Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...

so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?


The World, and literally, everything was created by him. Take a look around you, this was not a mistake, and there is a purpose for every creation he makes.

That is not evidence

The World, and literally, everything was created by him. Take a look around you, this was not a mistake, and there is a purpose for every creation he makes.

Evidence for design does not convince any atheist to even the slightest extent that God or anything supernatural exists...design is explained by nature + causeless chance...which is why I'm asking the atheists for an example of what would convince them...nothing seems to...

That is not evidence

Yes, it is. No one can explain why we have been put on earth, we will never be able to understand that. One can't ignore the fact that someone made all of this, and a force that can make such wonders is supernatural.

Maybe we cant explain why we are here, simply because there is no reason.

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...:yawn:
Same ol' argument, VO.

Why do you repeat the same topic over and over again - with the same generalisation of atheism?

Evidence for design does not convince any atheist to even the slightest extent that God or anything supernatural exists...Evidence for design would be quite powerful in changing the view of many atheists. However, there is NO evidence for design.

No one can explain why we have been put on earth, we will never be able to understand that.And your evidence for there being a WHY? is...???

One can't ignore the fact that someone made all of this...Fact? And you get this "fact" from what evidence?

VitalOne, maybe you should read this. I think you will see that there are many ways to be an atheist and reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In about 200 million years it won't matter too much if we believe in God or not. By then things will really start to heat up around here thanks to our good ole Mr. Sun as it continues it's evolution into becoming a Red Giant and after that, it's all down hill for the human race if we're still around for that long. Believe it or not.

I'm less interested in concepts of God than the existence of immortal spirit.

Whats important is what it will take to convince the scientific establishment...not any one individual.

The best evidence so far is the testimony of people who have died and been brought back to life.

I'm less interested in concepts of God than the existence of immortal spirit.

Whats important is what it will take to convince the scientific establishment...not any one individual.

The best evidence so far is the testimony of people who have died and been brought back to life.

Do you have anyone in mind?

In about 200 million years it won't matter too much if we believe in God or not. By then things will really start to heat up around here thanks to our good ole Mr. Sun as it continues it's evolution into becoming a Red Giant and after that, it's all down hill for the human race if we're still around for that long. Believe it or not.

The universe does indeed conspire against us. I hope someday we can all pull together and conspire against ...it.

I'm less interested in concepts of God than the existence of immortal spirit.

Whats important is what it will take to convince the scientific establishment...not any one individual.

The best evidence so far is the testimony of people who have died and been brought back to life.Ah yes - the testimony of people who have gone through major trauma (and brain death? Or are we just talking heart stopping?). Reliable without question; and obviously well versed in the necessary knowledge to determine that it was not merely neurological / biological stuff going on in their heads (such as the visual cortex shutting down leading to a perceived vision of a "white tunnel").

Yep - that would do it for me.

The universe does indeed conspire against us. I hope someday we can all pull together and conspire against ...it.

Don't hold your breath to long on that. The universe and what powers it will probably win in the long run.

How many times have you been through this VitalOne? You could at least try not to sound like a religious nutter.

We discussed this a few months ago but you stopped responding. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67056&page=5

I answered this - "It is not up to the atheists to specify the evidence but I will play along this time. God could appear at the UN, he could part one of the bigger oceans, if someone could produce some of the miracles described in the Bible that would certainly be worth investigating. He could cause amputee’s limbs to grow back. The rapture. Perhaps he could actually stop punishing starving children who have done nothing wrong! If this god exists as described in your religious texts then he is capable on many supernatural feats that simply do not happen. "

I mentioned some events that he has supposedly done before. That seems like a good place to start. Your response here was quite amusing.
The burden of proof thing atheists commonly use doesn't apply. It only applies to criminal court cases so that innocent victims aren't prosecuted...in other cases like civil court cases you don't need to convince anyone beyond a reasonable doubt of anything.....

If atheism were really falsifiable you would be able to give examples of what would falsify, but you can't. Instead you give me examples of miracles and things you think would never happen (it would be like me saying "well when pigs fly I'll believe you").
:D

So you wont accept anything supernatural as an answer?

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...

This is stupid...

What's an example of evidence that would fully convince YOU that the toothfeary exists?

same thing...

"atheistic faith"... isnt this a bit contradictory ????

Evidence that could convince me includes:

- Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer to a specific god. If followers of a particular religion were consistently able to perform unambiguously miraculous acts or cause them to be brought about by prayer, that would be very convincing evidence. For example, if a double-blind study showed that prayer to a specific god could increase hospital patient survival rates in a statistically significant way, I would probably convert to that religion.

-If a religion had followers (or a holy book) that made specific, unambiguous prophecies about events that have not yet occurred, and those prophecies came to pass. The prophecies would have to be something that was non-obvious and that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret.

-A holy book that contained a lot of scientific/technical information that couldn’t have been known to the people who wrote it. That would be pretty convincing evidence that the knowledge in the book was given to its authors by a “higher power”. Again, it would have to be specific information that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret. It would also have to be mostly correct – I wouldn’t be impressed by an ancient book that contained a few correct pieces of information and a huge number of incorrect pieces of information, because then I would assume that the authors had simply made a large number of claims and gotten lucky on a few of them.


That’s just the first few things that come to mind. Christians want to believe that there is good evidence that god exists. Since there are many people who do not believe in god, Christians have to convince themselves that atheists are simply impossible to convince, that atheists would ignore any evidence. It's the only way for them to reconcile their belief that evidence exists with the fact that some people aren't convinced. It also seems to have something to do with a desire to reduce both sides of the argument to “faith,” as VitalOne demonstrated in his opening post. Apparently it’s comforting for Christians to imagine that it’s faith against faith, rather than faith against empirical evidence.

The truth is that any atheist can tell you all sorts of things that would convince them. It's not that we ignore all the evidence - there are things that could convince us, but those things do not seem to exist.

This is all especially ironic because when I started a similar thread a while ago asking Christians what it would take to convince them that they were wrong, I got a boatload of people saying that there was nothing that could convince them that their religion was wrong.

Ah yes - the testimony of people who have gone through major trauma and brain death?

Or are we just talking heart stopping?. Reliable without question; and obviously well versed in the necessary knowledge to determine that it was not merely neurological / biological stuff going on in their heads...
Absolute brain death follows the heart stopping within something like 11 seconds.

Mystical experiences are not evidence. The only evidence that could be considered is the knowledge of events during death that would otherwise be impossible even for the unconscious.

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

Simple. Show us the evidence that convinced you.

The only evidence that could be considered is the knowledge of events during death that would otherwise be impossible even for the unconscious.You would ascertain these were real events, and not imagined how!
so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists? even if a god came up to me and did something truly miraculous, I would still question, but if this being did something that effected everybody at the same time, then I would have to say that would be pretty convincing.

The problem is there isn't any evidence, and even if there were some evidence which to religious fanatics suggested a god it still wouldn't be construed as REAL evidence by me. You see any number of mystical or amazing miracles can occur, that doesn't mean god is the cause of them. It could be an unknown phenomena that we simply don't understand, however I truly believe anything is explainable. God is a human concepts and without humans it wouldn't exist, therefore god does not exist. Sorry to burst that bubble but GOD IS TOTALLY FAKE!

Evidence for design does not convince any atheist to even the slightest extent that God or anything supernatural exists...design is explained by nature + causeless chance...which is why I'm asking the atheists for an example of what would convince them...nothing seems to...

It's becoming pretty obvious (at least to me), that God, if he is around, probably isn't in a real big hurry to reveal himself to humanity and at the very least, in a physical sense. If so, we probably would have caught sight of him by now. Now maybe Moses might disagree with me on that one.

It's becoming pretty obvious (at least to me), that God, if he is around, probably isn't in a real big hurry to reveal himself to humanity and at the very least, in a physical sense. If so, we probably would have caught sight of him by now. Now maybe Moses might disagree with me on that one.But who's to say that
1, mose’s ever existed
2, he was just making the whole thing up to keep control.

But who's to say that
1, mose’s ever existed
2, he was just making the whole thing up to keep control.

God yelling out ten universal commandments to a guy named Moses from a burning bush? Now if you can believe that, then you might even possibly believe that God is somewhere nearby listening in on your conversations, cell phones included.

Maybe we cant explain why we are here, simply because there is no reason.

Nonsense, ofcourse there's a reason for everything, even if we can't understand it.
Have a look at the ant; Such a small creature and yet its huge purpose on earth can't be questioned. It's here for a reason.
Both you and I are here for a reason.

Nonsense, ofcourse there's a reason for everything, even if we can't understand it.
Have a look at the ant; Such a small creature and yet its huge purpose on earth can't be questioned. It's here for a reason.

Ok, you tell me it's purpose and I'll let you know if it needs questioning.

Both you and I are here for a reason.

And again, same thing.

The parting of the Red Sea

Can't be explained other than God

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...the conclusion is simple atheists simply don't want to believe in God....it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence...if it did they could very easily give examples...but they can't...this is a clear indication atheists are unwilling to believe in God simply because they don't want to, they have abandoned all rationality in order to preserve atheistic faith...

