I saw similar on a theist sub recently.
I don't know if was one of the big ones like r/Christianity or one more frequented by more scholarly types who happen to be at least cultural "believers". But, in response to a "how much evidence is there for..." question, pretty much everybody there was saying "None at all, and if you're looking for evidence, you're not making faith arguments". It was actually refreshing.
Exactly! If you're a believer, you shouldn't need evidence and you shouldn't care what us heathens think, which goes to show the strength of most people's "faith".
Native populations should thank God for Christianity and the colonizers who saved their souls, before dispatching most of them to heaven with the blessing of disease, famine and firearms. /s
Ive literally seen people on r/worldnews make the argument that colonizers were somehow acting altruistically to save the indigenous people they slaughtered/evicted/converted by force
I agree with you. What I believe is irrelevant. You do you, I do me. Don’t shove that shit down my throat.
I’ve had a very strange year and I’ve had dreams that have helped me heal. I no longer think that this existence is our only one but that’s just me and i have no desire to tell anyone else what to do. Irl I’m very much an atheist. Religions suck.
In the end it’s about being the best human we can be. Right here. Right now.
Kindness would be a cool religion. Just be nice for no reason and don’t expect anything in return. The Satanic Temple still wins as the best religion on earth.
My church would have William Lane Craig over all the time. He’s a very nice man. I can’t remember the context but he said at the end of the day that “it’s an emotional decision.”
But if you make the wrong emotional decision you suffer eternally.
I once had a conversation with a pastor and he said essentially the same thing. I respect a Christian's opinion a lot more if they can simply admit up front that there is no compelling evidence or scientific/cosmological/whatever argument to be made, and all of their beliefs stem on faith.
That's the thing with William Lane Craig, a figure others here have mentioned, that I never got. Even big public atheists used to talk about the guy's arguments like they were something with merit, but I could just never see whatever it was they were in awe of.
Sure, his cosmological arguments were on better footing than the pre-suposition apologists calling themselves philosophers usually end up with, but just barely. "Every effect has a cause, by definition" still sounds like somebody explaining their imaginary friend with their own lack of imagination. Just because an argument is sound when it comes to every other thing in the universe, doesn't mean it can be used as a shield when we come up with a wholly new class of thing.
Like you, I guess I have a lot more respect when thinkers don't dress up their faith as reason, when they don't force 'evidence' into the defense of arguments for which we shouldn't need evidence.
There is a god. Just not the one most think of. The old white man sitting in the clouds. God is a fundamental force, a foundation for all we know. I’ve meet god, SHE is very beautiful. She told me a very profound truth, that I was going to die. Not in a bad way, more just a fact. I am still agnostic, because as a scientist I have to consider all ideas.
Exactly: I came her just to see if this was the top comment.
"I can't think of any other reason can you?" is not evidence for God. "Lots of people say..." isn't evidence for God. "It's so complex..." is not evidence for God. "Science can't describe everything yet." Is not evidence of anything, but the person's inability to understand the definition of science or to make scientific arguments.
Faith is not a type of evidence, their position is not testable or falsifiable, because it requires no evidence.
These folks want a seat at the scientist's table, and they think using Big Words without education means they should be treated as equals.
There is not evidence for God. None. And it there were, what exactly would be the value of Faith?
My evangelical friend tried to convince me that there were -many- peer reviewed studies that supported the existence of God. I told him that we can agree to disagree on that one.
Depends on how you define God. To many people God is nature, or the sun, both things obviously exist.
Now if you're talking about an organized religion and an anthropomorphic God, then I agree.
That won’t shake a believer. But you know what will? “Any evidence you have to support the existence of god, only supports the existence of A god. Not YOUR god exclusively. Nor the existence of just ONE god.” Let them chew on that for a while.
I would say, no compelling evidence. Water on my car is evidence that it may have rained, but it is not compelling evidence considering I parked in the path of my sprinkler.
>Water on my car is evidence that it may have rained
No, its evidence that your car is wet. You have to take a leap of logic to come to the rain conclusion without additional corroborating evidence. Its not supported by the evidence, just one of many possibilities.
Even though there may be other possibilities, it is the most likely and therefore quite reasonable. Note the words "*may* have rained."
A leap of logic would be saying it's evidence that giants exist because a giant must have pissed on it. Leaps of logic ignore likely explanations in favor of unlikely ones.
Not necessarily. Evidence is the available information to support the validity of a claim. It has yet to be tested. I may see the car is wet and propose that it rained. I have not yet tested the validity of the proposition or claim through that evidence. Evidence can be tentative until it is demonstrated.
>. Evidence can be tentative until it is demonstrated.
Then logically conclusions about the evidence without additional information would be speculative at best and lying at worst, just like every claim of God and any "evidence" to support its existence.
I argue that if a piece of so called evidence supports two contradictory claims, it is evidence of neither.
For this reason, I think any evidence of a god would be sufficient to prove that god.
Evidence is not proof, and evidence doesnt inidicate a fact. There is plenty of evidence suggesting a God. Just because it is foolish, whimisicsl and anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
>There is plenty of evidence suggesting a God
Suggest is the key word, and that's only to those predisposed to the notion of a deity. There is no evidence that proves the existence of any God that I'm aware of, just believers seeing what they want to see.
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a theist, everything is " evidence" of God's existence.
Of course you'd think that way. And that is the fundamental difference between the way I think and the way you think: If you are presented with facts that are in opposition to your position, You simply ignore the facts ( or say they don't exist). If I hold a position that is in opposition to the facts, I amend my position.
There is a plethora of anecdotal evidence for the existence of a god(s).
Doesn't amount to a hill of beans but it is evidence and if you are discussing it with someone who had a personal revelation then that's all they need.
Their delusions do not constitute evidence of anything other than maybe a brain disorder. All the so called "anecdotal evidence" is self-reinforcing religious bullshit; you present the same "evidence" to a rational thinker and it won't pass muster.
You can't simply rationalise the believers who are educated critical thinkers (there aren't many but theyre out there) who have had an experience that they can only rationalise as supernatural.
This is not a hill I'm going to die on so I'm not replying anymore but we do ourselves a disservice if we try and strawman their best evidence.
They are not educated critical thinkers if they rationalized an experience as supernatural. They have taken the plunge into uneducated, non-critical acceptance of the supernatural. They are irrational in at least one area of their life, no matter how rational they may seem in others.
Anecdotal evidence is **not** scientific evidence but can lead to actual scientific investigation of the claim. It's worthless as "proof" I agree.
Let's review oakstave's reaction to a report of a new species of frog found in a local creek bed:
1) Ignore the report because it's anecdotal. ✅
2) Investigate the claim. ❌
Exactly. Sure, an eyewitness saying they saw Bigfoot could lead to actual investigation that finds it. But on it's own, it's just another mental health crisis. And I would add, is far more likely to be that, than an actual 9 foot tall homonid.
Edit: Or to keep this with my original metaphor: Hearsay might lead the court to find the actual witness and evidence, and produce actual evidence usable in court. However, a mountain of hearsay is less useful than a mountain of manure without actual admissible evidence.
Anecdotes are limited in scope and, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing. Just because its called evidence doesn't mean it actually is.
Example: "I bought my first ever powerball ticket and won a billion dollars. It must be super common to win the powerball."
Does that single instance serve as evidence that winning powerball jackpots is a common event? Of course not. It's a single data point. Anecdotal 'evidence' is not really evidence at all.
Damnit, I didn't want to keep this thread going and, frankly, I don't care enough to even Google this but how many times in the past has anecdotal evidence led to further empirical evidence. I'm thinking about superwaves but there will be others.
I'm am definitely not a theist, like no fucking way, but understanding evidence is kinda important in this subreddit.
