This is meant to be a hysterical thread for any jokes you want to make about this topic but also to serve as a serious place for me to understand further how Atheists think...

I considered myself an Atheist for quite a while but it just never felt right. I wasn't really being "me," but I was trying to please someone else...anyway....now I'm being me. I DO think there is a TON of evidence and proof that God does in fact exist.

But this thread is not about me. It's about you. I want to know what would it take for you to say, "YES that's it!" What "evidence" or "proof" are you looking for? What EXACTLY would you need to see to be able to say, "Wow yes, there is a God..."....A scientific journal article? A scientific experiment? Richard Dawkins saying it? lol...What? What could possibly persuade you to suddenly believe that there is a God.

And because I know it's probably going to happen there are some rules for participation

Rule #1. No spinning this back on me. I'm asking YOU what YOU think. If you want to ask me what i think start a different thread for that.

Rule #2. No ducking the question. Saying, "the "onus" is on you to prove." No. That's not going to fly here. We're not discussing the "on us" argument. We're discussing what would it take for you to be convinced. A lightning bolt up your ass on a sunny day? A surfer Jesus knock on your door? lol...OK I'm being sarcastic. But seriously WHAT?

Have at it!

Views: 3685

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you think using a reliable process to find reliable information and explanation is dogma, then you have no idea what dogma is and likely have an extremely unsophisticated understanding of how empirical/rational knowledge is built. Most often...scientific explanations that are useful to you (medicine,  GPS,  flame retardant,  aerodynamic theory,  energy production etc) are fine...but all that pesky stuff that conflicts with your ridiculous childish world view (a created universe) is dogma. Picking and choosing,  mixing and matching is a convenient strategy for defending the absurd.

Empirical knowledge building and dogma are polar opposites and I cannot comprehend how you could confuse them...unless it's through ignorance and bias.

None of those 5 points have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Do you consider the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Music to be "dogma".

Do you know what a scientific theory is? It is not guesswork.

We don't "believe in" Evolution. Evolution is a matter of understanding a scientific theory. We accept it as being correct because it has being proven to be factually true, based on evidence, not dogma.

Accepting that Evolution is true has nothing to do with the existence of any gods. It is about how life evolved, not about how it got started in the first place. We don't claim to know how life started. You do. That is because you believe your Christian dogma that claims to know.

We are not denying that God(s) exist. We just don't believe they do. We do not  believe what you believe just as you do not believe what Hindus believe. Can you not see that?

This post is about evidence and you have offered none. So we still don't believe what you  believe.

You lack an even basic understanding of evolution.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. You need to read up on it and I cannot do this in a discussion forum. Here is a few books you might read to catch up. I'll discuss this with you once you've read one of these or a work of similar scope:

The Selfish Gene (by richard dawkins) is one of the best books for understanding how the watchmaker argument is a seriously flawed one. It explains the emergence of the improbable over millenia and explains the "problem of the eye" and how extremely complex phenomena can emerge from extremely basic preconditions and random chance. Highly recommended for people with an elementary understanding of evolution (which was me 10 years ago). To get into each topic speifically Dawkins dedicated an entire book to the Blind Watchmaker where he systematically takes apart piece by piece this flawed argument and "The greatest show on Earth" shows evidence and examples of the convergence of remarkable traits in various creatures and evolution in action.

Why Evolution is True by J Coyne, is directed more at people who have a skewed understanding of evolution...mainly people who know "survival of the fittest" but no the actual implication of this over a vast amount of time. It also is useful for those whose understanding of evolution is almost entirely from sources that criticise it...usually with a religious creationist agenda.

Finally, Evolution: a very short introduction...published by Oxford Press is a short book that does a reasonable job explaining the simplicity of evolution and the extremely complex and incredible traits that emerge in creatures.

Also...A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Krauss, is a good book that deals with this very topic. A little boring at times but it does the job.

These books cover your questions as will do the job as I don't have the time or desire to give you evolution lessons. I highly recommend reading one or a book of similar scope by a reliable author. Amazon sells them at cheap prices and they can arrive the next day giving you the whole weekend to read it.

I was referring to evolution as dogma full of conjecture, because evolution says….

Please support this statement with references. I understand Evolution and I sometimes teach it. I have never heard it mention any of those 5 points you list. You are displaying a complete lack of understanding of it. This post is about Evidence. It is not about correcting assumptions that I usually hear from YEC’s. Feel free to open another post about Evolution or your understanding of it if you wish. You asking us questions is not offering your evidence. It is derailing the thread. Once more, what is your evidence for your claims that your God is real? I don’t believe you have any.

We are also happy to discuss particle or quantum physics if you wish to open a new post on it.