Simple. Show us the evidence that convinced you.

The evidence that convinced me is my personal experiences, but personal experiences mean absolutely nothing to an atheist...

Currently I am unable to think of a way to objectively measure if God, free-will, or the supernatural exists....but there are ways to measure if prayer, miracles, etc...works...

You would ascertain these were real events, and not imagined how!
By the validation of living people. This has allegely happened many times in hospitals when people have been brought back from brain death.

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...the conclusion is simple atheists simply don't want to believe in God..
Ok, but the question is of little value unless this 'god' is defined...as part of the question itself.

For example the transcendent God of the Indian mystics is very different from the sky deity of the ancient hebrews.

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...the conclusion is simple atheists simply don't want to believe in God....it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence...if it did they could very easily give examples...but they can't...this is a clear indication atheists are unwilling to believe in God simply because they don't want to, they have abandoned all rationality in order to preserve atheistic faith...

Alas, it is you who have abandoned rationality. It is after all, you whose belief in the Easter Bunny is so firm, regardless of the complete lack of evidence, that you somehow imagine that it might be reasonable to ask us who do not believe in the Easter Bunny to provide examples of what would convince us to believe in it.

That is absurd.

You seem to be forgetting that when one supports an unsubstantiated belief, the onus falls to you to convince us of the veracity of the content of your belief, not the other way round.

you somehow imagine that it might be reasonable to ask us who do not believe in the Easter Bunny to provide examples of what would convince us to believe in it.

That is absurd.
Not really...there is a potential body of evidence that would convince even hardened scientists of the existence of the Loch Ness monster...not as yet discovered.

Alas, it is you who have abandoned rationality. It is after all, you whose belief in the Easter Bunny is so firm, regardless of the complete lack of evidence, that you somehow imagine that it might be reasonable to ask us who do not believe in the Easter Bunny to provide examples of what would convince us to believe in it.

That is absurd.

You seem to be forgetting that when one supports an unsubstantiated belief, the onus falls to you to convince us of the veracity of the content of your belief, not the other way round.

This post is a great example of what someone who is known as a "fool" is...

For some reason this guy, abandoning, rationality, logic, etc...concludes that some how that God = Easter Bunny, despite the fact that the Easter Bunny and God have innumerably different attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...using his foolish logic "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist then God doesn't exist"...such a flawed (non-sequitur) logic...

He also thinks that using evidence is absurd...

For some reason this guy, abandoning, rationality, logic, etc...concludes that some how that God = Easter Bunny, despite the fact that the Easter Bunny and God have innumerably different attributes, properties, characteristics
To some, they are both the SAME, both being mythical entities for which there is no evidence.

The problem is there isn't any evidence, and even if there were some evidence which to religious fanatics suggested a god it still wouldn't be construed as REAL evidence by me. You see any number of mystical or amazing miracles can occur, that doesn't mean god is the cause of them. It could be an unknown phenomena that we simply don't understand, however I truly believe anything is explainable. God is a human concepts and without humans it wouldn't exist, therefore god does not exist. Sorry to burst that bubble but GOD IS TOTALLY FAKE!

Thanks for the re-confirmation, atheism is entirely faith-based and unfalsifiable....

"Nothing will convince me that God exists, I will never believe that God exists, there is no evidence that can convince me, but my atheism is some how not based on blind faith"

The logic of these atheists is fascinating...

To some, they are both the SAME, both being mythical entities for which there is no evidence.

By this logic we should conclude that the geocentric theory and the theory of relativity are both the SAME, simply because they're both theories, so all the differences don't matter at all...

This post is a great example of what someone who is known as a "fool" is...

You maintain an unfounded belief in an invisible, all-powerful creature, and I'm the fool?

Sounds like you need a dictionary.



For some reason this guy, abandoning, rationality, logic, etc...concludes that some how that God = Easter Bunny, despite the fact that the Easter Bunny and God have innumerably different attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...using his foolish logic "if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist then God doesn't exist"...such a flawed (non-sequitur) logic...


Interesting comments, considering I teach logic.

Firstly, I made no reference whatsoever to secondary characteristics. The analogy was strictly ontological, i.e.: both the Easter Bunny and 'god' are empty concepts used by people as an explanatory agent within a specific mythological context. Perhaps you would prefer that I had used 'unicorn' instead of 'Easter Bunny'. Regardless, you fail to even comprehend a simple metaphorical comparison.

Secondly, you obviously have no concept whatsoever of what a non-sequitor might be: your "foolish logic" (a contradictory semantic by the way..) statement not only fails to qualify as a member of such a fallacy, but it also fails to qualify as a remotely logical statement. You attempted to structure a materially implicative statement, but forgot to include a premiss.

And by the by, if you could learn to read, you might notice that I didn't have any such line of argument in my post.


He also thinks that using evidence is absurd...

The attempt to use evidence to support an imaginary entity is indeed absurd.
Again, I must refer you to a dictionary.

:yawn:
Same ol' argument, VO.

Why do you repeat the same topic over and over again - with the same generalisation of atheism?
Well this time I made a post entirely devoted it to it...


Evidence for design would be quite powerful in changing the view of many atheists. However, there is NO evidence for design.
There's lots of evidence for design, the anthropic principle for instance shows that if any of the constants were changed there would be no more intelligent life...

VitalOne, maybe you should read this. I think you will see that there are many ways to be an atheist and reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I'm not really interested in atheistic propaganda or attempts to convert others into the atheistic faith-based belief system (or become like Stalin, Lenin, and other atheists)

How many times have you been through this VitalOne? You could at least try not to sound like a religious nutter.

We discussed this a few months ago but you stopped responding. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67056&page=5

I answered this - "It is not up to the atheists to specify the evidence but I will play along this time. God could appear at the UN, he could part one of the bigger oceans, if someone could produce some of the miracles described in the Bible that would certainly be worth investigating. He could cause amputee’s limbs to grow back. The rapture. Perhaps he could actually stop punishing starving children who have done nothing wrong! If this god exists as described in your religious texts then he is capable on many supernatural feats that simply do not happen. "
But it is up to atheists, they make the claim that they would believe if there was evidence....

Also all the stuff is evidence of the supernatural (and if it becomes a scientific fact then it is no longer supernatural), if I with my will regrow an amputee's limb, then later on it becomes a scientific fact that you can regrow amputees limbs using your will, it will no longer supernatural (although still true)...

Also as other atheists pointed out none of that God caused it...


So you wont accept anything supernatural as an answer?
No, I will, but evidence of the supernatural is not evidence of God.....

You maintain an unfounded belief in an invisible, all-powerful creature, and I'm the fool?

Sounds like you need a dictionary.
Argument from personal incredulity.....

Also an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true" or in other words an absence of evidence for an unverifiable claim ("God") means God doesn't exist)

And, yes, you certainly are the fool...

Interesting comments, considering I teach logic.

Firstly, I made no reference whatsoever to secondary characteristics. The analogy was strictly ontological, i.e.: both the Easter Bunny and 'god' are empty concepts used by people as an explanatory agent within a specific mythological context. Perhaps you would prefer that I had used 'unicorn' instead of 'Easter Bunny'. Regardless, you fail to even comprehend a simple metaphorical comparison.
Are you sure you teach logic, then you could learn a few things...

You directly equated the Easter Bunny to God...the comparison fails on every level...also I don't think it's absurd at all to attempt to verify a claim...


Secondly, you obviously have no concept whatsoever of what a non-sequitor might be: your "foolish logic" (a contradictory semantic by the way..) statement not only fails to qualify as a member of such a fallacy, but it also fails to qualify as a remotely logical statement. You attempted to structure a materially implicative statement, but forgot to include a premiss.

And by the by, if you could learn to read, you might notice that I didn't have any such line of argument in my post.
Your logic matches precisely what non-sequitur is...the existence or non-existence of the Easter Bunny has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, yet you for some reason (being a fool) say that it is the same as the Easter Bunny...that's what a non-sequitur is...

You say that the reason you don't believe in God is because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny despite there being no connection...nice non-sequitur...

The attempt to use evidence to support an imaginary entity is indeed absurd.
Again, I must refer you to a rdictionary.
Great circular logic...

Are you sure that you teach logic?

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...the conclusion is blah blah...You were given some examples but chose to ignore them.

Argument from personal incredulity.....

Also an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true" or in other words an absence of evidence for an unverifiable claim ("God") means God doesn't exist)

Wrong on both counts.
You're charges would be correct, if and only if I was denying the existence of god.



And, yes, you certainly are the fool...


And that.. would be ad hominem.... the last resort of the illogical.



Are you sure you teach logic, then you could learn a few things...


We all could. But on logic, I'm fine thanks.



You directly equated the Easter Bunny to God...the comparison fails on every level...also I don't think it's absurd at all to attempt to verify a claim...


Read again; I made no such equation.

Of course it's not absurd to attempt to verify a claim. I never made such a claim.



