The hard problem

Very well, let me say a little more about that. I do avoid answering questions that I regard as diversionary, a way for the other party to avoid answering my earlier question, for example if I ask

“So how do you recognize evidence for God, how would you discern that?”

the response

“You are the one saying deities exist, so please explain, how do you recognize the evidence”.

Is evasion plain and simple, it is not rudeness for me to refuse to address that when my own question remains unanswered but it is rudeness to evade my question and replace it with your own.

So although I might truly miss a question sometimes, I think in most cases anyway, this is the reason, my own question has been cast aside and a new one asked and the implication then raised that I am at fault.

Yeah lmao that was my first thought as well. :laughing:

If anyone wants to ask me questions, put me “on the spot” as it were, then I’m more than happy to accommodate, just start a thread asking that question and tell me about it, but asking me a question as a response to a question I previously asked is usually an evasion, occasionally its a request for clarification but here and in the threads I’ve been in it is almost always tactical evasion.

You are not the arbiter of what is relevant here, that is astonishingly arrogant.

Which god? How is it defined? Your question is intellectually and epistemologically risible. What reason do you have for all the thousands of deities humans have imagined, that you disbelieve are real? This question exposes the hypocrisy of your argument, and that is why you have evaded it dishonestly from the very first.

A perfectly cogent and epistemologically reasonable response. To suggest otherwise in intellectually and epistemologically risible. Do you believe wapadooks are real? If not how did you recognise the evidence? Come off it anyone can play this duplicitous charade, but please don’t insult us by pretending this represents honest debate.

Yes it really is, and if you can’t see it then you ought really to refrain from your egregious and sententious lectures about respect and rudeness.


Would you prefer it if I no longer reply to you or respond to you? would you prefer not to be challenged on claims you make? perhaps that’s the kind of debate you’d be good at.

Wow, are you admitting defeat? Throwing in the towel already?

1 Like

I liked Tracy Harris’s response to a caller on the Atheist Experience. When the caller bombastically insisted “Nothing can come from nothing!”, Tracy didn’t even pause she said where did you get nothing from to test this?


Actually, I’ve asked a number of questions based on statements you’ve made in order to get clarification. You’ve not answered many of them.

A few of them are included here:

Because atheism responds to the claim that god(s) exist. Theists make that claim. You, as a theist, are making that claim and must define your beliefs. We don’t do that. But you won’t.


Well the assertion “God exists” is not a religious claim but a metaphysical one. I do not describe myself as a “religious person” in a similar way to Idris Elba’s recent statements that he does not describe himself as a “Black actor”, I refuse to enable you to stereotype me.


Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote, stereotypes you? Are you saying that the statement I made, that you are responding to with this quote speaks about religion?


Any claims about reality must be rationally, systematically evaluated in some way and a decision made upon the basis of that evaluation.


Isn’t a belief in creator gods a claim about reality?


“I claim that God exists, that the universe we are all part of was created,”


And did the god you claim exists create the universe?


intent coupled with unfathomable power


Your god’s intent? Does this unfathomable power include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?


It seems that many a naïve atheist rejects the claim that God exists on the basis of their distaste for certain religious practices and organizational structures.


Maybe. Not sure what the quantity of many is, though. The same or greater number may think this AND be atheists ( instead of BECAUSE).


The think that a belief in God is the cause of religious evil.


Are you implying that religious evil is separate from a belief in god(s)?


I used to be an outspoken, very vocal atheist, I’ve crushed many a theist in the past in discussions about this and used my knowledge of science and mathematics and so on, as my main weapon, I know the territory well.


I might be inclined to trust that if I’d seen a demonstration of it.

You may please yourself, vapid self aggrandising faux intellectualism is nothing I haven’t seen theists desperately trot out many times before.

You’ve already achieved that thanks.

Until you muster something beyond pretentious showboating, you will never know.

Reading your posts puts me in mind of the phrase “One should not enter a battle of wits, when one is unarmed.”


Atheism doesn’t aim or claim to answer this question, so not sure why it you see that as a “fundamental flaw”.

Atheism is simply a rejection of claims about gods because of a lack of evidence or rational argument.

Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t seem to be describing what some people call the “hard problem of consciousness”. (btw, there isn’t even a consensus amongst philosophers and neuroscientists on if there even is such a “problem”)

The fact that we can experience in no way implies or suggests that there should be a supernatural element to the universe. That is quite the non sequitur.


