What is this evidence of God atheists talks about?

It seems you’re demanding that others demonstrate your claims. You sound like a crackpot.

2 Likes

A very lame and pathetic attempt at evasion.

Our friend continually states it has proof. But when requested to provide such proof, all of a sudden it isn’t there, or we have to find it, or the dog ate it …

What a pathetic excuse. Either your god is almighty and all-knowing et cetera, or she is not. Ready or not, if that supposedly almighty god of your wants to reveal herself to some non-believer, then making sure this person is ready should present absolutely no problem whatsoever. This god can, according to the myths, create a complete cosmos, galaxies, a stable star, a relatively comfortable planet, but is prevented from revealing herself becase a puny little human is “not ready”? Sorry, but that’s the lamest excuse I’ve ever had to read through on this forum.

In short, the refusal of a god to reveal herself and refuse to present evidence (or even proof?) about her own existence and to refusal to interact with the world and the cosmos in such a way that evidence concerning her existence can be found amounts is in effect the same as this god not existing.

Where are your sources for this number and this claim? Or did you just pull it out of your own arse?

Where do you have these numbers from? Which source? Or did you once again just pull it out from your arse? In any case, it is not up to scientist and non-believers to dig out evidence to support the existence of a god. This job belongs to those who make the claim, i.e. theists and believers. And your claims concerning the difficulty of finding such evidence, even for believers, is therefore practically indistinguishable from admitting that no such evidence exist. A theist will most likely not go as far as admitting there is no evidence, but their insistence on the existence of evidence sound rather hollow in light of several millenia worth of searching that has shown to return exatly nil.

Edit: I would bring to the attention of @Phoenix101 Hitchen’s razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

1 Like

Didn’t the christian god reveal itself to people on occasion? They are described in the old testament.

If not, how could this god answer with “I am what I am”.

This is the stupidest discussion on the internet today. Demonstrate how you could possibly know anything at all about this imaginary thing called God that you have created in your own imagination. He, she, it, whatever. The fact that you don’t even know this, demonstrates you haven’t a fucking clue what you are talking about and are just making shit up as you go along.

1 Like

Any news yet? Should we put the Vatican on notice?

This is exactly like when Breezy said he had evidence to disprove evolution, and would be publishing his scientific paper soon.

I’m not going to lie, it was disconcerting, but it appears I needn’t have worried, he was lying the same as @Phoenix101 has here.

What on earth do they hope to gain from lying I really don’t know?

Really. The studies on which you base your claim? Or did you just make it up. Or do you just mean you?

I went to catholic schools. One of the few sensible things my teachers taught me about religion is that only a fool never doubts or questions his faith.

The reason some true believers tend not to questions is that they are following the admonition claimed to have come from Jesus in the doubting Thomas incident:

John 20:29 " Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (KJV)

That is to say, that christians are encouraged to accept dogma blindly.

The father of the Reformation, Martin Luther wrote:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

Don’t call me closed-minded. I have looked into the earliest god claims for the last 2 years from over 125 Mesopotamian, Chinese, and Egyptian texts, and before that, I read widely in religious texts. The Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist sutras, the Bible, Daoist scripture, etc. I know what I’m talking about. There is no proof for gods and I argue in a book that should be coming out this year that the gods of the earliest organized religions were deliberate inventions of early royals and priests.

That is why I will say with confidence, “There are no gods.” I can say and mean that from my study of religious literature. I find no fault with others who cannot say that with confidence, and perhaps they are right to be less decisive, but similarly strong in their lack of belief.

Being called closed minded by a presuppositional apologist. Did your irony meter just break?

Really. That’s an affirming claim and attracts the burden of proof.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. That’s because I don’t believe in god(s) but do not claim to know. I 'm unable to claim knowledge because so far all claims made about god(s)are unfalsifiable .IE have never been shown to be either true or false.

In my opinion, god has never been and cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less.

I refer you to Russell’s teapot:

I shouldn’t worry, @Phoenix101 is misrepresenting our rational scepticism at his inability to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for his beliefs, as being closed minded.

It’s a common ploy among theists and religious apologists who post here, who ironically appear to the very definition of closed minded about their own beliefs.

I’m still all agog with anticipation as he claimed he can do what no other theist has been able to, and demonstrate objective evidence for a deity.

Sadly some kind of technical fault must have prevented him making good on his bold claim, as since then we’ve seen neither hide nor hair of him.

I’m not going to lie, I’m struggling to contain my excitement…:roll_eyes:

2 Likes

Surely it must be the united Satanic forces of the Devil that have conspired against him, and prevents him from posting it. I can think of no other reason.

