What proof and evidence is there for "atheism" to be accurate and correct?

[Phish]

Moses followed god words for 40 years(not sure if i got this right but they needed a lot of time to get to that jew country) if god is so good he would lead them to that "new land" in few days or in a year not 40 years how is this love for your creation,and in the end Moses even isn't let to go in that "land" because he didnt tapped the rock 3 times he only tapped it 2 times,how more stupid can you even get to believe this shit?

Come on fine believe in this shit but leave us alone and live your fucking life and stop worrying about death there is only one life and this is now so get off your computer have a little faith and live every single minute like its your last

And the followers of Moses, the ones who were supposed to have directly witnessed the miracles and been personally helped by yahweh couldn't stand him. Soon as Moses turned his back they started worshiping a different god. The golden calf.
Now this seems odd behaviour for people who were supposed to have had absolute proof of Yahwehs power, moses killed 3000 of them for this little transgression.
Seems to me that the miracles the bible describes weren't as convincing as advertised.

[pocaracas]

The lack of all of these reasons to believe, ends up in a lack of belief.

Therefore settled, since there is not a lack of evidence, according to you a "lack of belief" is false.


[quote='pocaracas' pid='379196' dateline='1356879299']The rest of the copy/paste was a bit TL-DR, but the first part was an immediate red flag - If you take the bible as trustworthy, why not take the torah, the koran, the vedas, or any other holy book as trustworthy?

quran states semen is from someones backbone, and Genesis/Jeremiah disprove it, "islam" is automatically false.

The Bible however is approx. 40 different witnesses, approx 60 books with no contradiction. Witnesses Died for their beliefs with nothing to gain therefore by Court of Law are valid for investigation, after investigation it is proven that Jesus In Fact Resurrected from the dead, validating the rest of the events in The Bible.

oh, FFS!
In less than a week, I can come up with some 50 people with completely accurate and non-contradicting accounts of something extraordinary... let's say, for argument's sake, something out of the Lord of the rings universe.


People who die for what they believe can be found in all religions. Does that make them true? Oh, and these people also claim their holy books to be free from contradictions.

And what investigation is this that proves " that Jesus In Fact Resurrected from the dead"? Please, we beg of you, bring it forward for all of us to see.

The shroud? That 12th century thing? LOL
A few days ago, a church in Chicago (I think) claimed to have some pieces of cloth from the virgin mary, joseph and the christ child and also some remains of manger itself... but refuses to let those artifacts be scientifically tested.... oh, I wonder why...

Actually The Shroud is from the 1st century, All Scientific evidence points to that, read this if you are an unbiased, God loving man,

http://www.shroud-enigma.com/resources/R...on-ENG.pdf

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf

http://www.shroud.com/scavone3.pdf

So much reading, so little time, but look at what comes out of the site you sent, the original 1988 scientific paper establishing the "age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390":
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

And you provide links to speculations and doubts about the samples not being representative of the cloth.... please! read the original paper. There's a whole section about how they got the samples.

It IS my birthday and that's not something I wish to throw away reading something that starts with utter trash.

So if you found out God exists it would bother you? I'm ruining your birthday by proving God exists? God(The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) isn't a killjoy, He is an Overjoy, this is the best birthday present you'll ever get in life.

If god wants me to know he exists, then he will make me know it by some extraordinary means which will leave me unable to doubt nor consider the highly technological entity hypothesis.
He will not make me know it by having some human tell me about it. That is the hallmark of a man-made myth.
I eagerly await such godly intervention.... sadly, none has yet come forth. And lots and lots of people also claim that such intervention has not manifested. And no theist thus far has managed to convince me that such thing happened to them, either...
So, why should I believe that some god exists, when he shows all the marks of something man-made and none of something extraordinary and divine?


One last thing, my next birthday will be my 33rd... That would make this 2013 a good year for that guy to show up.... until then, I can't accept your (or anyone else's) man-made myth as representative of reality.

[Zone]

If by atheism you mean scientific naturalism I suppose the only evidence is a lack of scientific evidence for the supernatural. If something like the parting of the Red Sea or staffs being turned into snakes occurred now we we would have substantial evidence that it happened and nothing natural and physical was involved. Though it would seem that these things happened a couple of thousand years before accurate records could be kept. So I think what you need is an explanation as to why the level of supernatural activity has fallen away. And there is a good explanation why it would, that being in it never happened to begin with. If you don't have supernatural phenonmenon you don't have the Biblical God you have an entirely naturalistic world which would be an atheists world, or possibly a deist.