Your logic matches precisely what non-sequitur is...the existence or non-existence of the Easter Bunny has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, yet you for some reason (being a fool) say that it is the same as the Easter Bunny...that's what a non-sequitur is...


Incorrect.

non-sequitor has nothing to do with any relational function; what is required is that one draws a conclusion illicitly from premisses that have no relation to the content of the conclusion.

And again, I did not equate god with the Easter Bunny.


You say that the reason you don't believe in God is because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny despite there being no connection...nice non-sequitur...



I never said any such thing, in fact, at no point did I say anything whatsoever about whether or not I believe in god. That would be irrelevant here.


Look guy, I didn't come here to belittle your beliefs. In fact, in the face of a complete lack of evidence, your faith is to be admired. However, that isn't the question you put to us in this thread; in fact, I haven't even yet answered your original question. The whole reason I jumped into this discussion was simply because there was lots of bandying about of, and misuse of logic. If you are seriously here to try and substantiate your claim that atheists operate on 'pure blind atheistic faith' (and I do believe you have an argument here...) then you must realize that regardless of how you try to turn it, ultimately the evidenciary onus is upon you, and not the non-believers.

You were given some examples but chose to ignore them.

What examples? The amputees thing? If that happened tomorrow atheists would say so what, it doesn't show that God exists, only that it's possible to heal amputees...it also doesn't show how anything outside of nature or supernatural occurred....

Other examples were given by other posters and you ignored them and said "All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...... " I don't care if you reply to every post but don't say things that are clearly untrue.


But it is up to atheists, they make the claim that they would believe if there was evidence....But I don’t think it should be up to atheists to define the evidence for a deity that they don’t believe in. I gave you some possible examples of evidence anyway - which you discarded. It should be up to the theists to state their evidence. There are many religions that you reject. Should it be up to you to name the evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the believers of those religions to show you their evidence instead?

By your logic, if you don’t name the evidence for these religions then you are relying on pure, blind atheistic faith.


Also all the stuff is evidence of the supernatural (and if it becomes a scientific fact then it is no longer supernatural), if I with my will regrow an amputee's limb, then later on it becomes a scientific fact that you can regrow amputees limbs using your will, it will no longer supernatural (although still true)...
Also as other atheists pointed out none of that God caused it...


No, I will, but evidence of the supernatural is not evidence of God.....


So could you suggest evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? If you answer with anything sounding ‘supernatural’ I am going to dismiss it (because the supernatural doesn’t count according to you) and then say that you are relying of pure, blind atheistic faith. You are displaying the same behavior as those that you criticize.

Now VitalOne, in the the past you have refused to look at an example of faith that mirrors your own. Try to see my point here. This is the argument you are putting forward.

VitalOne,

That was neither propaganda, nor an attempt to convert. You obvioulsly have no clue on what it means to be an atheist. You just want to be right. I dont give a toss on your personal believes, you can keep them thats foine with me. You are not here to discuss, that is not on your agenda.

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...
Actually, I'd be relying on a pure lack of faith. There's no faith involved in refusing to believe something that has no evidence.

What would convince me? I don't know if anything short of God himself appearing on my doorstep would. The whole idea doesn't make any logical sense to me, and that would be a first step in even considering any so-called evidence of God's existence.

Maybe we cant explain why we are here, simply because there is no reason.
if the reason is that there is no reason, its not science

if the reason is that there is no reason, its not scienceDrivel.

Science explains the HOW - not the WHY!

There's lots of evidence for design, the anthropic principle for instance shows that if any of the constants were changed there would be no more intelligent life...LOL!
And while it may be true that changing a universal constant would result in no intelligent life - how is that in any way evidence for design?

If God were to appear on the six o'clock news to tell us all that he really does exist i would believe in him. Although he would still have to prove himself God.

if the reason is that there is no reason, its not science

Why's that? Who talked about science? What I meant was, that there may be no higher reason for us being here. Only if you a priori accept the existence of god. And that is not proof of him.

What would convince you. I don't know. Good Question.

By this logic we should conclude that the geocentric theory and the theory of relativity are both the SAME, simply because they're both theories, so all the differences don't matter at all...The differences dont matter if both theories are unsupported by evidence...both being equally invalid.

The attempt to use evidence to support an imaginary entity is indeed absurd.
You refuse the possibility of evidence by assuming the subject is imaginary.

This would be like a detective refusing to look at any evidence because he assumes the innocence of all suspects.

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...
WTF? I gave you a list of examples. Do you even read your own thread?

You refuse the possibility of evidence by assuming the subject is imaginary.there is no objective evidence, but there is ton's of subjective evidence, thus it can only be deemed imaginary.
You’re asking all of us to forgo rationality, and accept subjective evidence, to verify more subjective evidence.
Laughable in the extreme.
This would be like a detective refusing to look at any evidence because he assumes the innocence of all suspects.no a detective would avoid subjective evidence as it usually gets thrown out of court, as hearsay, etc..

The evidence that convinced me is my personal experiences, but personal experiences mean absolutely nothing to an atheist...

If the personal experience was one which lead to the undeniable fact that god existed, it would mean a lot.

So, what personal experiences are you referring?

Currently I am unable to think of a way to objectively measure if God, free-will, or the supernatural exists....but there are ways to measure if prayer, miracles, etc...works...

Tests with prayers have been conducted, the tests were null.

there is no objective evidence
The original question isnt about the existence of objective evidence...the question is what evidence would convince you?

Youre not being asked to assess whatever type of evidence may be at hand...only what evidence you would accept.

Other examples were given by other posters and you ignored them and said "All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...... " I don't care if you reply to every post but don't say things that are clearly untrue.

What examples? Only about 2 posters gave examples, the rest was just typical atheistic propaganda...


But I don’t think it should be up to atheists to define the evidence for a deity that they don’t believe in. I gave you some possible examples of evidence anyway - which you discarded. It should be up to the theists to state their evidence. There are many religions that you reject. Should it be up to you to name the evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the believers of those religions to show you their evidence instead?
Why shouldn't it be? Atheists are the ones who reject and deny any type of evidence given...so why not define what evidence is? The reason atheists can't easily give examples is because they don't want to believe in God, this is a great strategy used by atheists, ask for evidence, deny evidence, say there can be no evidence, then say "see the reason I don't believe is because there's no evidence"


By your logic, if you don’t name the evidence for these religions then you arBe relying on pure, blind atheistic faith.
No, I don't deny the truth of any other religions, if I can't give examples of evidence then I would just say that it's unverifiable, and if it's unverifiable it means there's no way to know if it's actually true or false....just as with the many-worlds interpretation, if I can't give an example of what evidence is, then I would just say it's currently unknown whether it is true or false...

Atheists on the other hand exclusively state that God doesn't exist using nothing more than blind faith....if the existence of God is unverifiable then any swing in either direction (belief or disbelief) requires faith...


So could you suggest evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? If you answer with anything sounding ‘supernatural’ I am going to dismiss it (because the supernatural doesn’t count according to you) and then say that you are relying of pure, blind atheistic faith. You are displaying the same behavior as those that you criticize.
No, I never displayed this type of behavior, IMO Ra and Quetzalcoatl really existed, when I did I ever say that they didn't exist? You must be desperate now, saying I said things I never said...


Now VitalOne, in the the past you have refused to look at an example of faith that mirrors your own. Try to see my point here. This is the argument you are putting forward.
I don't know what you're talking about at all....I don't say other religions are false because there's no evidence, I'm not like a blind atheistic fool...

Atheists are the ones who reject and deny any type of evidence given...so why not define what evidence is?
*************
M*W: Wrong. We don't "reject and deny" evidence, if it is objective evidence that can be tested and proven.

The reason atheists can't easily give examples is because they don't want to believe in God...,*************
M*W: I can't imagine an atheist giving evidence for the existence of a god!

"...this is a great strategy used by atheists, ask for evidence, deny evidence, say there can be no evidence, then say "see the reason I don't believe is because there's no evidence...".
*************
M*W: I'm an atheist. If I see some evidence that could be tested and conclusively substantiated by my peers (other atheists), I would certainly give it some further study. Until that occurs, I can't believe in dieties.

Atheists on the other hand exclusively state that God doesn't exist using nothing more than blind faith...
*************
M*W: I doubt that atheists have "blind faith" about anything, not just dieties.

...if the existence of God is unverifiable then any swing in either direction (belief or disbelief) requires faith...
*************
M*W: No, it doesn't. As it currently stands, there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. It only "swings" toward belief through the use of "blind faith." In other words, it's the believers who have "blind faith," not the atheists.

No, I never displayed this type of behavior, IMO Ra and Quetzalcoatl really existed, when I did I ever say that they didn't exist?
************
M*W: This surely needs further study. I can't speak for the Aztec and Maya, but I believe Quetzalcoatl was a historic figure but Ra was not. "Ra" was a metaphor for the sun god.

I'm not like a blind atheistic fool...
*************
M*W: No, you're not. You're just a blind fool.

