Why aren't you an Atheist?

by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  So what is this evidence?

  The question of evil is perhaps the strongest line of evidence. I don't want to discuss it on this thread but will always be happy to debate it.

  There is also the evidence against many of the claims believers make for their deity.

  Contrary to common religous claims..

  We know he isn't needed to explain the design of the living world

  We know he never performs miracles that defy rational explanation

  No holy book shows any supernatural influence

  Nobody in the history of the world has ever uttered a word of prophecy that required supernatural inspiration

  In short the evidence shows the concpet of god is redundant apart from its function as a place-holder for stuff we don't know yet.
• 

  tec

  Nobody has ever said we can prove god does not exist

  Qcmbr, on this board, said it to me.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  Christ Alone - its all semantics.

  I already explained this to Tammy...

  Tammy - I have no hesitation in saying there is no god. I don't feel the need to add small print every time about " subject to further evidence to the contrary "
• 

  cofty

  God/the Bible/the people who wrote the Bible spelled out moral principles that man has always known in his heart but in the past, there's no formality or obligation to do it.

  Hello kassad84.

  The bible is of its time. It approves of genocide, kidnap, rape and slavery. It treats women as second class citizens and possessions of their husbands and fathers.

  Pascal's wager misses the point. There is a great deal to be lost by living this life, the only one you will ever have, in servitude to a celestial tyrant.

  How many religions do you suppose there are? The odds are very much against you choosing the right one.
• 

  tec

  The question of evil is perhaps the strongest line of evidence. I don't want to discuss it on this thread but will always be happy to debate it.

  Evidence against a particular belief about God, perhaps. Not evidence against God. (we haven't had one of these debates in quite some time, actually)

  There is also the evidence against many of the claims believers make for their deity.

  Evidence against some people and their claims; not God.

  Contrary to common religous claims..

  We know he isn't needed to explain the design of the living world

  You mean, like the 'how' of things? That is not in conflict with God.

  We know he never performs miracles that defy rational explanation

  Evidence? Because we don't know this. Unexplained things happen all the time.

  (I agree with you, mind you... only because i know that we are limited as to what we consider a rational explanation... according to our current and limited understandings of what is real/possible/etc. So what some consider 'magic' or a 'miracle' does have a rational explanation; just one that we do not understand. If God has infinite more wisdom and understanding of what we have - as a creator of the universe(s) would, he would not be limited as we are)

  No holy book shows any supernatural influence

  No holy book, or no holy writing? There is no proof of such influence, I would concede.

  But even if so, this is only evidence against God if God were dependent upon a book (or writing) being holy.

  Nobody in the history of the world has ever uttered a word of prophecy that required supernatural inspiration

  You don't know something this. You're assuming.

  In short the evidence shows the concpet of god is redundant apart from its function as a place-holder for stuff we don't know yet.

  All that works against is a god of the gaps. A particular concept/idea of God. Not everyone (not even the majority, I would posit) even believes in such a way.

  Peace

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Bottom line... all of what you have as evidence against God is at most, evidence of a particular concept about God. Plenty of those around.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  Tammy - your concept of god is so amorphous you have more in common with atheists than theists.
• 

  NewChapter

  Christ Alone, it may be that science cannot prove or disprove gods, but there are probability factors. I'll go back to fairies and unicorns for this one. Science cannot prove nor disprove their existence. But scientific findings DO feed the probability that they don't exist. With no scientific evidence at all, while that doesn't disprove because we can never know what we don't know, it certainly brings the probability very, very low. So low in fact, that I am completely comfortable saying there are no unicorns or fairies.

  I am also comfortable saying there are no gods, based on probability. Now if you ask me to break down that statement, I will add 'unless new evidence presents itself'. But I don't add that with fairies and unicorns and I don't add that with gods. It is simply implied, in my opinion.

  So let's not make the mistake of saying that scientific evidence has absolutely nothing to say about gods. It does not ask the question, but it still collects and tests data. The very fact that it has never stumbled on some evidence of gods, is a huge statement. Just like the number 0 is not nothing---a lack of evidence is not nothing either.
• 

  tornapart

  It makes me smile these sorts of threads... a simple question for a simple answer turns into one enormous debate that goes round and round in circles with no one getting anywhere.....

  think for me the winner in this debate is Outlaw...
• 

  tec

  I think if Outlaw is the winner, then he needs a bucket of KFC as his prize.

  Someone take care of that, will you? And also a beer.

  Peace,

  tammy