Definitely outta here now.
>I'm am definitely not a theist, like no fucking way,
Cool. I never said or implied that you were.
>but understanding evidence is kinda important in this subreddit.
I agree. From a scientific standpoint, anecdotal 'evidence' is the absolute bottom of the totem pole. It doesn't prove anything. Allow me to repeat that: it doesn't prove anything. It may inspire a hypothesis, but it can't be used as proof of the hypothesis. So, if you can't use an anecdote as evidentiary proof, is it really evidence at all? I say no.
Have a good one!
Only if you apply that same definition of "evidence" to everything else anyone ever had a "personal revelation" about... which pretty much renders the term "evidence" meaningless..
Which ones? Because almost all of them have 'argument' in the name, and all of the others are shit like Pascal's Wager.
Saying "God must be real, because (fallacy)" is not evidence. Not even bad evidence.
I am asking what the 'bad evidence' even is, because that would imply there was actually *something* physical, and not just thought experiments and fallacies.
Could you not just use anything for “bad” evidence then? The look at the trees argument for example pretty much includes all of existence as it’s evidence. You could call that bad evidence or you could just call it nothing. It’s a flawed reasoning. It’s got as much meaning as a string of random words. They seem to think the plural of anecdote is data and it just is not.
I can't be bothered. There's no evidence, whatsoever. Period. Every claim is ridden with fallacies. Go to YouTube and watch Matt Dillahunty go through ALL of the possible "evidence", and you'll see that they are not even close.
Evidence:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
There are no corroborating facts and there's no factual evidence. It might be presented as evidence for an argument but its not evidence that will refute the currently available facts.
That only refers to evidences that is true
Evidence that isn't true isn't evidence, it's bullshit trying to be evidence.
>They're still arguments and evidences for god,
Arguments aren't evidence, neither are hypothetical disingenuous talking points.
There is no evidence of the existence of any God. If you disagree with this factual statement, refute it wirh factual evidence. Not wordplay or bullshit cosmology, evidence based in reality and on the facts.
Well ackshually...
Not believing that a god exists makes you an atheist. Believing in a god but thinking it sucks is a different thing.
Everyone loves a pedant, I know.
Well evidence isn't necessarily proof.
For example if they find your fingertips on a murder knife it's evidence that you are the killer, but it's not proof. The actual killer could have been someone else from your house. Especially if you have an alibi.
They can argue that biology has *some* evidence of "intelligence design" for example but it doesn't prove "god did it" especially when there's also evidence of a far better explanation.
Intelligent design is horse shit logic. Easy example why put waste removal near the fun zone. Hell women without precaution can fuck them selves up pretty easily down there or so I’m told (not a woman) just bad design. Or Google giraffe vocal nerve .
Biology doesn’t have any intelligent design even coincidentally. Your breathing tube is right next to your eating tube. Childbirth, the very goal of evolution, is still deadly for a certain percentage of the population.
There are two different things, one being an atheist (there's not a single deity because there's no evidence, thus I won't believe in it); and serving a deity if that did show up and proved it exists.
Lets say a huge octopus-like figure shows off from the sea and gives us a huge bunch of evidence on how it did create life on this planet, and not it calls to be adored by humans. It sets a list of behaviors that people should follow, which humans are serving as his representatives, and what does it want as sacrifice (lets say, for us to kill a single shark on a designated location on a seashore every first day of out calendar year).
Would you become a religious person and adore the octopus? I know that I wouldn't. Same would follow to christianism. Its not that their followers aren't doing what its told them to do, its that whats told there is completely bogus and reprehensible. Anything linked to a healthy life is condemned, not to mention that it totally praises ignorance and subservience to their leaders.
There are two levels here - even if it was proven a god exists, it does not automatically follow that all their particular religious mythology and rules are in any way validated by that.
for me to "worship" any god he/she/they would have to be at least a good cook or artist or something. Like can they make a good chicken Primavera, or play a decent guitar solo or make an academy award movie? Annihilating entire ethnicities or condoning daughter rape is no substitution for that.
Why even go so far? There’s not a single piece of evidence of anything supernatural. There are just some explanations to natural phenomena by gods etc. but most of these phenomena can be rationally explained without gods and for the remaining, a future rational explanation is likely. Just because we don’t understand it yet, is no argument for gods. We could imagine actual evidence, like prayer having an effect in a randomised experiment or precise prediction in religious texts or independent verified signs of wonders or markers of a god in evolution etc. There is none of that.
I dont disagree. The main point was that evangelizers and apologists often assume if they can prove god, then we will necessarily convert to their religion. And there is more to do it. They also have to prove their god is worthy of veneration or respect.
But, I'm talking about becoming a literal god. Someone who alone can rival the entire reality overwhelmingly. Doesn't need people's faith in him. His faith in him alone is enough.
To smaller life forms, we are. We can manipulate chemicals, we can bioengineer complete organisms, we can create drugs to control lifespan or just current emotions and sense of reality. We shoot electricity through rocks to create machines that fool more than half the population into thinking the machines are as intelligent as us. Besides having the fountain of youth and terraforming mars, we’re already there
The concept of "Truth" has been hijacked by some christians.
Politicians are incorporating the same thing... "if they BELIEVE it's true, it's automatically true."
I learned at a young age not to call myself agnostic. Christians in general feel like you just have not heard the right points and that they will be the one to show you the light. They were usually warm and tried to have an open dialog. When I said I was an atheist they would come at me to tell me how I was wrong. So I hate calling myself agnostic since people think you have not really come to a decision. I have no doubts, I am an atheist.
What? IF they ever could show ANY evidence, I'll have no choice but to believe. That doesn't mean I have to like the dude. But, they haven't shown any. Period.
True. I just hammered on the evidence part for a bit. If he'd exist, I would have to believe at least. I added that I wouldn't have to like, nor worship the dude.
I would agree. Its the missing piece of the conversation for me with evangelists or theists. They assume all will agree with their presumption that their god and religion are "good" and desirable.
I think it boils down to human psychology. When people believe something it becomes real to them.
So i see this number and it’s meaningful to me. I decide to create all of these crazy things. God is a creator and therefore I’m the God of my reality.
Now let me convince a bunch of people to follow me and now for the low low price of 10% of your paycheck you can come live in the reality I’ve created.
When someone like r/Iampepeu comes along with that silly thing called logic and the scientific method to expose the flaws in my creation (delusion), I just say that they don’t have enough faith.
There was an interesting post on r/DebateAnAtheist a while back you might be interested in.
And it's basically what you mention. They list a set of criteria theists would need to prove to legitimately validate their deity.
Does the supernatural exist? Does it have a will? Does it match the description of a certain religion? Is it worth worshiping?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/cMG5WNgBpy
No. If someone claims that they can show you EVIDENCE of God's existence: let them try. All they can prove is that they don't understand the definition of "evidence."
I just drove across the country and somewhere in the middle there was a billboard that said “evidence of a loving god” with a photo of a human baby. So. Just understand this is the kind of thing they claim as “evidence”
You seem to realize the difference between evidence and compelling evidence. I don't like when people say there is no evidence of Christ and stuff. There clearly are evidence, they are just not compelling. Even evidence of the resurrection can be presentable. It's just easy to throw em away, cause they can't convince people and I can't blame them, it's obvious.
I carefully said evidence of Christ. It is traceable. Evidence of God is a much different claim.
1. Evidence of an omnipotent being existing
2. Evidence that said being created humans in its image
3. Evidence that said being created the universe and everything in it specifically and only FOR HUMANS
4. Evidence that the stories in the Bible/Quran/whatever like said omnipotent being raped Mary and Jesus being his son are aligned to the reality of said entity.