Why shouldn't it be? Atheists are the ones who reject and deny any type of evidence given...so why not define what evidence is? The reason atheists can't easily give examples is because they don't want to believe in God, this is a great strategy used by atheists, ask for evidence, deny evidence, say there can be no evidence, then say "see the reason I don't believe is because there's no evidence"
Here it is again. Maybe this time you'll notice it if I make it red?

Evidence that could convince me includes:

- Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer to a specific god. If followers of a particular religion were consistently able to perform unambiguously miraculous acts or cause them to be brought about by prayer, that would be very convincing evidence. For example, if a double-blind study showed that prayer to a specific god could increase hospital patient survival rates in a statistically significant way, I would probably convert to that religion.

-If a religion had followers (or a holy book) that made specific, unambiguous prophecies about events that have not yet occurred, and those prophecies came to pass. The prophecies would have to be something that was non-obvious and that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret.

-A holy book that contained a lot of scientific/technical information that couldn’t have been known to the people who wrote it. That would be pretty convincing evidence that the knowledge in the book was given to its authors by a “higher power”. Again, it would have to be specific information that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret. It would also have to be mostly correct – I wouldn’t be impressed by an ancient book that contained a few correct pieces of information and a huge number of incorrect pieces of information, because then I would assume that the authors had simply made a large number of claims and gotten lucky on a few of them.

The World, and literally, everything was created by him. Take a look around you, this was not a mistake, and there is a purpose for every creation he makes.
ok so why would god create man with niples,or apendix...
here look at all these gods mistakes
www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Ill tell you why,god dindt create anything,things naturaly evolved adapt to their environment and anything that dont adapt dies.its called natural selection...

www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
Required reading for the intelligent design crowd there...excellent site!

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?
in case of xian god,
the one who believes in Jesus will "allegedly" get WHATEVER he/she wishes in prayer,
I say PROOVE it,
pray to god to give you next weeks winning lottery numbers,then send to me :D
If you can do that I promise to praise him every day,

btw what would you consider supernatural,?
imo everything that exist is NATURAL

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...
nope,
we are relying on our senses,which havent detected any gods whatsoever yet.

What examples? Only about 2 posters gave examples, .....and you ignored them and pretended that no one answered. You are being dishonest.


Why shouldn't it be? Atheists are the ones who reject and deny any type of evidence given...so why not define what evidence is? The reason atheists can't easily give examples is because they don't want to believe in God, this is a great strategy used by atheists, ask for evidence, deny evidence, say there can be no evidence, then say "see the reason I don't believe is because there's no evidence"You were given examples but ignored them. You also wont even accept anything supernatural as evidence for god. You are the one denying possible evidence.


No, I don't deny the truth of any other religions, if I can't give examples of evidence then I would just say that it's unverifiable, and if it's unverifiable it means there's no way to know if it's actually true or false....just as with the many-worlds interpretation, if I can't give an example of what evidence is, then I would just say it's currently unknown whether it is true or false...But would you not believe in it until there was some evidence? (like an atheist)


Atheists on the other hand exclusively state that God doesn't exist using nothing more than blind faith....if the existence of God is unverifiable then any swing in either direction (belief or disbelief) requires faith...No, many athiests think that it should be possible to prove that god/gods exists. They are atheists however because there is no evidence yet. You have chosen to accept anything and everything as evidence to confirm your belief.


No, I never displayed this type of behavior, IMO Ra and Quetzalcoatl really existed, when I did I ever say that they didn't exist? You must be desperate now, saying I said things I never said...Actually I didn't say that but comprehension is clearly not your strong point. I was trying to make a point but, as usual, you chose not to see it.

So could you suggest what evidence you would accept for the existence of Ra, Quetzalcoatl and Thor? It can't be supernatural.


I don't know what you're talking about at all....I don't say other religions are false because there's no evidence, I'm not like a blind atheistic fool...So you think that every religion is real? :rolleyes: You don't have a problem with every religion have different creation myths. Don't say that they are all similar because some of them are very different. All these gods working away, looking down on us and they don't get in each other's way?

Drivel.

Science explains the HOW - not the WHY!
HOW is not a reason?

HOW explains causes.
The implication in WHY is a purpose.

That's the difference.
Science doesn't give two hoots about WHY.

Here it is again. Maybe this time you'll notice it if I make it red?

Evidence that could convince me includes:

- Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer to a specific god. If followers of a particular religion were consistently able to perform unambiguously miraculous acts or cause them to be brought about by prayer, that would be very convincing evidence. For example, if a double-blind study showed that prayer to a specific god could increase hospital patient survival rates in a statistically significant way, I would probably convert to that religion.

-If a religion had followers (or a holy book) that made specific, unambiguous prophecies about events that have not yet occurred, and those prophecies came to pass. The prophecies would have to be something that was non-obvious and that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret.

-A holy book that contained a lot of scientific/technical information that couldn’t have been known to the people who wrote it. That would be pretty convincing evidence that the knowledge in the book was given to its authors by a “higher power”. Again, it would have to be specific information that didn’t require mental gymnastics to interpret. It would also have to be mostly correct – I wouldn’t be impressed by an ancient book that contained a few correct pieces of information and a huge number of incorrect pieces of information, because then I would assume that the authors had simply made a large number of claims and gotten lucky on a few of them.

Thanks, this seems good, but only the first and third ones are objectively measurable, not sure about the 2nd one...

Also none of this is actual evidence of God, it's just evidence of things associated with God...so atheists will say so what if it's all true it doesn't prove that God actually exists, just that prayer and prophecies exist...

in case of xian god,
the one who believes in Jesus will "allegedly" get WHATEVER he/she wishes in prayer,
I say PROOVE it,
pray to god to give you next weeks winning lottery numbers,then send to me :D
If you can do that I promise to praise him every day,

Thanks this is very testable...but are you sure you would really believe if it really happened? I'm pretty sure most atheists would dismiss it as a coincidence if it really happened innumerable times...that's how atheists always explain answered prayers (and most questions), it's just nature + causeless chance....

I'm pretty sure atheists will say that this is not evidence of God but just evidence of prayer...


btw what would you consider supernatural,?
imo everything that exist is NATURAL
So by your standards the supernatural cannot exist because you believe all there is the natural?

What I would consider supernatural is something outside of nature, something outside of the system, the cause of all causes, unborn, the origin of reality, etc....


nope,
we are relying on our senses,which havent detected any gods whatsoever yet.
That's not true, why do you enjoy lying to yourself? None of the examples you gave is evidence of God, yet you haven't detected any evidence of gods (of which there cannot be, because you cannot give an example of what evidence of God is, only evidence of prayer, miracles, etc...)

..and you ignored them and pretended that no one answered. You are being dishonest.
I'm not being dishonest at all, the majority of all the replies were just atheists promoting the same type of atheistic propaganda...


You were given examples but ignored them. You also wont even accept anything supernatural as evidence for god. You are the one denying possible evidence.
I didn't really ignore them, but none of it is actually evidence of God, just evidence of miracles, prayer, etc...


But would you not believe in it until there was some evidence? (like an atheist)
No, UNLIKE the foolish atheist (who for some reason thinks themselves to be smart), if something is unverifiable (meaning there is no way to know if it's true or false), I would just say it's unknown if it's true or false...the atheist on the other hand says "Oh no, it just can't be true, everyone else is just another delusional fool, except for me"


No, many athiests think that it should be possible to prove that god/gods exists. They are atheists however because there is no evidence yet. You have chosen to accept anything and everything as evidence to confirm your belief.
No they don't, if they really think that it should be possible that god/gods exist, then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this is something hard to atheists to understand...


Actually I didn't say that but comprehension is clearly not your strong point. I was trying to make a point but, as usual, you chose not to see it.
Yes you did, you said look in the mirror, implying that I thought Ra didn't exist because there is no evidence...


So could you suggest what evidence you would accept for the existence of Ra, Quetzalcoatl and Thor? It can't be supernatural.
Yeah, I can give examples of evidence, but first I would have look up the attributes of Ra, Quetzalcoatl, etc...

Also, if I couldn't give examples of evidence, I would then they say that it's unverifiable, and if it's unverifiable (like the many-worlds interpretation), I would just say it's unknown whether Ra or Thor actually exist...you atheists on the other hand (being fools) jump to conclusion of unverifiability = false, being lovers of irrationality, abandoning reason and logic...


So you think that every religion is real? :rolleyes: You don't have a problem with every religion have different creation myths. Don't say that they are all similar because some of them are very different. All these gods working away, looking down on us and they don't get in each other's way?
No, I never said that...but most of them are real similar, the things Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu say are very very similar...

The creation myths are actually very similar...

God is allpowerful, right ?
Then God could make the same person win every lottery for a whole year straight, no atheist would dismiss that. Its statistically impossible.


you atheists on the other hand (being fools) jump to conclusion of unverifiability = false, being lovers of irrationality, abandoning reason and logic...


This is where ill pull out, youre just unworthy of discussion if you keep saying this kind of stuff. Its just stupid.

*************
M*W: Wrong. We don't "reject and deny" evidence, if it is objective evidence that can be tested and proven.
Yes they do, they say any evidence of design for instance cannot be evidence of God...


