A simple challenge for atheists

[SteelCurtain]

What I don't like are atheist whose only answer to anything is prove it.

Do you have anything to add other than "prove it"?

Is it the only answer, SteveII, or is it the first hurdle, which you continuously fail to clear?

Do you have anything to add other than bald assertions? If you are upset with us saying "prove it", you have only one thing to do in order to shut down that question.

[Brian37]

Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.

Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?

How did it come into being?

Considering that your avatar label lists you as "Christian" as far as belief, take this same argument you just made here, and ask yourself if you would buy it if a Muslim used it to convince you Allah exists.

Typical tactic I have seen from every major religion. When they cannot successfully attack and debunk science, they try to co opt it. It does not work when Muslims do it, or Jews, and even have run into Buddhists and Hindus who pull this crap.

Science is label independent, religion does not own a patent on it and it does not prop up ANY god claim.

Our universe is 14 billion years old. Our planet is 4 billion years old. None of our current superstitious claims or invisible sky hero claims were around at the beginning of evolution, much less 200,000 years ago.

In the future our species will go extinct, and eventually all life on this planet. Our planet's core will run out of energy, and the sun also has a lifespan. After we are gone, all our human invented religions and god claims will die with us, and our universe will continue on with no record or care for us.

Humans are not the center of this planet, nor the universe. I am sorry if that reality scares you, it should not, but bronze age comic books are not science textbooks and will never constitute scientific knowledge. They were all written by scientifically ignorant people who did not know any better. It made sense back then, it makes you look silly now that we know better.

[SteveII]

What I don't like are atheist whose only answer to anything is prove it.

Do you have anything to add other than "prove it"?

Is it the only answer, SteveII, or is it the first hurdle, which you continuously fail to clear?

Do you have anything to add other than bald assertions? If you are upset with us saying "prove it", you have only one thing to do in order to shut down that question.

So let's recap. Going over the traditional philosophical arguments of the existence of God with this group is unproductive because the answers are either 1) prove it and/or 2) claims that "we don't know so therefore God" are not proof. This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

I gave you the rather dramatic miraculous evidence witnessed by the early Christians. I gave you secular links as to the historicity of Jesus. I also pointed out that hearsay evidence is still evidence. I don't care if you don't think the evidence is strong enough. You cannot say there is no evidence. You can also provide a hundred links from people with opinions on the matter. I can provide a hundred more opinions too.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am only trying to avoid the claims that my beliefs are irrational. There is a very big difference between those two things.

[FatAndFaithless]

You're literally Drich 2.0, just with better spelling and far less self-awareness.

[Brian37]

Is it the only answer, SteveII, or is it the first hurdle, which you continuously fail to clear?

Do you have anything to add other than bald assertions? If you are upset with us saying "prove it", you have only one thing to do in order to shut down that question.

So let's recap. Going over the traditional philosophical arguments of the existence of God with this group is unproductive because the answers are either 1) prove it and/or 2) claims that "we don't know so therefore God" are not proof. This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

I gave you the rather dramatic miraculous evidence witnessed by the early Christians. I gave you secular links as to the historicity of Jesus. I also pointed out that hearsay evidence is still evidence. I don't care if you don't think the evidence is strong enough. You cannot say there is no evidence. You can also provide a hundred links from people with opinions on the matter. I can provide a hundred more opinions too.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am only trying to avoid the claims that my beliefs are irrational. There is a very big difference between those two things.

"Allah did it"
"Yahweh did it"
"Vishnu did it"
"Thor causes lightening"
"Poseidon causes hurricanes"

Or you like every human in history merely like the idea of having a fictional super hero.

[Tonus]

This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

So on a subject which might be the most important one ever for both the individual and the human race as a whole, you're satisfied with "seems likely to me"? You feel that it's sufficient to admit that the evidence is poor, but at least it exists?

I'm guessing (again) that you apply a far stricter standard of evidence and reason in most other areas of your life. But for the one that you consider the most important, you set the bar astonishingly low.

[robvalue]

Im gonna start checking theists for implants that bypass their logic circuits whenever religious topics come up.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am only trying to avoid the claims that my beliefs are irrational. There is a very big difference between those two things.

In other words, "I'm not an idiot or a sucker! I'm really, really not!"

Impressive.

[FatAndFaithless]

If hearsay and post-hoc "eyewitness" testimony is enough for the Christian God, then I'd appreciate Steve admitting that the "evidence" for Allah or the Hindu gods is just as "strong".

[Crossless2.0]

If hearsay and post-hoc eyewitness ceremony is enough for the Christian God, then I'd appreciate Steve admitting that the "evidence" for Allah or the Hindu gods is just as "strong".

Don't hold your breath. I've tried a couple of times to get him to justify his double standard when he reads of miracle traditions outside his faith, but he doesn't want to play. No surprise, since that might expose him as -- gasp! -- irrational.