atheist has no ground to stand on regarding how a god should act and base the existence of the god on his opinion about the god’s character.

What plan do you mean?
Does the Bible refer to the same god in all the stories?
Is the god of Exodus the same god in Job?

Why should justice and mercy be mutually exclusive? How is mercy a suspension of justice?

Oh, I agree! Quite often theist and atheist are just different sides of the same coin. One says Heads the other says Tails. The atheist just seems to forget that in order to say “god(s) does not exist” he has to have a god in mind in the first place. Same goes for the agnostic who just defines his god as “unknowable”.

Why should a god be subject to human logic?
If they posit something they can’t possibly know, it could be a simple case of lying.

A god exists wherever the person making the claim wants it to exist. He may have no knowledge of it but he has the idea.

A god that exists for no time in no space is everything.

Gods exist as ideas borne of movement and thought.

1 Like

If you are indicating that evidence is not relevent . . . then I don’t know how to engage in a discussion with you.

If evidence is not important, then what is the difference between claiming that God exists and claiming that leprechuans exist?


Then demonstrate this to be the case, as bare subjective assertions are pretty meaningless.

You don’t get to decide what criteria others set for belief, and mine is that a claim is supported by sufficient objective evidence.

I don’t agree, since there are countless examples where this would be insufficient alone to accept a claim, and the claim that religious belief is important is pure assumption on your part, I am dubious and so you will need to demonstrate that to be the case as well. However you have offered no deductive argument for any deity, so far all we have had is unevidenced subjective claims, attacking atheists and atheism?

I don’t believe you, please demonstrate some credible objective evidence to support this rather absurd claim.

I don’t believe you, you are simply reeling off unevidenced and absurd claims to attack atheists, because you seem irked that others don’t share your unevidenced belief in archaic superstition.

That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy, so much for rational deduction, that didn’t take long. FYI the evidence suggests we are all born without any beliefs, and don’t start to from memories and beliefs for several months after birth, ipso facto we all would necessarily start as atheists.

Are you “on the fence” about all the thousands of deities you don’t believe are real? It seems you can demonstrate neither cogent rational argument, nor any objective evidence to support your beliefs. I don’t need to fence sit, I will simply withhold belief from any claim that cannot be supported by sufficient objective evidence, or rational argument, whether they are god claims or any other; and you have offered neither, despite being asked more than once.

FYI claiming you have a rational argument, is not a rational argument. Claiming you have evidence, is not evidence. So that two posts and you’ve offered nothing but an ill conceived and poorly argued attack on atheists and atheism for not sharing your beliefs.

I ask again then, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your deity? If not, then what is the most compelling evidence you think you have for your deity? Tell us which deity it is you believe is real, and tell us why, surely you can manage that much?



@The_Advocate and his/her alter-ego @X0B35 have been suspended for two weeks for creating and using duplicate accounts. Upon return, one of those accounts (his/her choice) will be permanently suspended.


Yes. There is plenty of bad evidence. Biblical stories. Personal testimony. Miracles. Etc… It’s terrible evidence, but it is evidence of a kind. None of it holds up to critical inquiry.

Good evidence is that which comports with reality. It can be observed, measured, tested, and independently verified. It is the same for me as it is for anyone else in the world. We can make objective claims about good evidence. It’s not very difficult. Bad evidence can be easily challenged. Old stories, opinions, un-evidenced assertions, violations of logic, erroneous claims, and the like.

If you believe in a god that is not subject to the rules and regular function of the world, then how did you notice it. Is your god a simple mental construct that has no manifestation in reality? Your god is as useless as Santa or Unicorns. It is a made up story. It makes no difference at all if I believe it or not. Now, if your god does manifest in this world, we would certainly like to hear about it. Wouldn’t it be amazing to find a god? Here is a question for you though. How would you tell a God from a sufficiently advanced civilization of aliens? I don’t have the means of recognizing a god. How about you? How would you recognize a god if you saw one? How would you know it was not a highly evolved being with technology far superior to your own? Are you asserting that you have the ability to know what a god is? How do you know that?

Fine, make an argument for that god. The result is the same. There is no reason to believe in a god that is self-contradictory. A god that violates the laws of logic is by definition illogical. What reason is there to believe in this god? You are believing in a god that simultaneously exists and does not exist. It manifests as dry water. You are welcome to hold such an opionon but it certainly does not qualify as good evidence.