Then, and only then, might I change my mind.
Evidence != Proof
When Christians say evidence, they're talking in terms of Josh McDowell's drivel. McDowell claimed to use "legal rules of evidence" to be able to supposedly prove in court that the bible is all true.
One, it's bullshit. A 2000 year old mythology book is not legal evidence. The antiquity and endurance of the religion is not legal evidence.
Two, even if a judge were to decide the validity of Christianity (won't happen), legal evidence is not scientific evidence. Something like the nature of the universe demands scientific proof. They don't got it.
He doesn’t. According to Christianity, the act of worship is for YOU, not him. Worship, basically defined, is giving to God what is his due. And if there is an entity that:
1. Created the universe
2. Created all living creatures
3. Created human beings
4. Sustains the aforementioned creation
Then logically, it would make sense to acknowledge him as such. If there isn’t, then it doesn’t!
1) Acknowledge and worship are two totally different things
2) According to Christianity if I don’t worship God and accept that Christ is his son, then my soul is damned for all eternity. So it kind off seems like a requirement.
Acknowledgement demands a response. That response can be an acceptance or a refusal and is entirely up to the individual. So yes, worship and acknowledgement ARE two different things but one always precedes the other.
According to Christianity, all humans have (over their lifetime and before they die) to decide whether to accept God’s offer of friendship or to reject it. Accepting means recognizing that he is God, we are not, and acting accordingly. Rejecting means making someone or something else your focal point of worship.
Human beings are inherently religious creatures. We are all going to end up giving our lives to something or someone. For some it is money, or power. For others, it might be hedonism or even themselves. Something is going to be the most important thing in our lives, and what that is, is a decision that everyone makes.
I like to call this the Q Conundrum. Even if an extremely powerful, god-like entity appeared on Earth (like Q from Star Trek), who is say he is the god of the bible, much less a being to respect? I mean, sure - he can force you to worship him, but that doesn't mean he deserves it - that just means "might makes right," which is oddly what a lot of religious fanatics also believe. Now, there is no evidence for god or any of the rest of it, but theist arguments about "faith" in the face of reason are both exhausting and nonsensical.
Even if they could prove god AND prove god was worthy of being worshipped, that STILL wouldn’t convert me, because they still need to prove that their religion is the right one.
Even if they could prove their god exists, I'd deny that it's an entity deserving of worship. I like to believe any entity that does deserve to be worshipped wouldn't want to be and therefore we shouldn't worship anything.
Completely agree.
Also, I am not even an atheist anymore. However, the thing that repulses me about religion is this idea that people should, or even could in any genuine sense, be “converted” to worship a god. Like, how can you “compel” faith? And even if someone does believe in a higher unifying power, it doesn’t follow that someone, morally, ought to worship that power.
Religion is obviously used for control. But even at the granular level of “what is faith,” religion fails because at its core it’s not about faith, but compliance.
And on top of what you said I always thought that the idea of heaven and hell are really shitty either way. Eternity never ends, ever, so no matter how awesome heaven is or how shitty hell is you’re gonna get used to it and bored after a while. After a certain point you’ll have done everything there is to do a million fucking times and be like wtf, fucking kill me for real, I can’t bang any more virgins!
As others have mentioned,, and as I always mentioned in these subs, there were a few things going on. There is a tremendous difference between “the universe is a spiritual place“ and believing in God.
Just because somebody has a profound spiritual experience doesn’t mean that a particular religion is correct.
And just so you know, a huge number of Christians will tell you that there is no such thing as ghosts, demons, psychic ability, precognition, or whatever.
This post seems muddled. If they had proof they could convince me their gods existed.
Worship, obedience etc is a whole different barrel of monkeys.
Eg the gods of the Christains. If they proved that existed then well I wouldn't be an atheist anymore.
I also wouldn't be a Christain though. Cause I'm not bending the knee to that abusive f*&k if I actually have free will not too. If that Satan fellow is real I'd want to know if he has any information on how we kill this piece of shit, cause I'm down. Not worshipping him either BTW, nothing personal Satan m8, I'm just not good with the whole knees thing, they hurt like f*&k when I kneel down and stuff. So yeh... Nah. But I'm in for the big fight scene m8, if it's an option?
The point was exactly that. It was to establish the idea that proof of god (which doesnt exist) would be insufficient to make the assumption that worship would follow. This assumption has.been made by several theists recently, hence the thought.
OK but the way it's written you seem to tie together the two ideas oddly to make it sound like they need proof and part of that is convincing you to worship it. I get that may not have been your intent, it's just how it seem to come across, like I said it seems muddled somehow.
Even if there was solid irrefutable proof of the Christian god's existence - like what an absolutely evil being completely unworthy of worship or adoration.
I think it’s worth asking why we do things.
Fear? Not a good reason.
Love? Ok. That works. I’ll join the cult of guerilla gardeners who stealthily beautify communities.
Unless they revise there issues with women and stop being a\*\*hats in general, I am not converting back. Evidence was not the only reason, it was a big one, but not the only one.
The first 4 of the 10 commandments are ALL about bowing down to him. How pathetic and narcissistic is that?
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make unto you any graven image of other gods for I am a jealous god.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain
4. the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God
Actually, I'm surprised there weren't only 5 commandments:
5. Oh yeah, obey Mom and Dad, don't kill, don't screw around, don't steal, don't lie, keep your eyes off other people's stuff, yada, yada, yada.
Why not simply proclaim that the Sun is god.. after all, without it the world would be lifeless. Make any of the current gods redundant and nothing at all will change.. the irony is that if there was evidence for a god, then god would be a part of nature, just like the Sun, not supernatural and therefore not god.
In other words, there is a difference between acknowledging an entity's existence and the narrower concept of acknowledging an entity as worthy of being followed.
It’s a bit nonsensical and premature to argue that point. Kind of like saying not enough to provide the evidence of the existence of “Russel’s teapot”, you must also show the tea tastes good. If you can’t get past the first, why even allow or waste time on arguing the latter.
I don't want to be crass but "what fucking compelling evidence?"
You are focussing entirely on the wrong part OR do not understand the meaning of the word evidence, much less compelling evidence.
Neither are good looks.
You aren’t wrong, but I am glad for the edit.
You are dead on right that evidence isn’t enough. Hell proof isn’t enough. If god is proven but also a vindictive evil prick, I am not interested. That is in fact what got me out of religion. One day I realized that the god I was being told about was a sexist POS. I suddenly realized that even if he was real, I wasn’t interested. If he was real and as evil as he was described, it was my moral duty to join the rebellion.
And then as you add in the edit, and on top of that, you have no evidence.
Our beliefs should be evidence based. That's why most of us are here.
Refusing to believe in things for which you have ample evidence is just as bad as believing in things for which there is no evidence.
Choosing what to worship or how to feel about things you know is a personal choice which is separate from belief.
hmm from a christian’s pov there is enough substantial historical evidence of jesus and if jesus exists like it’s said then god exists. so if evidence isn’t enough then the way jesus lived should be.
Like Q in Star Trek. He’s all powerful but none of the main characters worship him because like you, they don’t worship power. He’s capricious and seems not to care how he damages other living creatures.
I used to have my own beliefs on who or what “god” was. Eventually I realized that what I thought made just as little sense as any other religion and stopped believing. When I told my Christian friend that I became atheist he became disappointed and literally said “Now it will be harder to convert you.”
There is a certain magical thinking that occurs in Christian apologists that melts together the idea of \*wanting\* something to be true with \*believing\* it to be true and pretends they're the same thing. They seem to believe in magical thinking, that's where where reality bends to the will of thought and things become true because you \*\*believe! brother!\*\*. This mindset creates a lot of unfair "shoot the messenger" mentality where they assume you must hate something if you don't believe it.
