When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[emjay]

@Delicate

I pity the God that has to endure an eternity in heaven with you, and that, if nothing else, is reason enough for me not to want to go there.

But even if it was true all it is is a choice to become a slave. God says 'love me or burn'. How can any true love of God come from that? If God changed the rules and said there was only hell, with no chance of reprieve, for everyone, would you still 'love' him? No, you'd be out there looking for a new religion with a better carrot.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

[Cato]

First, can you give some examples of evidence for ANY historical event that is repeatable, Cato?

This challenge only makes sense if you are now claiming that God is simply an historical event. You also seem to suggest that it is proper to accept single source claims at face value. The evidentiary requirements are indeed a bit different for historical events, but still require the confluence of multiple sources of information to corroborate a claim. Take for instance the story of The Exodus. There is absolutely zero corroborating evidence this ever happened. Zero, yet people still smugly assert it as an historical event because of a single source claim.

Non-repeatable events by their nature are different as you suggest, but this does does not mean there isn't rigor in assessing the validity of the claim. In fact, it's more difficult and typically requires multi-disciplinary effort. Religious claims quickly run into trouble.

You're barking up an empty tree with this gambit.

[Edwardo Piet]

She said something to the effect that for Stephen[Hawking's]'s ideas to be true, "god needs to die". It made me realize that far from being powerful, god is like a precious fragile doll people carry around.

It also reminded me of this anecdote for some reason:

[..]at a reception in Josephine Bonaparte’s rose garden, at the Chateau de Malmaison, in 1802, [...] Napoleon, then emperor of France, was trying to engineer a rapprochement with the papacy, and so the religious probings ensued:

Napoleon: “Who is the author of all this?”
Laplace: “A chain of natural causes would account for the construction and preservation of the celestial system.”

Napoleon: “Newton spoke of God in his book. I have perused yours but failed to find his name even once. Why?”
Laplace: “I have no need of that hypothesis”

Laplace: “The true object of the physical sciences is not the search for primary causes [i.e. God] but the search for laws according to which phenomenon are produced.”

Source: http://www.eoht.info/page/Napoleon+Laplace+anecdote

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Exactly!

I never say, "there is no evidence for the existence of a god". So, right off the bat, the OP is a straw man.

I always phrase it, "there is insufficient demonstrable evidence to support the existence of a god".

Anecdotal, personal revelation, ancient texts, philosophical arguments (Kalam, Ontological, teleological, TAG)  could all be called 'evidence'. Just really, REALLY bad evidence for the type of claim they are meant to support. 

You have to be an Olympian class 'special pleader' to consider those types of evidence sufficient for the existential claim for a god.

Well said, Simon. 

I'm pleased to see someone finally admit that there IS evidence for the existence of God. It's like Obama finally saying the words, "Radical Islam". You have to be honest about things before they can be addressed effectively.

Between your post and those of Stimbo, I think we can agree at last that some evidence exists.

The evidence may not be sufficient to convince a specific person, but it may be more than enough to convince someone else.

Now, to begin the challenge of facing it head on...

When you capture an angel that has six wings we will start to consider the possibility of a god creature.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]If God changed the rules and said there was only hell, with no chance of reprieve, for everyone, would you still 'love' him? No, you'd be out there looking for a new religion with a better carrot.

QFT.

Extremely true and well put, best Squishy.

God would essentially be a briber and blackmailer, if he existed.

This "God" bribes his believers with heaven and blackmails them with hell. Any so-called "love" for him is merely a desire to accept his bribe... and without heaven it's just the fear of the blackmail of "behave yourself, or go to hell."

Without heaven God would lose his bribe, and he'd simply be an all-powerful supernatural terrorist who I doubt anyone would want to negotiate with, given the choice.

Fucking good job he doesn't exist huh?

To be honest... even though he doesn't exist, so many people are terrified of the idea of "Him" and "His" threats that despite his nonexistence... in the minds of many people he at least exists as what is essentially, a terrorist. Belief in "Him" and his threat of eternal damnation causes acute and often chronic feelings of terror in the hearts of many good people in this world, including children. All because of indoctrination into this horrible belief of a non-existent asshole called "God".