M*W: I can't imagine an atheist giving evidence for the existence of a god!

I'm not asking for evidence of God, I'm asking for examples of what would be evidence...for instance I can tell you what evidence of big foot or the Loch Ness monster is without believing they exist....


*************
M*W: I doubt that atheists have "blind faith" about anything, not just dieties.

Faith is "belief without evidence", believing that an unverifiable claim is definitely false requires blind faith...


*************
M*W: No, it doesn't. As it currently stands, there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. It only "swings" toward belief through the use of "blind faith." In other words, it's the believers who have "blind faith," not the atheists.
No, believing that an unverifiable claim is definitely false requires blind faith...


************
M*W: This surely needs further study. I can't speak for the Aztec and Maya, but I believe Quetzalcoatl was a historic figure but Ra was not. "Ra" was a metaphor for the sun god.
Ra was probably an Egyptian high-priest King, a pharaoh, in ancient Egypt pharaohs were considered to be gods, so it is likely that Ra was probably a pharaoh...

God is allpowerful, right ?
Then God could make the same person win every lottery for a whole year straight, no atheist would dismiss that. Its statistically impossible.
If this happened I'm pretty sure atheists and skeptics would say there must be some type of cheating involved with the lottery company...and it probably wouldn't convince you or any other atheists of anything...they would just say "yeah so what, things like this with a very small probability of happening are bound to happen sometimes"


This is where ill pull out, youre just unworthy of discussion if you keep saying this kind of stuff. Its just stupid.
Why is it stupid...atheists enjoy criticizing theists all the time, it's about time someone pointed out the irrationality of atheism...it's the same thing with you atheists it's ok for atheists to criticize and make fun of theists all the time, but if a theist criticizes atheism "oh no, you're unworthy of discussion if you say that"

If this happened I'm pretty sure atheists and skeptics would say there must be some type of cheating involved with the lottery company...and it probably wouldn't convince you or any other atheists of anything...they would just say "yeah so what, things like this with a very small probability of happening are bound to happen sometimes"


Why is it stupid...atheists enjoy criticizing theists all the time, it's about time someone pointed out the irrationality of atheism...it's the same thing with you atheists it's ok for atheists to criticize and make fun of theists all the time, but if a theist criticizes atheism "oh no, you're unworthy of discussion if you say that"

You are going to dismiss any 'evidence' we can come up with that way.
I see no point in continuing the discussion.

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?


'and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well'

So, if a theist is willing to come round to my house and drink deadly poison that I provide them then I would certainly be quite convinced. If they came round to my house and touched a verified cancer patient and their cancer instantly vanished, again I would be quite convinced.

I have indeed offered many theists deadly poison but they always turn it down. I wonder why.

You are going to dismiss any 'evidence' we can come up with that way.
I see no point in continuing the discussion.

I'm not dismissing any evidence, I'm just asking for examples that would actually fully convince atheists...but do you seriously believe that atheists will believe in God if some guy wins the lottery 100 times in a row? Rather it will be dismissed just as I described....atheists will say "There's still no reason to think that God or anything supernatural was involved, it's just a god-did-it explanation"

'and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well'

So, if a theist is willing to come round to my house and drink deadly poison that I provide them then I would certainly be quite convinced. If they came round to my house and touched a verified cancer patient and their cancer instantly vanished, again I would be quite convinced.

I have indeed offered many theists deadly poison but they always turn it down. I wonder why.

Thanks this is a good example of evidence....it's measurable and testable...but technically only proves that someone is immune to poison...

I'm not dismissing any evidence, I'm just asking for examples that would actually fully convince atheists...but do you seriously believe that atheists will believe in God if some guy wins the lottery 100 times in a row? Rather it will be dismissed just as I described....atheists will say "There's still no reason to think that God or anything supernatural was involved, it's just a god-did-it explanation"

Not if it was a controlled experiment ! With a 1000 or more theists praying for it, and strict control over the lottery process by both atheists and theist.
You can pick a similar experiment too, if you want. It would most likely have to involve a lot of praying and a strict control over the process by both theists and atheists.

Ofcourse, if God were to appear in public that would convince atheists as well, like i pointed out earlier.

What kind of evidence do you think we will accept then ?

Besides, if God is all-powerful couldnt he just make us belief in him if he wanted. And since we dont belief isnt that what God actually wants ?

Thanks this is a good example of evidence....it's measurable and testable...but technically only proves that someone is immune to poison...

Not really, no. There are ways to check for immunity and this is clearly where the beauty of repeat testing comes into play, (which is sorta highlighted with Enmos' 100 lottery wins). Still, if you are willing to come here and drink deadly poison do let me know. Hell, I'll come to you. You up for that?

You know what, i know what would convince me that God exists.. and you cant dismiss that.
If you can convert me to whatever religion you have ill be convinced that God exists... so start praying to God that he give you the power to convert me.

I'm not dismissing any evidence, I'm just asking for examples that would actually fully convince atheists...but do you seriously believe that atheists will believe in God if some guy wins the lottery 100 times in a row?

VitalOne, your argument is quite rediculus.
Enmos has clearly provided you with the information you requested: what would convinve him.
You cannot dismiss this saying 'atheists wouldnt beleive this' Thats circular reasoning, you belief atheists wont, and therefore when one states what would convince him, you tell him it wont. How do you know atheists wont? Are you the mind of every atheist? I didnt think so.

Analogy:
Vitalone: "Nobody likes chocolate, go ahead, try and find one person who likes chocolate."
Enmos: "I like chocolate."
Vitalone: "I dont think so, thats not proof that everyone likes chocolate, thus its wrong. Nobody can come up with an example? Good looks like nobody likes chocolate."

What you think would convince somebody is irrelevant. Enmos has stated what would convince him, and you can't reject that anymore than him liking chocolate in the example above. Even if that doesnt convince a single other atheist, it will convince him. There will be other examples for other people of course but Im sorry, its a little difficult to get one for every single person in the world who is atheistic and post it here.

No, believing that an unverifiable claim is definitely false requires blind faith
No, this is a logical fallacy; an argument ad ignorantiam. I say the easter bunny doesn't exist, because I have no evidence for it, that is not blind faith, is a logical conclusion (use of reason.)

-Andrew

Also none of this is actual evidence of God, it's just evidence of things associated with God...
If miraculous things happen when you pray to a particular god, of course that is evidence of that particular god.

so atheists will say so what if it's all true it doesn't prove that God actually exists, just that prayer and prophecies exist...
I am an atheist, and if anything like what I listed was available I would probably convert – and so would most other atheists. You seem to be under the impression that atheists don't want god to exist, which is a very common mistake among Christians – and it really shows you something about the Christian mindset. Most atheists would be happy if they thought that the Christian god was real, that they could have eternal life in heaven, etc. The big difference between atheists and Christians is that atheists realize that something isn’t likely to be real simply because we want it to be real. Since Christians are apparently able to make themselves believe something simply because they find it pleasant or desirable, they naturally assume that everyone else thinks the same way, and thus assume that anyone who doesn’t believe in god must no want god to exist, in the same way that Christians believe in god because they do want him to exist.

Also, how can you possibly insist that atheists wouldn’t accept certain things as evidence when atheists were the ones who gave you the evidence in the first place? Don’t you think that atheists would have a better understanding of what it would take to convince themselves than you would?

Enmos has stated what would convince him, and you can't reject that
He can reject it based on his blind faith that nothing will convince an atheist of the existence of God.

He can reject it based on his blind faith that nothing will convince an atheist of the existence of God.

But he cant reject it based on logic.

VitalOne, your argument is quite rediculus.
Enmos has clearly provided you with the information you requested: what would convinve him.
You cannot dismiss this saying 'atheists wouldnt beleive this' Thats circular reasoning, you belief atheists wont, and therefore when one states what would convince him, you tell him it wont. How do you know atheists wont? Are you the mind of every atheist? I didnt think so.

Analogy:
Vitalone: "Nobody likes chocolate, go ahead, try and find one person who likes chocolate."
Enmos: "I like chocolate."
Vitalone: "I dont think so, thats not proof that everyone likes chocolate, thus its wrong. Nobody can come up with an example? Good looks like nobody likes chocolate."
ahahahahahahahaha

I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past, any evidence of God to an atheist is automatically a "god-did-it" explanation and doesn't indicate that God exists at all....even if I get prayer working I'm sure atheists would insist it means nothing, just as in the past...


What you think would convince somebody is irrelevant. Enmos has stated what would convince him, and you can't reject that anymore than him liking chocolate in the example above. Even if that doesnt convince a single other atheist, it will convince him. There will be other examples for other people of course but Im sorry, its a little difficult to get one for every single person in the world who is atheistic and post it here.
Hmmm....can you point to where I said it didn't convince him? Hmm...looks like another delusional atheist is at it again "oh it just seems like you said it, case closed"


No, this is a logical fallacy; an argument ad ignorantiam. I say the easter bunny doesn't exist, because I have no evidence for it, that is not blind faith, is a logical conclusion (use of reason.)

