What is this evidence of God atheists talks about?

Debate Room
162

And I would accept, NOT on the basis of a “fellow atheist” but because it is a piece of evidence presented by some theists to represent their chosen deity Abrahamic god

ANY evidence presented should hold up to scrutiny, especially if the evidence is “by the deity”.

So far in my journey, valid supportive claims for “god/s” has been absent. Therefore, “any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”… (Hitchens)

I have not yet been given a reason to believe (or have confidence) that a deity exists.

Whether one does or not is “neither here nor there” to me as obviously :roll_eyes: there is no tangible effect/influence on the reality in which we live.

163

@Whitefire13 I don’t believe deities exist, period. I don’t understand all of your post. Are saying that no matter how hard I try to ruin a Christian’s beliefs even if I showed them the skeleton of a Neanderthal, they’d reject it and say the devil stuck it there just to disagree?

164

@Whitefire13 It’s interesting, but to be fair, the sentences you’ve quoted call it speculation. I have not read that article but if I can find it online I will. I would just point out again that hallucinations cannot eat or drink, walk across shrines, lift tablets, etc.

165

No one is claiming that. They are claiming that hallucinations could make someone (wrongly) believe that is what happened. This is another strawman, although far less nasty than your previous ones, IMO.

166

Are you asking me?
You can hit the arrow at the end of a members post… or highlight part of their post and a “quote” will appear. You can use it also to specify specific areas you’d like to address.

167

Lol!
If your argument is for falsities and untruths, shit - all religious works can be thrown in that heap. Exaggeration also… BUT I thought we were discussing “motive”.

I think it’s similar to all religions (old and new). Get a lying narcissist psycho to kick-start something stupid. (Ie Scientology) … then :boom: boom :exploding_head: humans take over - drugs, self-delusion, peer pressure, mental illness, status, greed, fear/sincerity…

They could have been specialized “illusionists” (magicians) of the day …

168

And although I try to keep a calm temperament, I am becoming more irritated at you lashing out at others, including those who deserve better treatment. If this trend continues, expect an official warning.

In my capacity as an Admin I consider it my responsibility to protect the members from abuse.

169

…stick around and you’ll find out :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
170

It is not a strawman. I understand the argument you’re making, which is that people could believe it from hallucinating. I get what you’re saying: they would think it happened even if it didn’t. I have raised three objections which you haven’t responded to:

  1. Hallucinatory drugs were not necessarily used in feasting rituals, at least, I have seen no evidence they were from my review of Mesopotamian, Chinese, or Egyptian texts. The material that posters have brought to my attention is speculation at this point. It is not clear priests were high when they performed feasting rituals.
  2. Hallucinations wear off, so even if a person hallucinated a statue of Amun-Ra walking around, say, that would eventually stop, and the statue would appear lifeless again, back where it originally was.
  3. Hallucinations cannot eat or drink, which means that after a person hallucinated Amun-Ra eating or drinking ("Food of all kinds hast thou tasted) they would find the bronze vessels full of the same food and drink they began. This would make them doubt the hallucination.

I would also add that the secrecy surrounding these feasting rituals implies in my mind that priests were not doing anything sincere. Peasants, slaves, and non-elite citizens were not allowed to watch feasting rituals, and this suggests something was being kept from them.

How would you respond to my objections, now that I have responded to yours? I want to be civil with you.

@David_Killens I would refer you back to what @Nyarlathotep said to me.

171

The case of Scientology is interesting, although I think you are being too nice in your characteristics of L. Ron Hubbard. In any case, here we have a pathological liar, a con man and a hack sci-fi writer that invents a new form of psychotherapy, and publish its foundations in a pulp sci-fi magazine. Only later, to get away with taxes etc, he registers it as a religion. So here we have a religion in which the foundations were clearly lies, and the founder a pathological liar. But after that, the followers/disciples clearly believe the founder and his lie-based “theology”, and as far as I can extrapolate from all the books I have read about Scientology, there are indications that Hubbard himself started believing his own shit. According to how this “religion” is practiced, their members are taught how to lie, and do so without shame, if it benefits Scientology and Dianetics. And even to lie about the practices or the foundations, if necessary. So, are the followers and “ministers” of Scientology in the “lying pieces of shit” category or in the “deluded” category? Or both?

172

I’m pretty sure no one here stated, believes, has argued for, or endorses this position. You created this ludicrous position, presumably with the sole purpose of attacking it. You came here looking for a fight, IMO. It is no surprise that you have found one.

