Evidence for atheist claims

[ApeNotKillApe]

I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

My evidence is your lack of evidence.

[robvalue]

The thing is, there are two types of "questions" about science. (This has nothing to do with atheism, I think the OP is starting to get that idea.)

1) I don't understand how X works. Could you explain it to me please? (I'm interested in learning. I have an open mind and I'll wait to see if it makes sense to me.)

2) I don't understand how X works. Could you explain it to me please? (I'm not interested in learning, I want to show that science is wrong. I have a closed mind, and I'm going to play a "gotcha" card at any opportunity.)

The big problem with 2, apart from the fact that you're putting up a barrier to ever learning anything, is that you think you can tear down hundreds of years of careful scientific work, based on a summary given to you on a forum, in a subject you don't properly understand. It's extremely arrogant and absurd. Each branch of science is a massive field of study, with loads to learn, where careful conclusions have been drawn based on huge amounts of data. No one, however skilled, can reduce the whole thing to a few words on a forum. Because science deals with what is real, and what actually works and stands up to scrutiny, it takes some actual effort to understand it.

Unfortunately, whenever I see a "question" from a theist about science on here, about 90% of the time I know it's of the second type.

Religious "claims" are almost always nothing to do with reality, and so never come under scrutiny. They're not testable. It doesn't matter how much you "understand" them. Until such time that anyone in the world demonstrates it's anything other than people's imaginations, there is nothing to study. When someone accidentally makes a non-trivial claim about reality that can be tested, it is proved wrong almost immediately every time. You see, people test claims. Anyone with sufficient understanding can test a scientific claim. If there are holes in it, people will find them. Scientific claims have to be falsifiable: there must be ways they can be shown to be wrong. To believe otherwise is to suggest some sort of worldwide conspiracy where everyone who finds the truth is being silenced. Religious claims are generally not falsifiable, which is why they are useless. They are "true" regardless of what results of any experiment may be. So they are nothing but unecessary assumptions.

Science opens a box for everyone to look in. If what's in there doesn't match the description, it's going to become apparent very quickly. Religion tells you about what is inside a closed box.

[ignoramus]

I drive my car to work. It has no engine! I believe God pushes it along.
I'm not interested in looking under the hood because I don't understand all that complex technical stuff.
I'm happy the way I am thank you very much.

[ApeNotKillApe]

delete

[Mister Agenda]

"Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence. He is also described as a perfectly loving and moral god, which can't be possible if he, as an all-powerful being, created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.). It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving), or he could not prevent these things from being a part of his plan (meaning he is not all-powerful). For this and many more reasons, Jehovah cannot possibly have all the qualities attributed to him, therefore he cannot exist.", this is incorrect in many levels.

"Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence", who attributed Him these adjectives? These adjectives are a mere and poor attempt of human beings to explain the innefable. It is not that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient" in the sense that he is bond to these adjectives and to their meanings. We have witnessed that God knows pretty much everything and that does everything He wants to do, how are these contradictory?

"He is also described as a perfectly loving and moral god, which can't be possible if he, as an all-powerful being, created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.). It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving), or he could not prevent these things from being a part of his plan (meaning he is not all-powerful).", this is just a mere product of your poor theological preparation. You have said that "created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.)", how exactly His plan went badly? By stating that only because we have sinned His plan went badly? I will tell you the truth, His plan went exactly as He planned it. He created Adam and Eve knowing exactly that they would sin and the fact that they sinned is a part of our deification (because the Incarnation of the Word began at the start of Creation). God created man with all the spiritual and physical powers necessary for its fulfillment, but for that to happen, a moral exam had to happen, the challenge by which, in a conscious and totally free way, man could acknowledge and manifest the willing submision and gratitude towards his Creator and to win, at the same time, personal merits, comprised in perfection and to avoid, being made perfect, of the tragedy in which the devil fell by his pride, because: Sirach 34:10 People with no experience know little. So, the commandment is not a sign of tirany but the very manifestation of God's kindness and wisdom, so man can raise to its full state of liberty and perfection, because moral power grows only by exercise, man now can freely want to choose God.

