The futility of modern atheism

[watsup]

But look at SETI or the quest to confirm if life ever existed on Mars, these disciplines have very clear and specific criteria and expectations for deciding if there is or is not evidence, am I playing a "semantic game" by mentioning these?

In each case they are very clear about whether something is or is not evidence, not so the atheist - ironic isn't it how the atheists try to claim the scientific high ground all the time yet stand exposed when compared to true, honest explorations like SETI and Mars...

SETI has nothing at all to do with your imaginary entity which you refer to as "God".

 

[Crunchtime]

Why would I agree with the beginning of a sentence? That’s not how English works. I agree or disagree with a point. Has your point changed? Or are *you* thrown by your use of the word “scientists” there?

Black lives don't matter any more than any other life. Equality!!

 

[bomberfox]

Sorry, I'll be blunt - there's lots of evidence for God but you have no idea how to recognize that evidence and so it goes right over your head, you look at everything as already not being evidence for God, you take anything and everything you see and assume it is not evidence for God, there's more faith in your atheist belief system than you can even imagine.

Because you say so huh?

 

[Quag]

Well the term "unknown" is misleading, we do know some things about it:

1. It is capable of creating the universe
2. It is capable of designing living beings
3. It is not material, cannot be explained in material terms
4. Because it is not material it does not adhere to physical, material laws.
5. It is not itself cause-and-effect but rather cause, it causes but is not itself the result of some preceding cause.
6. It has will, self.

These are all very reasonable points if we are striving to explain anything about why the universe is here, and God is a reasonable name for a being with these characteristics.

No you dont and cant know any of that because you dont even know if God exists
Your claims are not based on reason but on faith

 

[Quag]

I wrote "Well think about it, if God was not the reason, the cause for Higgs and every other kind of particle, what was?" if you actually think that I intended to convey "I don't know, therefore God" then as I said already you've misunderstood, the remark was a question for you to consider.

If you dont think that was saying "I dont know what created the Higgs boson therefore God" then you are just deluding yourself, no one else is fooled.
You need there to be an entity behind it because your beliefs dictate that but your beliefs do not dictate reality. The reality is we have no clue and God is not a logical answer just because you are desperate to have one that isnt just "I dont know.... yet"

As you wish, if you truly perceive my position that way then there's nothing more I cany say, I've stated my case, it seems sound to me, you refuse to admit this and so continue to grumble - yet you still cannot tell me what would characterize evidence for God despite the fact you keep saying there isn't any.

Your position is simple you believe god exists and believe you can prove it by making circular arguments.
Your belief is based on faith alone and never ever was based on logic no matter how much you attempt to fool yourself into pretending it is.

 

[Quag]

Nope, I asked you my question first, lets answer questions in the order they're asked yes? is that not fair?

I asked you how do you know there's a lack of evidence rather than a lack of clear criteria to identify, to recognize evidence?

I already addressed this all your evidence is based on circular reasoning you cant show any of it to actually be evidence of God one must believe God exists in order to consider it evidence

You are not using logic for your claim just belief and belief is not evidence of the belief being true.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No you dont and cant know any of that because you dont even know if God exists
Your claims are not based on reason but on faith

The claim "there's no evidence for God" what is that based on?

Belief.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I already addressed this all your evidence is based on circular reasoning you cant show any of it to actually be evidence of God one must believe God exists in order to consider it evidence

You are not using logic for your claim just belief and belief is not evidence of the belief being true.

It is the atheist who insists there's no evidence, they've never seen evidence - yet they have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, I've asked a hundred times and all I get is whining, evasion - you have no idea whatsoever how to tell if something is or isn't evidence else you'd tell me, this is the truth of this thread, atheist bent out of shape because your belief system (belief there's no evidence) is under attack.

Since you have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, you have no basis for the claim "there's no evidence for God" it is just a belief, deal with it, atheism is for dummies, fanatics who just love to hate anything to do with the idea of a God.

 

[Quag]

The claim "there's no evidence for God" what is that based on?

Belief.

Its based on no one ever providing any evidence of God(s)

 

[Quag]

It is the atheist who insists there's no evidence, they've never seen evidence - yet they have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, I've asked a hundred times and all I get is whining, evasion - you have no idea whatsoever how to tell if something is or isn't evidence else you'd tell me, this is the truth of this thread, atheist bent out of shape because your belief system (belief there's no evidence) is under attack.

Since you have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, you have no basis for the claim "there's no evidence for God" it is just a belief, deal with it, atheism is for dummies, fanatics who just love to hate anything to do with the idea of a God.

You have never presented any evidence of God all you have done is made claims based on your belief
The fanatic here is you who keeps starting these threads thinking you are gonna get a gotcha moment on anyone who doesnt accept your illogical circular arguments.

 

[watsup]

The claim "there's no evidence for God" what is that based on?