If past form is any indicator, he’ll propably return unabashed after a timely interval, and be dumb struck as to how we missed his “evidence”.

Though tellingly he’ll ignore all requests to link it, repeat it, explain it, or give any details or reference its content in anyway shape or form…

Again if past form is any marker here, he’ll be keen to continue his vapid prostlytising, and wish to move on apace from his idiotic lie, though he’ll be equally keen to insist that he not only had objective evidence, but has presented it, only for our sullen atheistic bias or stupifying ignorance to compel us to ignore or not understand the aforementioned paradigm shifting revelation.

I fear I shall again grow hoarse asking for objective evidence, while shouting the traditional retort of liar liar pants on fire at such brazen mendacity.

If I can be bothered I’ll point out he’s breaking one of the ten commandments. However that level of duplicity negates any attack of conscience from the theist perpetrating it, in my experience.

My sarcasm meter just pegged. :wink:

As I see it, the first gods were invented and known to be false to early kings and priests. They are beautiful statues that supposedly came to life during ritual magic, which never happened, or spirits which supposedly descended into temples upon prayers, which never worked. I won’t belabor that point, but I’m trying to say that if the earliest conceptions of gods are outright frauds, this doesn’t bode well for later conceptions.

That’s part of why I’m so confident in my hard atheism. God is the Nigerian prince from the email scams.

You’re may be right… However, you’ve simply presented a claim, not an argument. It says nothing about the existence of god(s)

It’s actually irrelevant to the existence of god(s) it demonstrates nothing about any god(s)

Suit yourself, I’m unable to agree with you.

I’m not sure that conclusion is rational tbh. In fact it sounds to me like it might be a poisoning of the well fallacy.

I’d word it differently. If an omniscient omnipotent deity exists and it created the entire universe with humans in mind, intent on us acknowledging it’s existence and worshipping it, then why did it sit mute for most of human history while countless humans imagined and worshipped countless false deities?

At the very least it shows humans have a propensity for creating imaginary deities. And though this in itself doesn’t falsify the belief in an extant deity, the complete absence of an objective difference between the deities hardly lends credence to theistic belief.

Ultimately the complete lack of objective evidence must be sufficient reason to withhold belief. Or else we’d have to believe all unfalsifiable claims, or exhibit obvious bias in believing just one, as monotheism appears to do.

Whilst I’d say it shows a human propensity for creating imaginary deities , I don’t think your conclusion is entirely rational. We have arrived at the same position ostensibly, atheism, but mine is a disbelief in any deity or deities. I can only make claims, or hold beliefs, where there is sufficient objective evidence to support them.

That’s fine expressed as an ironic opinion, though I’d qualify it myself. However if you’ve expressed that as a factual claim or belief, then you better be ready to defend it with more than unevidenced correlation based on a poisoning of the well fallacy.

The scam cited might be falsifiable, that alone would make the analogous comparison weak.

2 Likes

I’m not gonna rehash the book I wrote here, just know that I’m confident in my conclusions. If you’re interested in hearing more, PM me and I can present you with evidence showing that the gods of the earliest organized religions were deliberate frauds, up to and including chapters from the book. In simple terms, elites pretended to feed gods and would have known from trying to feed them that they never ate or drank.

I hear what you’re saying: that even if the gods of Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt were fake, that doesn’t necessarily mean later gods are also fake. I see value in what you’re saying. I don’t think I’m poisoning the well, I don’t agree with that, but I agree that later gods could be real. However, I think later gods like Yahweh, Baal, Zeus, etc. descend ideologically from the fake gods of Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt, which suggests they are inherently flawed as concepts.

“I think”? Like in “I suspect” or “I guess” or “I want to believe”? What is your evidence for this? And if you do have evidence, how far does this reach outside Mesopotamia? All the way to north germanic and/or celtic gods? One can claim that e.g. north germanic mythology (Odin, Thor, etc.) might have a common Indo-european source with ancient greek mythology (Zeus, Poseidon, etc.) based on common linguistic and possibly cultural ancestry, so what is your argument for descent from Mesopotamia?

How did you rule out this proposition? (personnally I do not accept, but it is still on the table)

A god does exist, but it is a moronic dick with the worst communication skills ever conceived. From the beginning of the god concept, it has been around, but failed to communicate to us little people it does. Because for all these thousands of years the core story is consistent, that there is a god.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

I do not believe anyone would argue against the fact that religion attracts liars, con men, all manner of dishonest people.

But was religion invented by dishonest people or was it invented by just ordinary people who did not plan to use the god concept for grift? Then the con men moved in on this wonderful method to part people from their money and or assets.