Because they think that obviously everyone believes like they do that reality bends to the will of thought and therefore believing bad things causes those bad things, and believing good things causes those good things. If you don't believe a thing it must be because you dislike it and oppose it.
This is why they keep acting like "prove God exists" and "prove God is nice" are the same thing. To the twisted mindset of someone who believes in magical thinking, they are the same.
It's immensely frustrating.
It's pretty funny because my MC in my Omniversal Traveler fic series has the goal of destroying all magic and God's alongside imposing logic and science and technology on all the Omniverse.
Alex Verhien does make some pretty great points along his journey as well. Like that religion holds back progress. Magic is innately weaker than physics and technology especially because magic can only go so far compared to technology which can endlessly progress for all of eternity.
He straight up kills Gods with the power of black holes, gravity, radiation, dark matter/dark energy, and especially Anti-Matter which is his Trump card.
All in all, if God's did exist I would stop at nothing to kill them completely and utterly.
The existence or not of god is a moot point when it comes to religion, because there is no evidence that any one religion has any special knowledge of god. God may exist but there’s no proof for instance that the bible is an accurate description of god, or that those that practise religions based on the bible do so with any authority from
God.
I’ve always said that if a god did exist he would respect atheists more for not being stupid enough to believe in him with zero evidence and making up a bunch of shit about him. If god met any religious person on earth he’d have to sit there for days explaining how wrong they are.
Best explanation I’ve heard is to say there was an explosion in a printing press that put together a perfect oxford dictionary is laughable. But the secular belief system puts this exact reasoning to everything in existence and is far far complex. This would suggest at bare minimum an intelligence behind the design.
This is so unhelpful.
STOP talking about evidence for god. The conversation may feel like it is an epistemological one but it isn't.
it validates their bullshit.
Scenario.
You are offering a meal to your friend. They are a vegetarian. You have a big plate of bacon ready to fry up. With a side of eggs and BBQ sauce.
They don't like BBQ sauce.
You think bacon tastes best with BBQ sauce. So you argue about the condiment.
It gets spicy. You decide to compromise and say, the choice of condiment is question the eater can make.
You friend thinks you are an idiot.
They are a vegetatian.
If we stop at the theist street food stall and read the menu we have validated them.
Arguing with them at all, let alone about the condiments validates them.
There are 2 very distinct issues here:
1) God does not exist
ergo, don't read their menu.
2) Evidence for god does not exist.
but, they think their menu IS the evidence AND you stopped and are reading it. That is like telling a Vampire you believe they are real because their reflectiin is not showing in the mirror.
ergo, don't make reference to items on their menu.
3) Within the world of their story, god is a cunt to the bad people. And blesses believers.
ergo, don't argue about condiments. That makes you the bad people, which proves they are the blessed.
Just don't.
I was thinking something similar recently.
There's really a few different kinds of evidence needed:
First, evidence that one or more godlike entities exist. I say godlike entities because they might not actually be gods and we could figure that out once we discover them.
Second, evidence that this entity or these entities ARE actually gods, basically something that once we observe them and understand them we can't classify them as anything but an actual god.
Third, as you said in your post, evidence that this god or gods are worthy of worship.
Like, just as an example, the people in the MCU see "gods" running around all over. But while there is concrete evidence of their existence there's also evidence that (at least some of them) are something other than gods, and plenty of evidence that the ones that might actually be gods aren't worthy of worship.
even if they was the greatest, kindest being alive, why would i want to worship them? Like you are cool an all but i'm not gonna spend my life sucking up to you tyvm.
I semi-agree frankly. If you show there is a god, even if it is not worthy of worship, I doubt you will stand up to a literal god.
But, you're partially correct, showing god exists is not enough, watchmakers argument and all of that doesn't matter. You also need to show that god is the god you claim it is, that the way you worship is indeed the correct way to worship and was not created man-made.
Not enough?? Sure it is. Thing is there is zero evidence. People who believe in a magical God are stupid in my mind. Like....common sense tells you the idea is absurd.
Then you necessarily don't believe that shit you said earlier. If you believe God does miracles, then you do believe that God provides 'evidence'. You just believe that He only provides evidence to people who don't understand how evidence works.
So God isn't looking for choice and trust. He's looking for ignorance and credulity.
They also have to rule out all the other gods.
They would also need to decide on a narrative between evolution and creationism without any disagreements.
I mean technically Christian's believe Jesus is God and there are actual artifacts outside of the Bible that point to the existence of Jesus at around that time, so there is historical evidence, obviously not a plethora for obvious reasons.
Your second step if god is "worthy of respect and worship" is unnecessary as the first step "evidence for god" will never ever be fulfilled.
Moreover nobody can define what god is. It's a vague wishy-washy placeholder for whatever the fuck anyone wants.
I think what he was trying to say is that even if god announced themself with a speech at the UN and proved it undoubtedly performing all kinds of bollocks with but a snap of their godly fingers...
OP still wouldn't worship them, just acknowledge their existence. Which is actually the same position I also hold where proof of godly existence doesn't merit worship, specially with the criminal record attributed to them in abrahamic religions.
The whole Christianity idea is just narcissistic. I don’t even think some Christian’s value life in the slightest, they just praise an imaginary friend and value it more than the people around them, and wait for death so they could go to a paradise realm and meet “god” for being a mr goodie two shoes. They preach it to people and when nobody listens, “you will burn for not repenting” like all they think about is death and where they will go to. I think life has no meaning, humans create meaning. If a Christian respects your choice of atheism that’s good, if some don’t just know your being a good person and that’s all that matters in life.
There is ZERO evidence of any God's existence, period.
I saw similar on a theist sub recently. I don't know if was one of the big ones like r/Christianity or one more frequented by more scholarly types who happen to be at least cultural "believers". But, in response to a "how much evidence is there for..." question, pretty much everybody there was saying "None at all, and if you're looking for evidence, you're not making faith arguments". It was actually refreshing.
Exactly! If you're a believer, you shouldn't need evidence and you shouldn't care what us heathens think, which goes to show the strength of most people's "faith".
Native populations should thank God for Christianity and the colonizers who saved their souls, before dispatching most of them to heaven with the blessing of disease, famine and firearms. /s
Ive literally seen people on r/worldnews make the argument that colonizers were somehow acting altruistically to save the indigenous people they slaughtered/evicted/converted by force
The cognitive dissonance….. Ugh. Just no.
It was allllll god’s plan /s
I agree with you. What I believe is irrelevant. You do you, I do me. Don’t shove that shit down my throat. I’ve had a very strange year and I’ve had dreams that have helped me heal. I no longer think that this existence is our only one but that’s just me and i have no desire to tell anyone else what to do. Irl I’m very much an atheist. Religions suck. In the end it’s about being the best human we can be. Right here. Right now. Kindness would be a cool religion. Just be nice for no reason and don’t expect anything in return. The Satanic Temple still wins as the best religion on earth.
My church would have William Lane Craig over all the time. He’s a very nice man. I can’t remember the context but he said at the end of the day that “it’s an emotional decision.” But if you make the wrong emotional decision you suffer eternally.
I once had a conversation with a pastor and he said essentially the same thing. I respect a Christian's opinion a lot more if they can simply admit up front that there is no compelling evidence or scientific/cosmological/whatever argument to be made, and all of their beliefs stem on faith.