-Andrew
ahahaha, what you stated is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance, you proved yourself wrong, because believing the easter bunny doesn't exist because there is no evidence is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance...ahahahahaha

Believing an unverifiable claim is definitely false is also an argument from ignorance...

I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past...

Believing an unverifiable claim is definitely false is also an argument from ignorance...

So, what was the point of this thread? :shrug:

I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past...
VitalOne, don't you think it's a little absurd that you - who is not an atheist - are arguing with a bunch of atheists over what atheists believe?

VitalOne, don't you think it's a little absurd that you - who is not an atheist - are arguing with a bunch of atheists over what atheists believe?

Thats hilarious; on this site its usually the atheists "educating" the theists about what the theists believe. :p

I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past, any evidence of God to an atheist is automatically a "god-did-it" explanation and doesn't indicate that God exists at all....even if I get prayer working I'm sure atheists would insist it means nothing, just as in the past...


Why on earth did you start this thread then !? :confused:

What would convince me?

Well how about two prophets in two different lands receiving the same revelation at the same time?

All religions come down to just one prophet who had heard all the stories of previous prophets.

It's irrational to believe the word of just one man.

Believing an unverifiable claim is definitely false is also an argument from ignorance...


You just deemed your own arguments arguments of ignorance...
Unless you can give us evidence that will back up atheism.. ;)

Also, could you please react to this:
You know what, i know what would convince me that God exists.. and you cant dismiss that.
If you can convert me to whatever religion you have ill be convinced that God exists... so start praying to God that he give you the power to convert me.

What would be proof to me thatgod exist? Hmmm... If he appears in front of me and tells me to believe then proceeds to do things like strike someone down by merely saying it, make the sky blood red, blow up a star in the night sky just by pointing his fingers, create a new being right in front of my eye. If so then I might believe. Oh he also has to show me angels and devil exist as well physically befoore my eye. I need also an all expense paid tour of heaven and hell with full insurance.

What would be proof to me thatgod exist? Hmmm... If he appears in front of me and tells me to believe then proceeds to do things like strike someone down by merely saying it, make the sky blood red, blow up a star in the night sky just by pointing his fingers, create a new being right in front of my eye. If so then I might believe. Oh he also has to show me angels and devil exist as well physically befoore my eye. I need also an all expense paid tour of heaven and hell with full insurance.
then I guess you have never bothered to venture into the higher education of say science, since it generally takes about three years of theory before they start letting you do interesting things in the lab to see for yourself

then I guess you have never bothered to venture into the higher education of say science, since it generally takes about three years of theory before they start letting you do interesting things in the lab to see for yourself

How did you know? I'm completed tertiary business studies not science and making good money from it too. Cheers... ;)

How did you know? I'm completed tertiary business studies not science and making good money from it too. Cheers... ;)

next time we encounter a problem related to economic development we will let you know
;)

then I guess you have never bothered to venture into the higher education of say science

I see, I see.. god resigns himself to the scientific method?

I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past, any evidence of God to an atheist is automatically a "god-did-it" explanation and doesn't indicate that God exists at all....even if I get prayer working I'm sure atheists would insist it means nothing, just as in the past...
You cannot say what an atheist would say, you cannot say what anybody other than you would say. You can assume yes, however assumption is not proof. In this your assumption is based upon past evidence, however, not to my knowlege has anyone said what would convert them and, after having been shown said evidence rejected it. Thus your comparison is not valid. An atheist has stated what would convert him, could he be lying? Possibly, but the only way to proove that would be to give them the proof they ask for. Thus you assume they would reject it because you say they have blind faith and reject all arguments (which is the argument you are trying to prove, ie circular reasoning.)

Hmmm....can you point to where I said it didn't convince him? I can indeed:

Originally Posted by Enmos
God is allpowerful, right ?
Then God could make the same person win every lottery for a whole year straight, no atheist would dismiss that. Its statistically impossible. If this happened I'm pretty sure atheists and skeptics would say there must be some type of cheating involved with the lottery company...and it probably wouldn't convince you or any other atheists of anything...

------------

ahahaha, what you stated is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance, you proved yourself wrong, because believing the easter bunny doesn't exist because there is no evidence is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance...ahahahahaha

Believing an unverifiable claim is definitely false is also an argument from ignorance...
While I will say I worded that last part poorly, allow me to expand:
We cannot proove the easter bunny does not exist, but since there is no other evidence for it to exist, it would be ad ignorantiam to assume that it therefore did. (hence why I refered to beleif in the easter bunny as ad ignorantiam)
Therefore the issue then comes down to burden of proof, and logicaly, who has the burden of proof? It's the person who claims something exists, because it is possible to proove existance, but impossible to proof inexistance. Otherwise one could claim anything existed and have an argument, eg: "evil flying monkeys from venus are building a blooperglap ray which will wipe out all life on earth and thus we must invest all our money into the military and space programs to destroy them before this is accomplished."
(in other words, a reductio ad absurdem shows why the burden falls on the one who claims something exists.)
Thus, by default the easter bunny (or anything) does not exist untill you proove it to exist.
And that is why an atheist is not 'blind faith' but rather a logical conclusion based on their ways of knowing.
EDIT: Perhaps a better way of putting the above is: An argument that something exists is not falsifiable, while an argument that something does not exist is falsifiable, thus the unfalsifiable argument has the burden of proof.

Falsification is the difference between 'blind faith' and a reasoned conclusion.

-Andrew

I see, I see.. god resigns himself to the scientific method?

no

but a person who seeks knowledge resigns themselves to a good deal of theory and practice before they arrive at direct perception

no

but a person who seeks knowledge resigns themselves to a good deal of theory and practice before they arrive at direct perception

That is entirely incorrect. High school students begin experiments in the same year they begin studying the sciences.

They directly perceive the results of the theory being taught.

I'm not being dishonest at all, the majority of all the replies were just atheists promoting the same type of atheistic propaganda...It does not matter what the majority were. You ignored the responses and pretended that no one was answering. You clearly started this thread with no intention of real debate. You just wanted to rant.


I didn't really ignore them, but none of it is actually evidence of God, just evidence of miracles, prayer, etc...But in the bible god performs miracles and answers prayers! You wont accept this as an answer?

You asked a question, people answered, you pretended that they didn't and then you refused to accept their answers. It certainly appears that you are not really after any discussion at all VitalOne.


No, UNLIKE the foolish atheist (who for some reason thinks themselves to be smart), if something is unverifiable (meaning there is no way to know if it's true or false), I would just say it's unknown if it's true or false...the atheist on the other hand says "Oh no, it just can't be true, everyone else is just another delusional fool, except for me"That is pure drivel. Atheism has nothing to do with insulting people. Shall I assume that religion is all about being rude and insulting just because you are? Show some maturity and stop with the pathetic generalisations.

***edit. I checked your profile. You are 18?


Just as you refuse to believe there are two headed elves sitting on your shoulders, atheists refuse to believe there are gods - due to the lack of evidence. You will do everything you can to avoid understanding this point, even though it is very simple.

You answered No to my question. You are behaving like an atheist then.

No they don't, if they really think that it should be possible that god/gods exist, then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't, You were given examples but you wouldn't accept them!
:rolleyes:


absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this is something hard to atheists to understand...Interesting. So you admit that there is no evidence for god? Otherwise, what could you possibly mean here?

There are many things which people believe in that lack evidence - the easter bunny, elves, thetans. Should we just assume that they are all true?.. or should we believe in the ideas that actually have some evidence to support them. Which one?

How do you choose what to believe in?


Yeah, I can give examples of evidence, but first I would have look up the attributes of Ra, Quetzalcoatl, etc...I'm waiting...


Also, if I couldn't give examples of evidence, I would then they say that it's unverifiable, and if it's unverifiable (like the many-worlds interpretation), I would just say it's unknown whether Ra or Thor actually exist...you atheists on the other hand (being fools) jump to conclusion of unverifiability = false, being lovers of irrationality, abandoning reason and logic... You have yet to even begin to show how it is abandoning logic to refuse to believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.

Don't take my example of elves as facetious. They are still taken seriously in some parts of the world. Do you believe that elves exist VitalOne?


No, I never said that...but most of them are real similar, the things Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu say are very very similar...You do realise there are a few more religions that those right?

So you think that Ra and Quetzalcoatl existed. What about Thor, do you think that he existed? I noticed you didn't include him. How many of these religions do you believe in VitalOne?


The creation myths are actually very similar...They certainly have one thing in common. I'll let you figure out what that is...

There are creation myths that are vastly different. No doubt you will ignore this fact as you ignore all the things you don't want to see.

You believe that Ra and God exist. The egyptian and biblical creation myths are not the same, in fact they are not even close. You don't have a problem with this?

Not reading any of this,

Possibly, if they would recognize their own logical biases, and recognize that the truth of "God" is something greater than their current conceptions. Possibly, it is possible to have a thing as "God." But they don't care to explore thoughts which give examples of god, or even refute Berkley.... Shame in their reasoning?

It does not matter what the majority were. You ignored the responses and pretended that no one was answering. You clearly started this thread with no intention of real debate. You just wanted to rant.