Belief.

Logic and reality.

 

[watsup]

It is the atheist who insists there's no evidence, they've never seen evidence - yet they have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, I've asked a hundred times and all I get is whining, evasion - you have no idea whatsoever how to tell if something is or isn't evidence else you'd tell me, this is the truth of this thread, atheist bent out of shape because your belief system (belief there's no evidence) is under attack.

Since you have no idea how to tell if something is or isn't evidence, you have no basis for the claim "there's no evidence for God" it is just a belief, deal with it, atheism is for dummies, fanatics who just love to hate anything to do with the idea of a God.

Ad hom.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Its based on no one ever providing any evidence of God(s)

No, its based on the belief that it doesn't matter what anyone shows you, it can't be evidence for God, period - that's your position else you'd be able to articulate how you'd distinguish evidence from not-evidence, you don't have a clue, this is blindingly obvious.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You have never presented any evidence of God all you have done is made claims based on your belief.

What would you do with something if I did present it to you as evidence for God?

You'd simply claim "No, that's not evidence for God", you'd certainly not apply any tests or scrutiny to it because you have absolutely no idea what to do with evidence, easy to just say "Nah, that's not evidence".

The fanatic here is you who keeps starting these threads thinking you are gonna get a gotcha moment on anyone who doesnt accept your illogical circular arguments.

These threads are opportunities for erudite atheists to defend their claims with evidence and logic, so far it's a joke to see the fussing and whining, not one atheist has explained what systematic steps they'd take to establish if something is or isn't evidence for God.

In the search for evidence for extra-terrestrial life the researchers have a very clear set of criteria and tests that can apply, the same is true for the search for evidence of life on Mars, again, clear, specific, systematic processes for objectively asessing evidence.

Not so with God though, no need really because atheists already believe its futile so regard everything as not evidence for God, shameful.

 

[Quag]

No, its based on the belief that it doesn't matter what anyone shows you, it can't be evidence for God, period - that's your position else you'd be able to articulate how you'd distinguish evidence from not-evidence, you don't have a clue, this is blindingly obvious.

It isnt evidence for God if you need to believe God exists in order to consider it evidence for God
Provide some evidence that doesnt require belief that God exists in order to consider it evidence and you will have found actual evidence of God.
So far no one has ever done so.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It isnt evidence for God if you need to believe God exists in order to consider it evidence for God
Provide some evidence that doesnt require belief that God exists in order to consider it evidence and you will have found actual evidence of God.
So far no one has ever done so.

Tell me what would you do if I presented some evidence for God?

What process would you follow to confirm my claim?

 

[Quag]

What would you do with something if I did present it to you as evidence for God?

You'd simply claim "No, that's not evidence for God", you'd certainly not apply any tests or scrutiny to it because you have absolutely no idea what to do with evidence, easy to just say "Nah, that's not evidence".

Try presenting something that doesnt require belief in God to consider it evidence. You have yet to do.

These threads are opportunities for erudite atheists to defend their claims with evidence and logic, so far it's a joke to see the fussing and whining, not one atheist has explained what systematic steps they'd take to establish if something is or isn't evidence for God.

In the search for evidence for extra-terrestrial life the researchers have a very clear set of criteria and tests that can apply, the same is true for the search for evidence of life on Mars, again, clear, specific, systematic processes for objectively asessing evidence.

Not so with God though, no need really because atheists already believe its futile so regard everything as not evidence for God, shameful.

You keep ignoring the problem with all your so called evidence, it requites belief in God to consider it evidence.

 

[Quag]

Tell me what would you do if I presented some evidence for God?

What process would you follow to confirm my claim?

provide evidence that doesnt require belief in God to consider it evidence

How many times do I have to repeat the obvious before you understand why you consistently fail?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

provide evidence that doesnt require belief in God to consider it evidence

How many times do I have to repeat the obvious before you understand why you consistently fail?

Tell me then, how do we know if the evidence I present "requires a belief in God or not"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, atheists? bring em on...

 

[Quag]

Tell me then, how do we know if the evidence I present "requires a belief in God or not"?

Weak attempt at reversal of burden of proof. Your claim your burden of proof.
But so far all you haven't come up with any other reason.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Weak attempt at reversal of burden of proof. Your claim your burden of proof.
But so far all you haven't come up with any other reason.

Your claim is there's no evidence for God - yes? as an atheist you believe that claim do you not?

 

[Quag]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, atheists? bring em on...

Why are you shooting yourself?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why are you shooting yourself?

Why are you an atheist? what is the reason you describe yourself as an atheist?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is hilarious!

This is atheism, confusion, bewilderment, tied up in knots, utter joke.

22 pages so far and not a single atheist has any idea whatsoever how to assess something as evidence for God or not, yet their entire position rests on this being possible !