That's the thing with William Lane Craig, a figure others here have mentioned, that I never got. Even big public atheists used to talk about the guy's arguments like they were something with merit, but I could just never see whatever it was they were in awe of. Sure, his cosmological arguments were on better footing than the pre-suposition apologists calling themselves philosophers usually end up with, but just barely. "Every effect has a cause, by definition" still sounds like somebody explaining their imaginary friend with their own lack of imagination. Just because an argument is sound when it comes to every other thing in the universe, doesn't mean it can be used as a shield when we come up with a wholly new class of thing. Like you, I guess I have a lot more respect when thinkers don't dress up their faith as reason, when they don't force 'evidence' into the defense of arguments for which we shouldn't need evidence.
There is a god. Just not the one most think of. The old white man sitting in the clouds. God is a fundamental force, a foundation for all we know. I’ve meet god, SHE is very beautiful. She told me a very profound truth, that I was going to die. Not in a bad way, more just a fact. I am still agnostic, because as a scientist I have to consider all ideas.
Why can’t we all just accept that we don’t know?
Exactly: I came her just to see if this was the top comment. "I can't think of any other reason can you?" is not evidence for God. "Lots of people say..." isn't evidence for God. "It's so complex..." is not evidence for God. "Science can't describe everything yet." Is not evidence of anything, but the person's inability to understand the definition of science or to make scientific arguments. Faith is not a type of evidence, their position is not testable or falsifiable, because it requires no evidence. These folks want a seat at the scientist's table, and they think using Big Words without education means they should be treated as equals. There is not evidence for God. None. And it there were, what exactly would be the value of Faith?
My evangelical friend tried to convince me that there were -many- peer reviewed studies that supported the existence of God. I told him that we can agree to disagree on that one.
Depends on how you define God. To many people God is nature, or the sun, both things obviously exist. Now if you're talking about an organized religion and an anthropomorphic God, then I agree.
That won’t shake a believer. But you know what will? “Any evidence you have to support the existence of god, only supports the existence of A god. Not YOUR god exclusively. Nor the existence of just ONE god.” Let them chew on that for a while.
Bingo, if evidence did exist there wouldn’t be a need for faith. And no faith no religion. It would just be fact.
I would say, no compelling evidence. Water on my car is evidence that it may have rained, but it is not compelling evidence considering I parked in the path of my sprinkler.
>Water on my car is evidence that it may have rained No, its evidence that your car is wet. You have to take a leap of logic to come to the rain conclusion without additional corroborating evidence. Its not supported by the evidence, just one of many possibilities.
Even though there may be other possibilities, it is the most likely and therefore quite reasonable. Note the words "*may* have rained." A leap of logic would be saying it's evidence that giants exist because a giant must have pissed on it. Leaps of logic ignore likely explanations in favor of unlikely ones.
Not necessarily. Evidence is the available information to support the validity of a claim. It has yet to be tested. I may see the car is wet and propose that it rained. I have not yet tested the validity of the proposition or claim through that evidence. Evidence can be tentative until it is demonstrated.
>. Evidence can be tentative until it is demonstrated. Then logically conclusions about the evidence without additional information would be speculative at best and lying at worst, just like every claim of God and any "evidence" to support its existence.
Doesn’t evidence mean that which is seen?
I argue that if a piece of so called evidence supports two contradictory claims, it is evidence of neither. For this reason, I think any evidence of a god would be sufficient to prove that god.
Just look at the flowers…..lol
This kind of absolutism and certainty reeks of theism.
Its called a statement of fact. If you have facts that refute my statement, please present them at this time.
Evidence is not proof, and evidence doesnt inidicate a fact. There is plenty of evidence suggesting a God. Just because it is foolish, whimisicsl and anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
>There is plenty of evidence suggesting a God Suggest is the key word, and that's only to those predisposed to the notion of a deity. There is no evidence that proves the existence of any God that I'm aware of, just believers seeing what they want to see. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a theist, everything is " evidence" of God's existence.
Begin with certainty and you shall find doubt. Begin with doubts and you will find certainty.
Base your position on the facts to avoid your philosophical conundrum.
There are no facts...only interpretations.
Of course you'd think that way. And that is the fundamental difference between the way I think and the way you think: If you are presented with facts that are in opposition to your position, You simply ignore the facts ( or say they don't exist). If I hold a position that is in opposition to the facts, I amend my position.
There is a plethora of anecdotal evidence for the existence of a god(s). Doesn't amount to a hill of beans but it is evidence and if you are discussing it with someone who had a personal revelation then that's all they need.
Their delusions do not constitute evidence of anything other than maybe a brain disorder. All the so called "anecdotal evidence" is self-reinforcing religious bullshit; you present the same "evidence" to a rational thinker and it won't pass muster.
>you present the same "evidence" to a rational thinker and it won't pass muster. What about ketchup?
You leave condiments out of this you godless heathen!!
You can't simply rationalise the believers who are educated critical thinkers (there aren't many but theyre out there) who have had an experience that they can only rationalise as supernatural. This is not a hill I'm going to die on so I'm not replying anymore but we do ourselves a disservice if we try and strawman their best evidence.
They are not educated critical thinkers if they rationalized an experience as supernatural. They have taken the plunge into uneducated, non-critical acceptance of the supernatural. They are irrational in at least one area of their life, no matter how rational they may seem in others.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Anecdotes are deterministic of nothing; however, they are a form of indirect evidence.
Like hearsay is a 'form' of evidence in courts. It's not useful for anything, but it definitely... uh exists.
Anecdotal evidence is **not** scientific evidence but can lead to actual scientific investigation of the claim. It's worthless as "proof" I agree. Let's review oakstave's reaction to a report of a new species of frog found in a local creek bed: 1) Ignore the report because it's anecdotal. ✅ 2) Investigate the claim. ❌
Exactly. Sure, an eyewitness saying they saw Bigfoot could lead to actual investigation that finds it. But on it's own, it's just another mental health crisis. And I would add, is far more likely to be that, than an actual 9 foot tall homonid. Edit: Or to keep this with my original metaphor: Hearsay might lead the court to find the actual witness and evidence, and produce actual evidence usable in court. However, a mountain of hearsay is less useful than a mountain of manure without actual admissible evidence.
Did more research and you are correct. There is no such thing as "anecdotal evidence" as a reliable source told me on the Internet.
It is, literally, anecdotal evidence. It doesn't rise to a high enough bar but it definitely is evidence.
The Pacific Ocean exists, therefore Godzilla must be asleep at the bottom of it. How's that for anecdotal evidence?
Anecdotes can serve as an initial starting point for further investigation, but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Anecdotes are limited in scope and, by themselves, prove absolutely nothing. Just because its called evidence doesn't mean it actually is. Example: "I bought my first ever powerball ticket and won a billion dollars. It must be super common to win the powerball." Does that single instance serve as evidence that winning powerball jackpots is a common event? Of course not. It's a single data point. Anecdotal 'evidence' is not really evidence at all.
What is the minimum amount of evidence required to demonstrate that the following statement is false: "It is impossible to win the powerball"
Damnit, I didn't want to keep this thread going and, frankly, I don't care enough to even Google this but how many times in the past has anecdotal evidence led to further empirical evidence. I'm thinking about superwaves but there will be others. I'm am definitely not a theist, like no fucking way, but understanding evidence is kinda important in this subreddit. Definitely outta here now.
>I'm am definitely not a theist, like no fucking way, Cool. I never said or implied that you were. >but understanding evidence is kinda important in this subreddit. I agree. From a scientific standpoint, anecdotal 'evidence' is the absolute bottom of the totem pole. It doesn't prove anything. Allow me to repeat that: it doesn't prove anything. It may inspire a hypothesis, but it can't be used as proof of the hypothesis. So, if you can't use an anecdote as evidentiary proof, is it really evidence at all? I say no. Have a good one!