No I didn't, stop lying to yourself (though lying and living in delusion is all atheists do), all I said was "All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples" because the majority of posts was just atheists ranting.....go look back and read for yourself...if most posts actually gave examples then I wouldn't have said that..


But in the bible god performs miracles and answers prayers! You wont accept this as an answer?
I would accept it...but will you, truly and honestly accept it as evidence (if it really happened)...would it fully convince you?


You asked a question, people answered, you pretended that they didn't and then you refused to accept their answers. It certainly appears that you are not really after any discussion at all VitalOne.
No I didn't, let me suggest something that may help you http://www.hookedonphonics.com


That is pure drivel. Atheism has nothing to do with insulting people. Shall I assume that religion is all about being rude and insulting just because you are? Show some maturity and stop with the pathetic generalisations.
All atheists do is insult theists, "anyone who believes in God is delusional", "why don't you believe in the tooth fairy", "you're just living in an imaginary fantasy", etc...


***edit. I checked your profile. You are 18?

Yes...


Just as you refuse to believe there are two headed elves sitting on your shoulders, atheists refuse to believe there are gods - due to the lack of evidence. You will do everything you can to avoid understanding this point, even though it is very simple.

You answered No to my question. You are behaving like an atheist then.

I don't refuse to believe there are two-headed elves sitting on my shoulders..the sad thing is the foolish atheist really thinks that the concept of God is the same as two-headed elves...I'm not behaving like an atheist...if something is unverifiable then I say that it's unknown, the atheist (being a fool) says it's definitely false using personal incredulity, ignorance, and irrationality...


You were given examples but you wouldn't accept them!
:rolleyes:
I didn't refuse them, rather I accepted many of them, such as prayer, the poison, etc....I just stated that I don't think most atheists will be fully convinced if these things really happened....


Interesting. So you admit that there is no evidence for god? Otherwise, what could you possibly mean here?
No there is evidence, but it is not considered evidence, it is considered a "god-did-it" explanation...

What I mean is that evidence doesn't something to become true, though you (and other atheists, also known as fools) for some reason that evidence does cause something to become true...

In logic and reasoning (something atheists have abandoned), "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"


There are many things which people believe in that lack evidence - the easter bunny, elves, thetans. Should we just assume that they are all true?.. or should we believe in the ideas that actually have some evidence to support them. Which one?
Neither, where did you get that notion from?

Let me repeat what I said previously, if something is unverifiable, it means there is no way to know if it's true or false, so you neither believe NOR disbelieve it, it's just unknown whether it's true or false, so you say it's unknown whether it's true or false...ofcourse you only do this if you use rationality and logic, otherwise you're just using blind faith (which is what atheism is entirely based off)


You have yet to even begin to show how it is abandoning logic to refuse to believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence.
Yes I have, but then again it probably hasn't registered through your brain yet,

Saying something isn't true because of a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy), that's why it's abandoning logic...the logical conclusion would be to say it's unknown whether it's true or false...for instance using the atheists logic (the fool's logic), we should all conclude that the Sun revolved around the Earth until the evidence showed otherwise...while using my logic you would say that it's unknown until it becomes verifiable....


Don't take my example of elves as facetious. They are still taken seriously in some parts of the world. Do you believe that elves exist VitalOne?
Yes, I believe DEFINITELY elf-like beings exist with 100% certainty...


You do realise there are a few more religions that those right?
Yeah...what's your point, there's many different religions, so what?


So you think that Ra and Quetzalcoatl existed. What about Thor, do you think that he existed? I noticed you didn't include him. How many of these religions do you believe in VitalOne?
I'm not sure about Thor, so I say it's unknown...


There are creation myths that are vastly different. No doubt you will ignore this fact as you ignore all the things you don't want to see.

You believe that Ra and God exist. The egyptian and biblical creation myths are not the same, in fact they are not even close. You don't have a problem with this?
The Creation myths aren't really that different, just as Jesus says the light came into being by itself...

You cannot say what an atheist would say, you cannot say what anybody other than you would say. You can assume yes, however assumption is not proof. In this your assumption is based upon past evidence, however, not to my knowlege has anyone said what would convert them and, after having been shown said evidence rejected it. Thus your comparison is not valid. An atheist has stated what would convert him, could he be lying? Possibly, but the only way to proove that would be to give them the proof they ask for. Thus you assume they would reject it because you say they have blind faith and reject all arguments (which is the argument you are trying to prove, ie circular reasoning.)
Yes I can, I can predict what atheists would say based upon what they've said in the past...why can't I?


I can indeed:

------------
I never said it didn't convince him, I said if it really happened it probably wouldn't convince him...


While I will say I worded that last part poorly, allow me to expand:
We cannot proove the easter bunny does not exist, but since there is no other evidence for it to exist, it would be ad ignorantiam to assume that it therefore did. (hence why I refered to beleif in the easter bunny as ad ignorantiam)
Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...


Therefore the issue then comes down to burden of proof, and logicaly, who has the burden of proof? It's the person who claims something exists, because it is possible to proove existance, but impossible to proof inexistance. Otherwise one could claim anything existed and have an argument, eg: "evil flying monkeys from venus are building a blooperglap ray which will wipe out all life on earth and thus we must invest all our money into the military and space programs to destroy them before this is accomplished."
(in other words, a reductio ad absurdem shows why the burden falls on the one who claims something exists.)
But in this case there is direct evidence of absence for evil flying monkeys on Venus, so your argument fails in every imaginable way


Thus, by default the easter bunny (or anything) does not exist untill you proove it to exist.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This is what an argument from ignorance is "something is false until proven true"

Using this foolish logic (your logic), you should conclude that the 100,000+ volcanos didn't exist years ago, only when people discovered they exist...when you atheists realize that evidence doesn't cause something to become true"


And that is why an atheist is not 'blind faith' but rather a logical conclusion based on their ways of knowing.
No, the conclusion is illogical....it's exactly what an argument from ignorance is...


EDIT: Perhaps a better way of putting the above is: An argument that something exists is not falsifiable, while an argument that something does not exist is falsifiable, thus the unfalsifiable argument has the burden of proof.

Falsification is the difference between 'blind faith' and a reasoned conclusion.

-Andrew
No, both are falsifiable, but you can't prove a negative...only prove that something else is true which makes a negative true...

Yes I can, I can predict what atheists would say based upon what they've said in the past...why can't I?
Because what they responded too was not that which they stated would convert them. Apples and oranges.

I never said it didn't convince him, I said if it really happened it probably wouldn't convince him...
So you then admit you dont actualy know weather what you are arguing is correct or not.

Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...

I understand it perfectly, more than you infact You see there is one exception in which lack of proof is not actualy a logical fallacy. Lets say we have hypothosis x and y, and the law of excluded middle applies (it is either x or y and nothing else)
The exception is when hypothosis x is impossible to prove due to the nature of it, ie:
x can be falsified
y cannot be falsified
lack of evidance from y prove x without it being an argument from ignorance (or rather, without it being a logical fallacy)

But in this case there is direct evidence of absence for evil flying monkeys on Venus, so your argument fails in every imaginable way
Really? Care to show this absense?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This is what an argument from ignorance is "something is false until proven true"

Using this foolish logic (your logic), you should conclude that the 100,000+ volcanos didn't exist years ago, only when people discovered they exist...when you atheists realize that evidence doesn't cause something to become true"
IF you had put the previouse 2 quotes together you would have understood why it wasn't... *sigh*

No, both are falsifiable, but you can't prove a negative...only prove that something else is true which makes a negative true...
Care to demonstrate how saying that something exists is falsifiable?

-Andrew

andbna, go look up the argument from ignorance, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, it must not have gotten through to your thick atheistic skull, saying the Easter Bunny or ANYTHING doesn't exist or is false UNTIL proven true is a logical fallacy...things are true with or without evidence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case—it is simply lack of evidence, and nothing more. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven
From the wiki.

So unless you can show how something existing is a falsifiable hypothosis (that is, demonstrate how you would disprove it) it is not a logical fallacy.

EDIT: You can repeat yourself ad nauseam, but that wont make you right, time to back up your claim.

EDIT2: how about another site:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a saying that's often used. It is true in some circumstances (in the possibility of there being alien life, for example) but not all. It is not true when there's an absence of evidence and we should expect to find that evidence. For example, stating that the Loch Ness Monster could exist because no-one's proved it doesn't is clearly an Argument to Ignorance; however, stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no-one has proved that it does is not making an Argument to Ignorance. This is because a breeding population of Plesiosaurs (or whatever) would be expected to leave evidence of their existence.

- http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php

-Andrew

From the wiki.

So unless you can show how something existing is a falsifiable hypothosis (that is, demonstrate how you would disprove it) it is not a logical fallacy.

EDIT: You can repeat yourself ad nauseam, but that wont make you right, time to back up your claim.

EDIT2: how about another site:

- http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php

-Andrew

Right...so you're agreeing with me...? I never said a lack of evidence makes something true...what can't you understand about this?

You on the otherhand insists that something is false until proven true...an argument from ignorance...