[JBrentonK]

Guys, just look at it this way. Evidence of all the atheist MEN and how they look in real life pictures is basically = to how they believe/disbelieve in God. It's as if their faces are distorted and they appear to be lying to themselves. This = the existence of likely every atheist on the planet. And if you want proof that it hurts to be an atheist, line every atheist up and snap a snapshot of them. They'd be obvious liars/decievers. One user here has a signature in his posts of a man talking who looks like an atheist. You know who I'm talking about. An evident liar you'd see for yourself soon enough. Why lie so blatently? Why so publicly? Why so 'HONESTLY', is the point.

You can't come across a theist an expect him to believe your "absense of God" stance, when the theist has been everywhere you have and the atheist hasn't ever been, EVEN ONCE, in the same stead.

This is proof that atheists are dumb and 100% wrong, but it is sure enough proof to me that the people we should be looking at here are the ATHEISTS, not the christians, as we are looking at the christians right now.

I bet any atheist here doesn't have the balls to relate his so called "evidence" to that of a christians.

Why, he should just take a video of his pathetic unbelieving, God hating, .... to be clearly honest with you there are tens of dozens+ arguements to give to the atheists, but it would result with biting the tounge and raving ... Best to just save these things for those who are interested in your experience in dealing with atheists.

[Silver]

---

One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence. 

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

---

Dear, Delicate,

You are as a child, attempting at logic yet reaching ignorance instead.

After all, one can merely state that evidence is available, but providing it is the key. What evidence have you provided that is worth any merit?

All you have is faith that what you believe is real. One cannot offer that as evidence.

If anyone is incompetent, it is the theist for making a claim that cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Guys, just look at it this way. Evidence of all the atheist MEN and how they look in real life pictures is basically = to how they believe/disbelieve in God. It's as if their faces are distorted and they appear to be lying to themselves. This = the existence of likely every atheist on the planet. And if you want proof that it hurts to be an atheist, line every atheist up and snap a snapshot of them. They'd be obvious liars/decievers. One user here has a signature in his posts of a man talking who looks like an atheist. You know who I'm talking about. An evident liar you'd see for yourself soon enough. Why lie so blatently? Why so publicly? Why so 'HONESTLY', is the point.

You can't come across a theist an expect him to believe your "absense of God" stance, when the theist has been everywhere you have and the atheist hasn't ever been, EVEN ONCE, in the same stead.

This is proof that atheists are dumb and 100% wrong, but it is sure enough proof to me that the people we should be looking at here are the ATHEISTS, not the christians, as we are looking at the christians right now.

I bet any atheist here doesn't have the balls to relate his so called "evidence" to that of a christians.

Why, he should just take a video of his pathetic unbelieving, God hating, .... to be clearly honest with you there are tens of dozens+ arguements to give to the atheists, but it would result with biting the tounge and raving ... Best to just save these things for those who are interested in your experience in dealing with atheists.

That is the most classic case of projectionism which I have ever seen! Yeah, we all know just how honest Pat Robertson, William Lane Craig, Ted Cruz, and all the other right wing fuckwits and tea-baggers are.

Go fuck yourself on the White House fence, Christard asshole!

[KevinM1]

It's fascinating and depressing to theists constantly pull the "You do actually believe in god, but are lying about it because you're angry at him for demanding you cease living your sinful lifestyle. So you hate him because you want to sin" BS.

Theists, it's simple: I believe in your god (regardless of whatever Baskin-Robbins flavor it is) as much as I believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, or Republicans giving a shit about the middle class.

Furthermore, I do not belong to a religion. There's no rituals I must participate in, any texts from which I must recite, no hierarchy that I slot into, no leader whose rhetoric I must follow, no holy days I must recognize... none of that.

Your inability to understand that stems from your inability to think without being chained to dogma. Your book, written by ancient goat fuckers, is wrong. And arguments for its historicity are like arguments claiming that Jason Bourne is real because shady government agencies are real, Eastern European countries are real, etc. References to real people and places doesn't lend fiction that reality.