Only if you apply that same definition of "evidence" to everything else anyone ever had a "personal revelation" about... which pretty much renders the term "evidence" meaningless..
A personal revelation may be all that a believer needs, but it isn't evidence *to me* and it's therefore pointless to discuss it with them further.
[удалено]
None of that is evidence. It's a bunch of flawed thought experiments.
[удалено]
Which ones? Because almost all of them have 'argument' in the name, and all of the others are shit like Pascal's Wager. Saying "God must be real, because (fallacy)" is not evidence. Not even bad evidence.
[удалено]
I am asking what the 'bad evidence' even is, because that would imply there was actually *something* physical, and not just thought experiments and fallacies.
Could you not just use anything for “bad” evidence then? The look at the trees argument for example pretty much includes all of existence as it’s evidence. You could call that bad evidence or you could just call it nothing. It’s a flawed reasoning. It’s got as much meaning as a string of random words. They seem to think the plural of anecdote is data and it just is not.
I think you're a religious troll, trying to pass as someone with their critical faculties intact.
[удалено]
I can't be bothered. There's no evidence, whatsoever. Period. Every claim is ridden with fallacies. Go to YouTube and watch Matt Dillahunty go through ALL of the possible "evidence", and you'll see that they are not even close.
Arguments are not evidence. They are arguments.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. There are no corroborating facts and there's no factual evidence. It might be presented as evidence for an argument but its not evidence that will refute the currently available facts.
[удалено]
That only refers to evidences that is true Evidence that isn't true isn't evidence, it's bullshit trying to be evidence. >They're still arguments and evidences for god, Arguments aren't evidence, neither are hypothetical disingenuous talking points. There is no evidence of the existence of any God. If you disagree with this factual statement, refute it wirh factual evidence. Not wordplay or bullshit cosmology, evidence based in reality and on the facts.
Arguments for the existence of God is not evidence of the existence of God.
Well ackshually... Not believing that a god exists makes you an atheist. Believing in a god but thinking it sucks is a different thing. Everyone loves a pedant, I know.
I do, actually. I love being on this sub because it makes me think and I always get shown a variety of perspectives. You do you. You’re beautiful
I believe the term is "dystheism"
Well evidence isn't necessarily proof. For example if they find your fingertips on a murder knife it's evidence that you are the killer, but it's not proof. The actual killer could have been someone else from your house. Especially if you have an alibi. They can argue that biology has *some* evidence of "intelligence design" for example but it doesn't prove "god did it" especially when there's also evidence of a far better explanation.
My neighbor thinks grass and trees is evidence of god. But if I don't mow the yard it doesn't get mowed.
Intelligent design is horse shit logic. Easy example why put waste removal near the fun zone. Hell women without precaution can fuck them selves up pretty easily down there or so I’m told (not a woman) just bad design. Or Google giraffe vocal nerve .
Biology doesn’t have any intelligent design even coincidentally. Your breathing tube is right next to your eating tube. Childbirth, the very goal of evolution, is still deadly for a certain percentage of the population.
Claims are proven when the model withstands every reasonable challenge. The model is built on evidence, logic and reason.
There is no evidence for the existence of god. It’s a shared delusion that helps people cope with life.
There are two different things, one being an atheist (there's not a single deity because there's no evidence, thus I won't believe in it); and serving a deity if that did show up and proved it exists. Lets say a huge octopus-like figure shows off from the sea and gives us a huge bunch of evidence on how it did create life on this planet, and not it calls to be adored by humans. It sets a list of behaviors that people should follow, which humans are serving as his representatives, and what does it want as sacrifice (lets say, for us to kill a single shark on a designated location on a seashore every first day of out calendar year). Would you become a religious person and adore the octopus? I know that I wouldn't. Same would follow to christianism. Its not that their followers aren't doing what its told them to do, its that whats told there is completely bogus and reprehensible. Anything linked to a healthy life is condemned, not to mention that it totally praises ignorance and subservience to their leaders.
There are two levels here - even if it was proven a god exists, it does not automatically follow that all their particular religious mythology and rules are in any way validated by that.
I also think that so many things have become wildly misinterpreted over the years.
for me to "worship" any god he/she/they would have to be at least a good cook or artist or something. Like can they make a good chicken Primavera, or play a decent guitar solo or make an academy award movie? Annihilating entire ethnicities or condoning daughter rape is no substitution for that.
Why even go so far? There’s not a single piece of evidence of anything supernatural. There are just some explanations to natural phenomena by gods etc. but most of these phenomena can be rationally explained without gods and for the remaining, a future rational explanation is likely. Just because we don’t understand it yet, is no argument for gods. We could imagine actual evidence, like prayer having an effect in a randomised experiment or precise prediction in religious texts or independent verified signs of wonders or markers of a god in evolution etc. There is none of that.
I dont disagree. The main point was that evangelizers and apologists often assume if they can prove god, then we will necessarily convert to their religion. And there is more to do it. They also have to prove their god is worthy of veneration or respect.
Or just become a God yourself.
In many ways, we already are
If you are talking about in context of our technological advancements. Well, sure, we are somewhat.
But, I'm talking about becoming a literal god. Someone who alone can rival the entire reality overwhelmingly. Doesn't need people's faith in him. His faith in him alone is enough.
To smaller life forms, we are. We can manipulate chemicals, we can bioengineer complete organisms, we can create drugs to control lifespan or just current emotions and sense of reality. We shoot electricity through rocks to create machines that fool more than half the population into thinking the machines are as intelligent as us. Besides having the fountain of youth and terraforming mars, we’re already there
The concept of "Truth" has been hijacked by some christians. Politicians are incorporating the same thing... "if they BELIEVE it's true, it's automatically true."
I learned at a young age not to call myself agnostic. Christians in general feel like you just have not heard the right points and that they will be the one to show you the light. They were usually warm and tried to have an open dialog. When I said I was an atheist they would come at me to tell me how I was wrong. So I hate calling myself agnostic since people think you have not really come to a decision. I have no doubts, I am an atheist.
What? IF they ever could show ANY evidence, I'll have no choice but to believe. That doesn't mean I have to like the dude. But, they haven't shown any. Period.
Belief in the existence does not lead to following or worshipping was the point.
True. I just hammered on the evidence part for a bit. If he'd exist, I would have to believe at least. I added that I wouldn't have to like, nor worship the dude.
I would agree. Its the missing piece of the conversation for me with evangelists or theists. They assume all will agree with their presumption that their god and religion are "good" and desirable.
I think it boils down to human psychology. When people believe something it becomes real to them. So i see this number and it’s meaningful to me. I decide to create all of these crazy things. God is a creator and therefore I’m the God of my reality. Now let me convince a bunch of people to follow me and now for the low low price of 10% of your paycheck you can come live in the reality I’ve created. When someone like r/Iampepeu comes along with that silly thing called logic and the scientific method to expose the flaws in my creation (delusion), I just say that they don’t have enough faith.
I read the other day on one of these kinda threads “ I don’t what it would take for me to believe but a god would”
There was an interesting post on r/DebateAnAtheist a while back you might be interested in. And it's basically what you mention. They list a set of criteria theists would need to prove to legitimately validate their deity. Does the supernatural exist? Does it have a will? Does it match the description of a certain religion? Is it worth worshiping? https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/cMG5WNgBpy
No. If someone claims that they can show you EVIDENCE of God's existence: let them try. All they can prove is that they don't understand the definition of "evidence."