[kingofs]

Sir you can't prove or disprove a negative. Atheist are all about using science to disprove God. Here lies the crux of their problem. Atheist say there is no God. But with the rule of probability if there is anything that is infinite then there is the possibility that there is a Infinite Being. I hate to bust your bubble but energy is infinite because it can neither be created or destroyed. So even if there is no God then there is still the possibility of a future Infinite God just by the laws of probability. So its illogical to make the statement of a negative non-existence. If the mind can conceive of it then thru the law of probability and the infinite sequence rule God will exist if he does not already.

[CapnAwesome]

Sir you can't prove or disprove a negative. Atheist are all about using science to disprove God. Here lies the crux of their problem. Atheist say there is no God. But with the rule of probability if there is anything that is infinite then there is the possibility that there is a Infinite Being. I hate to bust your bubble but energy is infinite because it can neither be created or destroyed. So even if there is no God then there is still the possibility of a future Infinite God just by the laws of probability. So its illogical to make the statement of a negative non-existence. If the mind can conceive of it then thru the law of probability and the infinite sequence rule God will exist if he does not already.

Does the same thing apply to bigfoot?

[Cyberman]

Atheist are all about using science to disprove God. Here lies the crux of their problem.

Yes, that is often the crux of the problem, because atheists as a rule don't spend their time trying to disprove "God" or indeed any god at all. Same goes for science.

Atheist say there is no God.

No we don't. Atheists say "show me your god" or "show me some evidence to support your assertion that there is a god". That's the most basic first step when presenting any case for something. Can you do that? Because until you do, there is no discussion.

But with the rule of probability if there is anything that is infinite then there is the possibility that there is a Infinite Being. I hate to bust your bubble but energy is infinite because it can neither be created or destroyed. So even if there is no God then there is still the possibility of a future Infinite God just by the laws of probability. So its illogical to make the statement of a negative non-existence.

Wow. Where to start? Energy is infinite, therefore "God"? Would it surprise you if I said that the total energy of the Universe is zero? Therefore - what? Zero God? You're right that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However, it can change form from one type of energy to another, even giving rise to matter which can be transformed back into energy. The final stage of all energy conversion systems is heat, the simplest form of energy in the Universe. That's where the concept of Universal Heat Death comes from, the idea that all energy conversion will eventually wind down as the energy available to do work is turned into heat.

Besides which, if energy cannot be created, how did "God" do it? (I know, I know; magic.)

If the mind can conceive of it then thru the law of probability and the infinite sequence rule God will exist if he does not already.

Forget this fixation with probability; temper it with plausibility. I can conceive of an end to all world disease, first contact with an alien civilisation, and a naked cheerleader with a keen sense of adventure suddenly appearing on my lap. Guess how many of the three came into existence through the laws of probability alone.

[swami-sam-ananda]

Who banned the joker? Now, who will entertain us?

[Cyberman]

Patience, my pet. Soon, oh so very soon another unwitting victim shall enter this accursed abode; then we all shall feast anew.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Very simple question, and for both definitions too, so if you claim the "lack of belief" definition then please, what proof and evidence is there to lack a belief?

The term proof applies to exactly two fields, math and logic. The legal definition refers to evidence and the quality thereof. It is always a matter of evidence.

Back in the good old days the evidence for gods (always plural before attempting to get to a single god and then to the Christian god) abounded in the sun, rain, the seasons, life itself. All of that went away and is no longer evidence of gods. Therefore there is no reason to hang on to a something that is no longer a legitimate or valid conclusion.

What more do you want?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Sir you can't prove or disprove a negative. Atheist are all about using science to disprove God. Here lies the crux of their problem.

Really? funny, because my fiancé is a microbiologist and none of her research has gone into disproving god.

In fact, out of all my friends that are in varying fields of 'science', none of them care one iota about any god or gods, whatever they are.

What's a god?

Atheist say there is no God.

FALSE

Get your facts straight.

Define what a 'god' is and then we'll have a discussion whether we think it exists or not.

But with the rule of probability if there is anything that is infinite then there is the possibility that there is a Infinite Being.

Well praise Allah, looks like you've just proven that he exists. Congrats! I'll see you at Mosque 5 times a day.

I hate to bust your bubble but energy is infinite because it can neither be created or destroyed. So even if there is no God then there is still the possibility of a future Infinite God just by the laws of probability. So its illogical to make the statement of a negative non-existence. If the mind can conceive of it then thru the law of probability and the infinite sequence rule God will exist if he does not already.

Gobbledygook. I think the maxim "engage your brain before posting nonsense from an apologist website" applies to you.