Nice to see you didnt back up your claim, but merely restated your point.
No im not agreeing with you, the burden of proof, by default, rests on the claimant. It is the one who has the burden of proof who makes the fallacious argument, not the other.

-Andrew

Nice to see you didnt back up your claim, but merely restated your point.
No im not agreeing with you, the burden of proof, by default, rests on the claimant. It is the one who has the burden of proof who makes the fallacious argument, not the other.

-Andrew

What's wrong with you? You said the easter bunny doesn't exist UNTIL proven which is EXACTLY what an argument from ignorance is....

What's wrong with you? You said the easter bunny doesn't exist UNTIL proven which is EXACTLY what an argument from ignorance is....
...
Did you not read the above? How would question of the existance of an entity come into debate? Because somebody claims it exists. The burden of proof then rests on that claiment to show evidence of the entities existance. Untill then it is not a logical fallacy to say this entity does not exist.

Perhaps I should requote the above: stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no-one has proved that it does is not making an Argument to Ignorance.

Dont bother posting again untill you provide some support for your claim (perhaps some expert opinion for instance.)

-Andrew

...
Did you not read the above? How would question of the existance of an entity come into debate? Because somebody claims it exists. The burden of proof then rests on that claiment to show evidence of the entities existance. Untill then it is not a logical fallacy to say this entity does not exist.
Yes it IS an argument from ignorance..."something is false until proven true"


Perhaps I should requote the above:

Dont bother posting again untill you provide some support for your claim (perhaps some expert opinion for instance.)

-Andrew
Right, but this only applies if there SHOULD be evidence, but there isn't evidence, something you conviently missed out....

So if there should be evidence of the Loch Ness Monster in the lake but there isn't then saying it doesn't exist isn't an argument from ignorance, however if you say God or aliens, etc..doesn't exist because there is no evidence but can't point out where should there be evidence then it IS an argument from ignorance...

It doesn't at all support your position that "by default something doesn't exist", it only supports the position that "if there should be evidence but when verfied there isn't, then something doesn't exist"...

Likewise, there should be evidence of the easter buny: comming around every easter delivering eggs. But the only people shown to be delivering these eggs are Nestle and a whack of parents.

And, with anything in existance, there should be evidance of it: if it doesnt effect our universe in any way (anything that effects our universe would supply evidence) than logicaly it can be said to not exist.

-Andrew

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

Nasor answered this quite well on the first page (07-19-07, 01:43 PM #19 ) and I am in agreement with him as I am sure many (if not all) of the atheists whom have responded to you. Those of course are things that cannot be provided.. because they DO NOT EXIST. Let me explain what exactly what 'God' is. It begins with harmless and natural anthropmorphization.

Put human attributes on a rabbit and you have bugs bunny, put them on a car and you have herbie, put them on nature and you have mother nature, put them on time and you have father time, put them on reality and you have 'God'.

Now we move onto psychological needs. Humans typically need authority figures to advice them, grant them permission, purpose them, and protect them. The less prone an authority figure is to making mistakes, the more that authority figure can be trusted and respected. Reality certainly does not make any mistakes... it is infallible to our knowledge... and of course since it has been anthropomorphized, 'God' is now an infallible authority figure.

Now we move onto identity needs. Humans need a firm sense of self... to know exactly who they are. 'God' becomes a proxy between the consious and subconsious and believers will focus their relationship efforts on that proxy. The most successful at this have a firm sense of identity that can often lead to euphoric experience. They attribute this to their relationship with 'God' (the proxy) without realizing that they have really achived a very deep relationship with themselves.

In other words, 'God' is anthropomorphic delusion that is the easiest known way to meet human psychological / identity needs.

.. (though lying and living in delusion is all atheists do), all I said was "Absurd generalization.



I would accept it...but will you, truly and honestly accept it as evidence (if it really happened)...would it fully convince you? Yes.


All atheists do is insult theists, "anyone who believes in God is delusional", "why don't you believe in the tooth fairy", "you're just living in an imaginary fantasy", etc... Atheism is a personal stance that has nothing to do with opinions on other people. That is like me saying that all theists think that atheists are fools for not believing. I’m sure not all of them think that.


I don't refuse to believe there are two-headed elves sitting on my shoulders..the sad thing is the foolish atheist really thinks that the concept of God is the same as two-headed elves...I'm not behaving like an atheist...if something is unverifiable then I say that it's unknown, the atheist (being a fool) says it's definitely false using personal incredulity, ignorance, and irrationality... Ah but atheists don’t say that it is definitely false. This has been explained to you dozens of times but you refuse to comprehend this.


I didn't refuse them, rather I accepted many of them, such as prayer, the poison, etc....I just stated that I don't think most atheists will be fully convinced if these things really happened.... Actually you said “then they could easily give innumerable examples of evidence of God, but they can't,”. Not the same thing VitalOne.

I find it amusing that you refuse to accept people’s answers and you are telling them what they really believe.



No there is evidence, but it is not considered evidence, it is considered a "god-did-it" explanation...

What I mean is that evidence doesn't something to become true, though you (and other atheists, also known as fools) for some reason that evidence does cause something to become true... No. There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true. It is only through the evidence that we are able to make judgment on what is and isn’t likely to exist. I have seen this explained to you numerous times and I have also seen you refuse to understand this every time.


In logic and reasoning (something atheists have abandoned), "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" Atheists don’t claim to have evidence of absence. That is the point. They don’t believe in these gods and elves until there is evidence. Then they will believe. This thread has only confirmed that but you refuse to accept it.


Neither, where did you get that notion from?

Let me repeat what I said previously, if something is unverifiable, it means there is no way to know if it's true or false, so you neither believe NOR disbelieve it, it's just unknown whether it's true or false, so you say it's unknown whether it's true or false...ofcourse you only do this if you use rationality and logic, otherwise you're just using blind faith (which is what atheism is entirely based off) Wrong. Faith is a belief in something when there is no evidence. You are accusing atheists of refusing to believe in something where then is no evidence for its non existence. That is illogical. Once again VitalOne, read up on proving a negative and don't reply until you have.


Yes I have, but then again it probably hasn't registered through your brain yet,

Saying something isn't true because of a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy), that's why it's abandoning logic...the logical conclusion would be to say it's unknown whether it's true or false...for instance using the atheists logic (the fool's logic), we should all conclude that the Sun revolved around the Earth until the evidence showed otherwise...while using my logic you would say that it's unknown until it becomes verifiable.... Actually argument from ignorance is “is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.” This is something you are certainly guilty of.

Atheists can’t prove that god doesn’t exist so you claim that they are using faith!


Yes, I believe DEFINITELY elf-like beings exist with 100% certainty... What evidence convinced you of this? Do you think it is illogical to disbelieve the existence of elves?


Yeah...what's your point, there's many different religions, so what? You have chosen some religious figures who were peaceful people and said some very nice things and concluded that most religions are similar. There are many other religions that have very little in common with those. What about the Australian aboriginals, the Norse, voodoo, Egyptian ect? Religious figures saying the same things? No.


I'm not sure about Thor, so I say it's unknown... But you are more certain that Ra existed. Why?


The Creation myths aren't really that different, just as Jesus says the light came into being by itself...They are similar in that they describe the creation of this planet and that is about it. The Egyptian creation myth starts - “.In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of churning, bubbling water, this the Egyptians called Nu or Nun. It was out of Nu that everything began. As with the Nile, each year the inundation no doubt caused chaos to all creatures living on the land, so this represents Nu. eventually the floods would recede and out of the chaos of water would emerge a hill of dry land, one at first, then more. On this first dry hilltop, on the first day came the first sunrise. So that is how the Egyptians explain the beginning of all things.
. . . . .Not surprisingly, the sun was also among the most important elements in the Egyptians lives and therefore had an important role as a creator god. His names and attributes varied greatly. As the rising sun his name was Khepri, the great scarab beetle, or Ra-Harakhte who was seen as a winged solar-disk or as the youthful sun of the eastern horizon. As the sun climbed toward mid-day it was called Ra, great and strong. When the sun set in the west it was known as Atum the old man, or Horus on the horizon. As a solar-disk he was known as Aten. The sun was also said to be an egg laid daily by Geb, the 'Great Cackler' when he took the form of a goose.”

Very different to genesis. So I will ask again. Do you see no problem believing in Ra and God and the different creation myths?

Saying GOD does exist because there is no evidence that GOD doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance.

This is effectively your stance VitalOne. See below:


Hmm...you don't understand the argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence IS an argument from ignorance...saying the Easter Bunny does exist because there is no evidence that the Easter doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance...

Yes.
Really? So all I need to do is get to show the effectiveness of prayer and that's it? Seems pretty easy to me...all I need to do is train 100 people or so to be good at prayer...most people pray incorrectly and get no results...I'll easily get results this way...


Atheism is a personal stance that has nothing to do with opinions on other people. That is like me saying that all theists think that atheists are fools for not believing. I’m sure not all of them think that.
Well that's how it seems...in general atheists consider theists to be inferior and lower...
<