[quote=“Sherlock-Holmes, post:146, topic:3295, full:true”]
After all if there’s no God, then there’s no rules, [/quote]
lol! not this old chestnut again. :roll_eyes:
None of the reasonable, rational rules we have in society (sometime called “laws”) require a supernatural entity in order for them to exist.
Please try harder.


Firstly,What is a belief?

A belief is a subjective attitude that something or proposition is true


One of the insights is that beliefs are not simply rational thought or logical reasoning. Rather, they are shaped by a range of cognitive and emotional processes, including social and cultural factors, persnal experiences.

research in cognitive psychology has shown that individuals are more likely to believe information that confirms their existing beliefs, and to discount information that contradicts those beliefs. This is called confirmation bias.

Now answering you question.

"When you dream, you don’t have any beliefs. You can dream about having sexual encounters with celebrities and wake up feeling ashamed, believing that you were being controlled by Satan during the night. So, what is the real nature of a belief?

Firstly, you believe that the celebrity you dreamed about can provide good sexual experiences, and you believe that sex is a pleasurable activity. Without these beliefs, you wouldn’t have these dreams.

On the other hand if you believe that the specific celebrity isn’t sexy,you will end up watching sexual dreams of your classmate because you think she is hot instead,these beliefs are beliefs of personal experience and you have/haven’t control on those beliefs.
Beliefs may be based on evidence and reasoning too.
For example

  1. I believe that the Earth is round because scientific evidence, such as satellite imagery and observations of ships disappearing over the horizon, supports this conclusion."
  2. “I believe that vaccines are safe and effective because scientific studies and data have repeatedly shown this to be true.”
  3. “I believe that climate change is caused by human activity because there is overwhelming scientific evidence, such as temperature records and patterns of greenhouse gas emissions, that support this conclusion.”
  4. "I believe that human evolution occurred through natural selection because there is a large body of scientific evidence, such as fossils and genetic data, that support this theory.

So belief systems include a wide range of perspectives, such as philosophical or personal values ,political ideologies, and scientific theories.
So what has ,belief ,to do with athiesm?

Athiest is a personal who lacks a belief in God.

So we don’t HOLD belief about GOD.

If there is hostility towards you, I can understand it.

Intellectual honesty is a value that gains much respect among other intellectually honest people.

To be deliberately disingenuous, which you have been here multiple times, is to be intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is deserving of ridicule.


Then you do not understand Atheism. This is simple. What is the first question an atheist will ask if a person asserts they believe in God? Do you know?

It’s easy — Which God are you talking about? We are starting from the ‘ZERO’ point. ‘Please explain what you are talking about and why?’ There is no belief in that position.

Now, with that said, I believe no theist I have ever met or conversed with has ever met their burden of proof. I have not heard any new arguments for the existence of god in 10 years or more. Most of the arguments I am aware of are hundreds of years old and have been debunked for just as long. So, going into this discussion, I am aware of all this. That does not mean I automatically assume you are going to present me with the same old bullshit, but when you do… do you have any idea at all how fast I can recognize it? It may seem like you are getting shut down without a fair hearing but trust me, you have not come up with anything new. And, like all theists, as soon as someone pins you down with logic, you evade by switching subjects, moving the goal posts, or simply ignoring. That’s just the kind of guy you are.

What is the (Null-hypothesis)?


When they drink the Kool-Aid multiple times, it’s very hard to talk any sense into them since most of their desires consists of getting you to drink the Kool-Aid next.



The question of consciousness may be unanswered . . . but just because we have an unanswered question doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.

I can even argue that it’s actually dangerous to invoke God when we don’t understand something.

As an example that supports ths point . . . consider the fact that everyone used to believe that lightning came from God.

If lightning comes from God, then the church is the safest place to store the gunpowder.

The Brescia Church blew up and demolished about one sixth of the town and killed 2,000 people, as lightning rods are sacreligious . . . as the church was hit by lightning and caught fire, and then the 90 tons of stored gunpowder exploded.

There are many other examples that I could give.

There are many important, unanswered questions about consciousness that need to be researched. A deeper understanding of consciousness will help us resolve issues attached to people with brain damage, and people who are in a coma, for example

Invoking God accomplishes nothing.


Please! Do you even hear what you are saying. "Agnostics don’t accept WHAT as a fact? The fact that Atheists don’t believe in gods? (Atheists don’t believe in god or gods. Many don’t believe in spiritual stuff as well.) What is this ‘FACT’ that agnostics do not believe in. Agnosticism says nothing about belief.