God could be anything you imagine. Fine. What reason is there to believe in such a god? A disinterested god who is not there is no different from a god who is not there. There is no good reason to believe in such a god. And given the attributes that you mention… come on… how in the hell are you going to even notice such a being exists. Again, you have merely created a story and have no means of verifying any such thing in a concrete way. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

I did reference the “Biblical God.” Are you not paying attention?
3 Romans 28, And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Psalm 33:11, The plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of His heart through all generations.

Jeremiah 29:11, For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. - Proverbs 3:5-6

No. Both God and Jesus change througout the books of the bible.

How is this not logically evident. Justice is necessary to society. A society without justice will fall to corruption and disorder. If all thieves were shown mercy after their thefts and forborne any punishment, the judicial system would have no power to enforce a law against stealing. One must decide who is deserving of mercy. In our own society who gets mercy from our judges, police officers, police, women, and some other groups. We call it unjust, but it is a system within which we live. Mercy is the suspension of justace.

Not around this place? You are painting with a broad brush. Arouind here, any atheist making a stupid claim will generally be dragged across the carpet. Not just God claims by the way. You might want to hang around a bit and see what happens when an ignorant atheist tries to join the ranks. They just don’t last very long.

Having an idea of a god is just that: “Having an idea of a god.” Ideas do not manifest into reality just because you have them. If that were the case, you would have just lost your head because I imagined a dark knight slicing it off. Imagginings do not qualify as evidence for anything.

What universe are you living in? Everything. is the set of all existent things. A god that exists in no time and no space is not a part of the set of existent things. It does not qualify. It is nothing more than an imagining until you can demonstrate how it comports with reality./

All you have said is “Ideas exist.” So what? An idea of a God does not justify or bring into existence an actual god. I can imagine you eating a plate of shit, that does not mean it actually happened.


Another thought along these line occurred to me after I wrote this: A leprechuan is usually portrayed as an elderly, stooped-over, red-haired small person with a red beard and green clothing . . . and he’s usually a shoe-maker.

So . . . there have been elderly, stooped men with red hair who make shoes, and who lived in Ireland.

Even if they aren’t leprechuans . . . the existence of such men offers more evidence for the existence of leprechuans than any “evidence” that points to God’s existence.

1 Like

Oh Shit! I saw a Leprechaun the other day.


Theists have literally had millennia to present evidence for their god claims, yet they always come up short. That should tell you something…



thank you for introducing yourself in my mention with this nice contradiction. That should give you a quick answer to who’s confused between the two of us.

I already told you the truth about atheists but you can hold unto all your theories all the same, I understand newbie atheists and overzealous ones rate their acceptance in the community based on the enormity of the theories they know.

I’m not hungry for god debates, I’m now weary of them. I already did a lot of that way way back but I’ll play along and assume you’re as “honest/sincere” as you claim.

So, I ask, what’s your stand about god? So we can know how to proceed or not with our discussion.

1 Like

Why would he need a second account, when he couldn’t create a cogent post with the first? I mean look at this, if atheists had seen “good” evidence for a deity, why would they still be atheists? dear oh dear…

A pretty obvious straw man, and if you don’t like the standards for evidence atheists set, then coming to an atheist debate forum wasn’t very smart was it?

I don’t believe deities are real, hence the question is absurd. Why is an a thing you’ve imagined not given a free pass from reality and facts, well it is, by you and other theists.

Why would I care about the unevidenced characteristics you assume a deity has, when you can demonstrate no objective evidence it is real?

Sigh, what if you stop creating extra accounts to continue reeling off unevidenced assumptions, and try to think critically and rationally for a change.

You seem to be implying it is weeding out the gullible and superstitious? To be honest I don’t believe this either, but it makes a lot more sense than most religious concepts of a deity.

What god, you might as well be telling me what I can and cannot believe and say about mermaids.

If theists present imaginary characteristic for their imaginary deity, that violate principles of reason and logic then I can and will reject those arguments, along with disbelieving what they argue for is real. I don’t care how you or any theists feel about this. You are simply going to have to learn to live with the fact that there are people who don’t share your unevidenced beliefs.

That is not atheism, atheism is the lack or absence of belief, we have been through this and been through this, creating a new account won’t change this.

There is no god to examine beyond your unevidenced subjective claims, and if your arguments and claims do not adhere to the principles of logic they are by definition irrational.

What a spectacularly stupid assertion. I know you think this new account you’ve created is some sort of magic cloaking device, but I already explained to you, that existence is defined as having objective reality.


How is that a contradiction? He says there are two types and he knows no one in one of them. Do you posit he knows everyone who is identified as atheist?

1 Like

Then why in the wide, wide world of sports did you place yourself in an a/theism debate forum?