"It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving)" and how exactly this shows that God is not all loving?! This stupidity of "if suffering exists it is because God is not loving" is pure ignorance. As our holy father, St. Nikolai Velimirovich said: “Only the foolish think that suffering is evil. A sensible man knows that suffering is not evil but only the manifestation of evil and healing from evil. Only sin in a man is a real evil, and there is no evil outside sin. Everything else that men generally call evil is not, but is a bitter medicine to heal from evil. The sicker the man, the more bitter the medicine that the doctor prescribes for him. At times, even, it seems to a sick man that the medicine is worse and more bitter than the sickness itself! And so it seems at times to the sinner: the suffering is harder and more bitter than the sin committed. But this is only an illusion – a very strong self-delusion. There is no suffering in the world that could be anywhere near as hard and destructive as sin is. All the suffering borne by men and nations is none other than the abundant healing that eternal Mercy offers to men and nations to save them from eternal death. Every sin, however small, would inevitably bring death if Mercy were not to allow suffering in order to sober men up from the inebriation of sin; for the healing that comes through suffering is brought about by the grace-filled power of the Holy and Life-giving Spirit.”

Look, I get you are an atheist and I respect your point of view (even if you don't believe so) simply because I believe that every person is able to do the choices they want and that they are responsible for the choices they do, but I will never understand why do you theologize if you lack belief in God? Why do you envolve in theology if you have no preparation?

Of course, if you bothered to define the God you believe in for us, we wouldn't be refuting other versions. It sounds like you understand that the God of Theodicy is a  non-starter because of contradictory attributes, and I admire your willingness to chop down all three legs of the theodic tripod; most people settle for one.

And could you be a little less smug about us not being experts on your take on Orthodox Christian theology? There's no reason we should be up on it. It's not like it's made headlines for proving God exists. It's like if a Hopi showed up and started putting us down for not being up on Hopi spirituality. If you've got something that makes your religion so super special that everyone ought to know the writings of your Church Fathers, present it. There are thousands of theologies, we haven't studied them all, but neither have you.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't know where did you get all of this from, but I was very clear. I asked atheist that they can tell me how their cosmology and their evidence contradicts God's truth since I knew is impossible and it was rather a matter of interpretation of scientific evidences and other things.

You just restated what he accused you of in different words. You're admitting you were playing a mind game with us from the start. That was obvious, and you may have noticed people have treated you from the start like you were playing a word game. There's a connection between what tactics you use and how you are treated. We tend to not like it when the questions someone is asking aren't honest.

Here's an example of an honest question you could have asked: Why don't you believe in God?

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you ever going to respond to me, Wryetui?

Please give me your opinion on this, if you want a polite discussion with me:

@ Wryetui

This is what I do when I feel ignored:

We don't know but you don't know either, you just think you do. It's fine with it being a mystery. I understand you think that not only must there be an explanation but it must be God, but you only think that, you don't know it, you think that you know it but you don't know it you just think that you know it. I only think that you don't, but as much as you think you can prove me wrong, you can't, you just think you can. I am not on my high horse but I think you are on yours so I think it's best you get off it. The rewards for your own increase in humility will be huge and make you a lot more rational and less distressed. Good luck.

So this is the 4th time...

[Mister Agenda]

Wryetui, I would be grateful if you stopped quoting people and then beginning your reply by quoting them again. It just makes your posts longer for no good reason and makes it unclear which part of your reply is actually your reply. I'm not a master of the quote function myself (I've yet to completely adapt to the change in how that works), but lots of people would be happy to help if that's giving you problems.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As our holy father, St. Nikolai Velimirovich said: “Only the foolish think that suffering is evil. A sensible man knows that suffering is not evil but only the manifestation of evil and healing from evil. Only sin in a man is a real evil, and there is no evil outside sin. Everything else that men generally call evil is not, but is a bitter medicine to heal from evil. The sicker the man, the more bitter the medicine that the doctor prescribes for him.

Observe: this is the thinking of a slave trying to convince himself that the whip is good for him. This is the thinking of an abused child who loves the fist that breaks his bones.

Nauseating.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm faint to imagine what his proclivities in the bedroom entail...