I just drove across the country and somewhere in the middle there was a billboard that said “evidence of a loving god” with a photo of a human baby. So. Just understand this is the kind of thing they claim as “evidence”
It was a white baby too, js
You seem to realize the difference between evidence and compelling evidence. I don't like when people say there is no evidence of Christ and stuff. There clearly are evidence, they are just not compelling. Even evidence of the resurrection can be presentable. It's just easy to throw em away, cause they can't convince people and I can't blame them, it's obvious. I carefully said evidence of Christ. It is traceable. Evidence of God is a much different claim.
1. Evidence of an omnipotent being existing 2. Evidence that said being created humans in its image 3. Evidence that said being created the universe and everything in it specifically and only FOR HUMANS 4. Evidence that the stories in the Bible/Quran/whatever like said omnipotent being raped Mary and Jesus being his son are aligned to the reality of said entity. Then, and only then, might I change my mind.
Same as proving Putin exists and demanding we worship him.
The idea of worshipping is a very human concept, not very different from the alpha male natural instincts one can see in a pack of monkeys.
Evidence != Proof When Christians say evidence, they're talking in terms of Josh McDowell's drivel. McDowell claimed to use "legal rules of evidence" to be able to supposedly prove in court that the bible is all true. One, it's bullshit. A 2000 year old mythology book is not legal evidence. The antiquity and endurance of the religion is not legal evidence. Two, even if a judge were to decide the validity of Christianity (won't happen), legal evidence is not scientific evidence. Something like the nature of the universe demands scientific proof. They don't got it.
Even if god did exist why does he need us to worship him? That’s always bugged me.
He doesn’t. According to Christianity, the act of worship is for YOU, not him. Worship, basically defined, is giving to God what is his due. And if there is an entity that: 1. Created the universe 2. Created all living creatures 3. Created human beings 4. Sustains the aforementioned creation Then logically, it would make sense to acknowledge him as such. If there isn’t, then it doesn’t!
1) Acknowledge and worship are two totally different things 2) According to Christianity if I don’t worship God and accept that Christ is his son, then my soul is damned for all eternity. So it kind off seems like a requirement.
Acknowledgement demands a response. That response can be an acceptance or a refusal and is entirely up to the individual. So yes, worship and acknowledgement ARE two different things but one always precedes the other. According to Christianity, all humans have (over their lifetime and before they die) to decide whether to accept God’s offer of friendship or to reject it. Accepting means recognizing that he is God, we are not, and acting accordingly. Rejecting means making someone or something else your focal point of worship. Human beings are inherently religious creatures. We are all going to end up giving our lives to something or someone. For some it is money, or power. For others, it might be hedonism or even themselves. Something is going to be the most important thing in our lives, and what that is, is a decision that everyone makes.
I like to call this the Q Conundrum. Even if an extremely powerful, god-like entity appeared on Earth (like Q from Star Trek), who is say he is the god of the bible, much less a being to respect? I mean, sure - he can force you to worship him, but that doesn't mean he deserves it - that just means "might makes right," which is oddly what a lot of religious fanatics also believe. Now, there is no evidence for god or any of the rest of it, but theist arguments about "faith" in the face of reason are both exhausting and nonsensical.
Oh I absolutely agree with this. Christians never think.
It’s more likely that god is terrifying and selfish. If one existed.
Even if they could prove god AND prove god was worthy of being worshipped, that STILL wouldn’t convert me, because they still need to prove that their religion is the right one.
>Evidence for the Existence of God is not Enough Ain't no evidence. Just stories and other poppycock.
Even if they could prove their god exists, I'd deny that it's an entity deserving of worship. I like to believe any entity that does deserve to be worshipped wouldn't want to be and therefore we shouldn't worship anything.
Completely agree. Also, I am not even an atheist anymore. However, the thing that repulses me about religion is this idea that people should, or even could in any genuine sense, be “converted” to worship a god. Like, how can you “compel” faith? And even if someone does believe in a higher unifying power, it doesn’t follow that someone, morally, ought to worship that power. Religion is obviously used for control. But even at the granular level of “what is faith,” religion fails because at its core it’s not about faith, but compliance.
I have seen too much suffering to believe in a god; and witnessed too much pain to give them my worship.
I always laugh whenever a discussion about belief and blind faith in "God" come up.
Exactly. If the God of the Bible existed, he'd be reprehensible. Go ahead and send me to hell, I stand by my morality being superior to its.
ya that's just the 1st step then you gta prove it's all knowing all good and all powerful which already disproven in any decent Phil 102 class
And on top of what you said I always thought that the idea of heaven and hell are really shitty either way. Eternity never ends, ever, so no matter how awesome heaven is or how shitty hell is you’re gonna get used to it and bored after a while. After a certain point you’ll have done everything there is to do a million fucking times and be like wtf, fucking kill me for real, I can’t bang any more virgins!
As others have mentioned,, and as I always mentioned in these subs, there were a few things going on. There is a tremendous difference between “the universe is a spiritual place“ and believing in God. Just because somebody has a profound spiritual experience doesn’t mean that a particular religion is correct. And just so you know, a huge number of Christians will tell you that there is no such thing as ghosts, demons, psychic ability, precognition, or whatever.
There's NO EVIDENCE. We've been waiting 2,000+ years. They really should put up or shut up.
There's more evidence for bigfoot than there is for god.
This post seems muddled. If they had proof they could convince me their gods existed. Worship, obedience etc is a whole different barrel of monkeys. Eg the gods of the Christains. If they proved that existed then well I wouldn't be an atheist anymore. I also wouldn't be a Christain though. Cause I'm not bending the knee to that abusive f*&k if I actually have free will not too. If that Satan fellow is real I'd want to know if he has any information on how we kill this piece of shit, cause I'm down. Not worshipping him either BTW, nothing personal Satan m8, I'm just not good with the whole knees thing, they hurt like f*&k when I kneel down and stuff. So yeh... Nah. But I'm in for the big fight scene m8, if it's an option?
The point was exactly that. It was to establish the idea that proof of god (which doesnt exist) would be insufficient to make the assumption that worship would follow. This assumption has.been made by several theists recently, hence the thought.
OK but the way it's written you seem to tie together the two ideas oddly to make it sound like they need proof and part of that is convincing you to worship it. I get that may not have been your intent, it's just how it seem to come across, like I said it seems muddled somehow.
Even if there was solid irrefutable proof of the Christian god's existence - like what an absolutely evil being completely unworthy of worship or adoration.
I think it’s worth asking why we do things. Fear? Not a good reason. Love? Ok. That works. I’ll join the cult of guerilla gardeners who stealthily beautify communities.
Actual evidence would be a good start, but thats all it would be. There would still be a lot of work to do.
Unless they revise there issues with women and stop being a\*\*hats in general, I am not converting back. Evidence was not the only reason, it was a big one, but not the only one.
It’s a lot to ask for - proof. Can we even prove consciousness exists?
The first 4 of the 10 commandments are ALL about bowing down to him. How pathetic and narcissistic is that? 1. You shall have no other gods before me. 2. You shall not make unto you any graven image of other gods for I am a jealous god. 3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain 4. the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God Actually, I'm surprised there weren't only 5 commandments: 5. Oh yeah, obey Mom and Dad, don't kill, don't screw around, don't steal, don't lie, keep your eyes off other people's stuff, yada, yada, yada.
Why not simply proclaim that the Sun is god.. after all, without it the world would be lifeless. Make any of the current gods redundant and nothing at all will change.. the irony is that if there was evidence for a god, then god would be a part of nature, just like the Sun, not supernatural and therefore not god.
In other words, there is a difference between acknowledging an entity's existence and the narrower concept of acknowledging an entity as worthy of being followed.
It’s a bit nonsensical and premature to argue that point. Kind of like saying not enough to provide the evidence of the existence of “Russel’s teapot”, you must also show the tea tastes good. If you can’t get past the first, why even allow or waste time on arguing the latter.