173

This is why I can’t have a discussion with you. Moments ago, you spoke up in favor of an argument being made by other posters, that hallucinations lie behind early claims about gods feasting in temples, whether hallucinations derived from fevers, drugs, lilies, etc. You posted this:

“They [other posters] are claiming that hallucinations could make someone (wrongly) believe that is what happened. This is another strawman, although far less nasty than your previous ones, IMO.”

So I respond to the argument, as above, by raising three objections. Instead of responding to any of them, you went back into the thread and found something I said a long time ago. I can explain that remark, but it’s not really relevant to the conversation at this point. You are retreating from my objections, apparently because you can’t answer them.

Let’s leave it at that. We don’t like each other, so be it. We’re not gonna get anywhere by arguing more.

174

For what it is worth you said it less than 24 hours ago. And I personally don’t care if you said it 5 years ago. If you aren’t going to repudiated/retract it, you might as well have said it 5 seconds ago, imo.

1 Like
175

Let’s drop it. We aren’t getting anywhere, we’re just getting more mad at each other.

1 Like
176

You’ve never seen me mad, lol.

1 Like
177

I think the best evidence is anthropology though. All Christians loath it and say they don’t believe we came from monkies. Well for one, it wasn’t a monkey. It was another species of human we came from. For one, their bible gives no physical evidence. But we have forensic anthropological evidence supporting that we are related to these other species of humans. I can’t prove we evolved from them. But that’s like the criminal arguing with the cop saying there’s no evidence when there is a dead body there. I think that the thing that cries out to me is that anthropology debunks all of religion and no that opinion isn’t being put out there as fact. I’m just saying that it speaks to me.

178

I am not a mind reader and I do not play mind games. I have no idea specifically what you are referring to. Therefore you get the “Johnny Cash”.

179

Fine, but that doesn’t seem like objective evidence. Someone else might arrive at a different conclusion. Is your conclusion falsifiable? If so how would you objectively falsify your reading of the texts?

Again this is claim, and again epistemology demands sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support it. Given the antiquity of the claims, and the dearth of objective evidence to support them, it is perfectly reasonable to disbelieve them, but a contrary claim, such as yours, carrie’s a similar evidential burden.

Well you can post or not as you are minded to, the same as everyone else.

1 Like
180

Be fascinated to learn how you know that. Have you been dead?

You have made an affirmative claim. That attracts the burden of proof, which is problematic… To the best of my knowledge all claims about god(s) are unfalsifiable. IE Cannot be shown to be true or false.

I don’t believe on God(s) ,an afterlife, heaven, hell, angels, demons, fortune telling of all kinds, mediums ,the paranormal generally, mountain trolls, dragons or fairies at the bottom of my garden. All for the same reason; a lack of empirical evidence.

However, I’m unable to claim to know my disbelief is true ,for the same reason. A lack of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. What is not is empirical evidence, a demonstration. I recommend a read about Russell’s Teapot, linked below.

181

@David_Killens @Get_off_my_lawn @Nyarlathotep @Whitefire13 @Cognostic @MrDawn @JoelInbody @Sheldon and everyone, I got very busy for few days, and also as you know I live in a area where there’s no internet coverage, and my work is also there. So I got late to reply, and I am not being evasive. So, sorry for inconvenience.

So, some here asked for my definition of God. So here’s my definition of God:

Contrary to the general belief, God support logic, reason, knowledge because these things lead to the knowledge of truth, reality, facts. God is all about justice, and knowledge of truth, reality, facts is necessary for doing justice, and justice is what everybody wants. Social justice, justice in relationships, economical justice etc. Observing, understanding and knowledge is necessary for doing what is right, and all kinds of justice. I think this is not the type of God most believe in.

The God most believe in, ask for belief, generally blind. He fears knowledge, logic and reason. He and most of his ideas cannot be supported by logic and reason.

He fears speech against him also. He talks about justice but there’s no justice through his ways. People just believe that what he does is justice. It’s only a belief. It cannot be supported if people gain much knowledge of any kind. Actually such God is actually heavily influenced or effected by Satan or devil inside humans. Satan inside humans edited God personality as per his likings, which influence followers negatively, and which is why you see so much evils in the name of God.

In two para above, I told my definition of God and how does God most believe in look a like. I think you can see the difference there.

It can be seen in world, where knowledge (logic and reason based) grows among people evil inside them decreases. With logic and reason, interest in justice fairness increases. I hope, you don’t need to think much to understand it.

This is my definition of God. So I think God is that, who support knowledge and reason, and don’t drive you away from it. So when I said God, always think of God of knowledge. You asked for definition of God, and this is my definition. I hope, I satisfactorily explained my God. Now, please keep this in mind.

I have more to say in this regard, but I will add in course of time.