You lack an even basic understanding of evolution.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. You need to read up on it and I cannot do this in a discussion forum. Here is a few books you might read to catch up. I'll discuss this with you once you've read one of these or a work of similar scope:

The Selfish Gene (by richard dawkins) is one of the best books for understanding how the watchmaker argument is a seriously flawed one. It explains the emergence of the improbable over millenia and explains the "problem of the eye" and how extremely complex phenomena can emerge from extremely basic preconditions and random chance. Highly recommended for people with an elementary understanding of evolution (which was me 10 years ago). To get into each topic speifically Dawkins dedicated an entire book to the Blind Watchmaker where he systematically takes apart piece by piece this flawed argument and "The greatest show on Earth" shows evidence and examples of the convergence of remarkable traits in various creatures and evolution in action.

Why Evolution is True by J Coyne, is directed more at people who have a skewed understanding of evolution...mainly people who know "survival of the fittest" but no the actual implication of this over a vast amount of time. It also is useful for those whose understanding of evolution is almost entirely from sources that criticise it...usually with a religious creationist agenda.

Finally, Evolution: a very short introduction...published by Oxford Press is a short book that does a reasonable job explaining the simplicity of evolution and the extremely complex and incredible traits that emerge in creatures.

Also...A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Krauss, is a good book that deals with this very topic. A little boring at times but it does the job.

These books cover your questions as will do the job as I don't have the time or desire to give you evolution lessons. I highly recommend reading one or a book of similar scope by a reliable author. Amazon sells them at cheap prices and they can arrive the next day giving you the whole weekend to read it.

If I had to start with the presupposition that all natural phenomena existed (God, Allah, Bhudda, Karma, Zeus, witches, unicorns, the tree spirits, Gaia, Jesus, vampires) I would have to allow myself a to reason that the universe was created by: "An intelligent being, the disturbance of ying yang, a giant turtle, the wave of a wand, the unwanted offspring of a jelous Goddess". No. I first ask people who tell me their imaginative claims to make their case first...and if they do a reasonable job...then I may allow myself to reason the universe was created in some incredible way. Once you make a reasonable rational case about the existence of your God (as opposed to Allah, Gaia, Tree spirits) then I'll listen to your creation theory. Until then...your God talk is nothing but babble to me...just as greek mythology is babble and just as Karma-Darma is babble just as African Vudu is babble.

I don't use evolution or physics as a reason to believe that God doesn't exist. I never arrived at the argument that he doesn't exist. I was born an atheist, raised in a home without God and when someone came along, without me asking them to, they told me about God and how he exists. The case was as unsatisfactory as the case some people make that "Elvis is alive". The fact that a Billion people believe in God (more actually) and that this belief was institutionalised over centuries...does not make the case any better. Evidence and a strong case for the existence is what would lead me to believe in him. This has never come up so...I continue lacking belief in God. I have never believed God doesn't exist. There's always a miniscule possibility...just as there is a tiny chance Allah exists, or Bhudda or tree spirits or universal consciousness. You yourself I'm sure lack a belief in Allah and Muhammed and his revalations. Did you start with a belief they don't exist or did you lack a belief in it, be told by someone that they do exist and never felt satisfied by the case Muslims made?

I should think it obvious that human intelligence saw that reality embodies certain laws of form, codified not only as the physical laws but also the underpinnings of those: principles of consistency without which there would be no reality.

The intellectual evolution of reason and logic is, thus, simply based on observation.

This is a great answer

I've told the story of how I found £10 when I was on a mission to help someone else and I needed £10 but I was broke? 

I knew/assumed I was going to find this £10, based on previous experience.  How often do you find bank notes lying on the ground, especially when you anticipate it? 

I virtually never anticipate it, nor get into this kind of situation. 

There was a disabled lady at work, J, who was getting bullied.  I knew that a book had just been published by Virago about workplace bullying.  So I set out to buy J the book after work, which cost £10, but I was broke apart from dinner money / train fare to get the book.  I had just bought my dinner when I found £10 lying in a shop doorway.  So I was able to go and buy the book that evening. 

The only similar situation happened recently: I was worried about my neighbour C, but hardly ever saw her and couldn't find her.  So I went home (a rare thing then) and just as I was giving up and leaving, I met C coming in and was able to confirm she was OK. 

As far as "pattern confirmation" goes - I virtually never get into this situation where I'm on a mission to help someone else against the odds.  The last 2 out of 2 times this has happened, I've been given the help I needed right out of the blue. 

EVIDENCE????

Evidence, for me, is the available body of information or facts that can be used in support of an individual or collective belief or proposition.

If there was some sort of actual proof. There's really not, it's all in how a person labels coincidence really.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service