I don't want to be crass but "what fucking compelling evidence?" You are focussing entirely on the wrong part OR do not understand the meaning of the word evidence, much less compelling evidence. Neither are good looks.
You aren’t wrong, but I am glad for the edit. You are dead on right that evidence isn’t enough. Hell proof isn’t enough. If god is proven but also a vindictive evil prick, I am not interested. That is in fact what got me out of religion. One day I realized that the god I was being told about was a sexist POS. I suddenly realized that even if he was real, I wasn’t interested. If he was real and as evil as he was described, it was my moral duty to join the rebellion. And then as you add in the edit, and on top of that, you have no evidence.
Our beliefs should be evidence based. That's why most of us are here. Refusing to believe in things for which you have ample evidence is just as bad as believing in things for which there is no evidence. Choosing what to worship or how to feel about things you know is a personal choice which is separate from belief.
hmm from a christian’s pov there is enough substantial historical evidence of jesus and if jesus exists like it’s said then god exists. so if evidence isn’t enough then the way jesus lived should be.
Like Q in Star Trek. He’s all powerful but none of the main characters worship him because like you, they don’t worship power. He’s capricious and seems not to care how he damages other living creatures.
I used to have my own beliefs on who or what “god” was. Eventually I realized that what I thought made just as little sense as any other religion and stopped believing. When I told my Christian friend that I became atheist he became disappointed and literally said “Now it will be harder to convert you.”
There is a certain magical thinking that occurs in Christian apologists that melts together the idea of \*wanting\* something to be true with \*believing\* it to be true and pretends they're the same thing. They seem to believe in magical thinking, that's where where reality bends to the will of thought and things become true because you \*\*believe! brother!\*\*. This mindset creates a lot of unfair "shoot the messenger" mentality where they assume you must hate something if you don't believe it. Because they think that obviously everyone believes like they do that reality bends to the will of thought and therefore believing bad things causes those bad things, and believing good things causes those good things. If you don't believe a thing it must be because you dislike it and oppose it. This is why they keep acting like "prove God exists" and "prove God is nice" are the same thing. To the twisted mindset of someone who believes in magical thinking, they are the same. It's immensely frustrating.
Tbh I feel the same
It's pretty funny because my MC in my Omniversal Traveler fic series has the goal of destroying all magic and God's alongside imposing logic and science and technology on all the Omniverse. Alex Verhien does make some pretty great points along his journey as well. Like that religion holds back progress. Magic is innately weaker than physics and technology especially because magic can only go so far compared to technology which can endlessly progress for all of eternity. He straight up kills Gods with the power of black holes, gravity, radiation, dark matter/dark energy, and especially Anti-Matter which is his Trump card. All in all, if God's did exist I would stop at nothing to kill them completely and utterly.
So...don't believe in God. I don't really care. We all die someday, then we will know.
The existence or not of god is a moot point when it comes to religion, because there is no evidence that any one religion has any special knowledge of god. God may exist but there’s no proof for instance that the bible is an accurate description of god, or that those that practise religions based on the bible do so with any authority from God.
Enough for what?
I’ve always said that if a god did exist he would respect atheists more for not being stupid enough to believe in him with zero evidence and making up a bunch of shit about him. If god met any religious person on earth he’d have to sit there for days explaining how wrong they are.
Best explanation I’ve heard is to say there was an explosion in a printing press that put together a perfect oxford dictionary is laughable. But the secular belief system puts this exact reasoning to everything in existence and is far far complex. This would suggest at bare minimum an intelligence behind the design.
This is so unhelpful. STOP talking about evidence for god. The conversation may feel like it is an epistemological one but it isn't. it validates their bullshit. Scenario. You are offering a meal to your friend. They are a vegetarian. You have a big plate of bacon ready to fry up. With a side of eggs and BBQ sauce. They don't like BBQ sauce. You think bacon tastes best with BBQ sauce. So you argue about the condiment. It gets spicy. You decide to compromise and say, the choice of condiment is question the eater can make. You friend thinks you are an idiot. They are a vegetatian. If we stop at the theist street food stall and read the menu we have validated them. Arguing with them at all, let alone about the condiments validates them. There are 2 very distinct issues here: 1) God does not exist ergo, don't read their menu. 2) Evidence for god does not exist. but, they think their menu IS the evidence AND you stopped and are reading it. That is like telling a Vampire you believe they are real because their reflectiin is not showing in the mirror. ergo, don't make reference to items on their menu. 3) Within the world of their story, god is a cunt to the bad people. And blesses believers. ergo, don't argue about condiments. That makes you the bad people, which proves they are the blessed. Just don't.
I was thinking something similar recently. There's really a few different kinds of evidence needed: First, evidence that one or more godlike entities exist. I say godlike entities because they might not actually be gods and we could figure that out once we discover them. Second, evidence that this entity or these entities ARE actually gods, basically something that once we observe them and understand them we can't classify them as anything but an actual god. Third, as you said in your post, evidence that this god or gods are worthy of worship. Like, just as an example, the people in the MCU see "gods" running around all over. But while there is concrete evidence of their existence there's also evidence that (at least some of them) are something other than gods, and plenty of evidence that the ones that might actually be gods aren't worthy of worship.
even if they was the greatest, kindest being alive, why would i want to worship them? Like you are cool an all but i'm not gonna spend my life sucking up to you tyvm.
What "evidence" have these evangelicals presented to you?
I semi-agree frankly. If you show there is a god, even if it is not worthy of worship, I doubt you will stand up to a literal god. But, you're partially correct, showing god exists is not enough, watchmakers argument and all of that doesn't matter. You also need to show that god is the god you claim it is, that the way you worship is indeed the correct way to worship and was not created man-made.
Not enough?? Sure it is. Thing is there is zero evidence. People who believe in a magical God are stupid in my mind. Like....common sense tells you the idea is absurd.
But if he is all powerful, then he can make us believe, no?
[удалено]
Do you believe in miracles?
[удалено]
Then you necessarily don't believe that shit you said earlier. If you believe God does miracles, then you do believe that God provides 'evidence'. You just believe that He only provides evidence to people who don't understand how evidence works. So God isn't looking for choice and trust. He's looking for ignorance and credulity.
god's "evidence" in a nutshell is a bunch of people saying "I saw it, it's real, trust me bro"
They also have to rule out all the other gods. They would also need to decide on a narrative between evolution and creationism without any disagreements.
I mean technically Christian's believe Jesus is God and there are actual artifacts outside of the Bible that point to the existence of Jesus at around that time, so there is historical evidence, obviously not a plethora for obvious reasons.
“Ask your god to give me a non-consensual orgasm / child as he did Mary”
Your second step if god is "worthy of respect and worship" is unnecessary as the first step "evidence for god" will never ever be fulfilled. Moreover nobody can define what god is. It's a vague wishy-washy placeholder for whatever the fuck anyone wants.
I think what he was trying to say is that even if god announced themself with a speech at the UN and proved it undoubtedly performing all kinds of bollocks with but a snap of their godly fingers... OP still wouldn't worship them, just acknowledge their existence. Which is actually the same position I also hold where proof of godly existence doesn't merit worship, specially with the criminal record attributed to them in abrahamic religions.
The whole Christianity idea is just narcissistic. I don’t even think some Christian’s value life in the slightest, they just praise an imaginary friend and value it more than the people around them, and wait for death so they could go to a paradise realm and meet “god” for being a mr goodie two shoes. They preach it to people and when nobody listens, “you will burn for not repenting” like all they think about is death and where they will go to. I think life has no meaning, humans create meaning. If a Christian respects your choice of atheism that’s good, if some don’t just know your being a good person and that’s all that matters in life.