Here is a fact for you. If you profess to be AGNOSTIC. You are Atheist. Theism is HAVING A BELIEF IN GOD. If you do not have that belief. If you are questioning that belief. If you do not feel the presence of god in your life. If you have not accepted Jesus, Thor, Baal, Jehovah, or the Great Kanaloa, you are an (A = Without) (Theist = Belief in God.) You are without a belief in god. You do not know if a god exists or not and so you have NO BELIEF IN THIS OR THAT GOD and that makes you an ATHEIST.

Welcome to the fucking country club!

BY THE WAY YOU ARE WRONG: The difference between atheists and agnostics.

Atheism is a question of ‘BELIEF.’
Agnosticism is a question of ‘KNOWLEDGE.’

If you are asked ‘Do you believe in a god?’ You can not answer the question with “I am agnostic.” I did not ask you what you knew. I did not ask you if you knew a god existed. Have you not heard “John 20:29” “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Are you completely unfamiliar with the argument from "Pascal’s Wager?’ Just believe without evidence and the reward of heaven awaits.

Most Atheists are Agnostic. Agnostic is not a category. It is about what you know. Most Theists are actually agnostic when you actually question them. They KNOW very little to nothing about the gods they worship. Agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE. That which you actually know. Atheism is about belief. What do you actually believe.

Now, I will give you a hand. By saying, ‘I am agnostic,’ you are actually trying to find some middle ground between accepting the proposition that God exists or accepting the proposition that God does not exist. These are two different propositions. You must take them one at a time. (Enter the Star Analogy)

If I tell you that the number of stars in the night sky is even, do you believe me? Of course not. Does that mean you think the number is odd? No! It means you do not think the number is even. You can’t imagine how I would know that.

In the same way. If I say "I do not believe in a god.’ I am not making the claim ‘God does not exist.’ A theist has made the claim ‘The number of stars is even.’ (God exists.) and I am responding. I don’t believe that. It does not mean I believe no gods exist (The number of stars is odd.) It means I do not believe your claim. I generally do not believe the claims of theists because they have no evidence to support the claims.
You hang around this site long enough, and you will eventually see some Atheist wander in here and spout nonsense about God not existing. The folks around here will hold him to the same standard as a theist. What evidence do you have for your assertion?

With that said, I am an atheist and I happen to believe that no gods exist based on 27 years of failed god arguments. At the same time, I will not take the position that a specific god does not exist until I can demonstrate that the god being claimed to exist clearly does not exist. This position is called ‘Antithetic.’ I am antitheist to most presentations of god or gods. For example, a god that is both just and merciful can not exist. Justice is the suspension of mercy. Mercy is the suspension of justice. This is not the position of any God. A creator god that is all knowing is a fucking asshole. He may exist, but he sits in the room having created a woman to be raped, knew it was going to happen and does nothing. He created babies to starve, and he sits by knowing everything that was going to happen, and he lets it happen. You can burn that fucking god in his own Hell whether he exists or not. I refuse to believe such a monster as the god of the Bible exists. Still, I will not take the position against a god until I am clear what god is being discussed. I am Atheist regarding all gods. I don’t believe god claims whether they are for or against a god’s existence, without evidence.

Let me repeat that: "I don’t believe in god claims. I don’t believe them if they are for the existence of a god. I don’t believe them if they are against the existence of a god. I don’t believe god claims until I see the evidence. I don’t believe in a God, so discussing its non-existence is moronic. My experience tells me everyone is agnostic, No one knows a damn thing about God or gods. That is why I am an atheist.

Does any of this help clear things up for you?


Given a finite mind and an incomplete set of facts, there is no way for a human to prove anything.

Even things science considers “laws” cannot be shown to be universal across space and time.

Thus there is no burden of proof on anyone and each of us can and must proceed to make life and death decisions based not on that which can be shown to be absolutely right or wrong but on that which either makes, or does not make subjective sense.

IOW, factor in all the factors you like but ultimately it seems best to act on what feels best and do that which makes as many humans as happy as possible.

This also seems to make the idea of an atheist/theist argument seem antithetical to both parties as neither part can prove their first principles, much less provide a definitive answer to the topic under consideration.

So the entire debate seems pointless except as one considers the possibility that each side simply enjoys arguing and is happiest when he or she is in contention, or more said perhaps more correctly, is being contentious.

Or do you want to argue that you have become omnipotent and that there are things you know for absolutely certain?


ADDED BY MOD - please do not respond to this post in this string. The poster has started a new string with this exact text. Respond there.

I think you need to refresh your understanding of the atheist position: A disbelief (without sufficient credible evidence) in the claims of theists.

Nothing antithetical about that position.


My point is only that no one prove a negative, and there is no way to prove that god does not exist.