The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[Betterave]

I completely agree I have heard atheists being very rude and insulting to people of faith and I have challenged them to stop and show some respect.
But I have to be honest and say I have never heard an atheist threaten someones life just because they had a faith.

Well you’re right: it’s never just because they have a faith; it’s always also because that faith conflicts with the ideology of the atheist. There are metric tonnes of such cases. They are not ancient history either, it’s happening now in places like China and Vietnam. Even in places like the UK people’s livelihoods are increasingly threatened because they have a faith (which conflicts with the ideology of the atheists).

I never heard of an atheist suicide bomber killing innocents just because they believed in a god, even if it happened to be the wrong god.

I’ve never heard of anyone killing innocents, just because they believed in a god. That this is impossible for an atheist is trivially true by definition.

Ive never heard an atheist declare someone damned to hell because they hold a believe contrary to the speaker.

Again, that’s trivial: obviously atheists don’t believe in hell.

Ive never heard an atheist whip a crowd into a frenzy to kill an innocent man over writing a book.

I’ve never heard anyone do this. Have you? Please share.

Ive never heard atheists declare land was theirs because a 2000 year old book says so and kill generations of innocents to lay claim to and keep that land.

So what? Maybe atheists just don’t typically read 2000 year old books?

Ive never heard an atheist declare someone anathema and excommunicate them.

I’ve never heard anyone do this. Have you? In any case, what is the relevance?

Stuff like that tends to be the preserve of those with faith.

I’m not so sure about that. If you offer some evidence for your position, I’ll see what I can make of it. I think your claim will either turn out to be false, or it will turn out to be trivial and irrelevant.

 

[atheistgirl]

IOkay; but in all that, what they do not ask you is “to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door” - agreed? You may think they effectively do that, but they don’t ask anyone to do that. This is something very basic which they do not generally disagree on.

You quotes within the quote which didnt come out:

Agreed they could be an atheist like me.

The basics - well, some churches will tell you god made the earth in 6 days - as an article of faith, others wont.
Some will tell you there is a trinity, others deny this.
Some will tell you Jesus is truely present in the bread and wine, others say nonesense you are sacrificing Jesus again.
Some will tell you the bible is all you need, others will tell you its the church.
Some will tell you God is a diety, others a person, yet others a spirit.
Some will tell you there is purgatory, others deny this.
Some will tell you Christ has come, others will tell you he is still to arrive.
These are just some basics that those of faith simply cannot agree on, and they are prepared in some cases to go so far as killing in the cause.

As for being irrational, I think I am being asked to leave my critical mind at the door - noone can explain transubstantiation - we have to accept this. No one can explain one god but three persons - we have to accept this. The list is huge, and while the books on the subjects are equally huge, none of them stand up to scientific scrutiny, or repitition, so we are expected to leave that rational part of us at the door.

Sarah x

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I appreciate that, but this is also a philosophy forum, so as long as you’re being reasonable, no one has cause to take offence just because you happen to disagree with her.

Okay; but in all that, what they do not ask you is “to leave rationality and critical judgement at the door” - agreed? You may think they effectively do that, but they don’t ask anyone to do that. This is something very basic which they do not generally disagree on.

Yes Betterave it is a philosophy forum. Keep in mind what John Paul II said to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 10, 2003, " I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful."

Stephen Hawkings is an atheist and currently on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. He doesn’t hate the Pope. It doesn’t seem to bother the Pope or me. I have quite a few friends that are atheists and they sure don’t scorn me.

 

[Pieman333272]

As for being irrational, I think I am being asked to leave my critical mind at the door - noone can explain transubstantiation - we have to accept this. No one can explain one god but three persons - we have to accept this. The list is huge, and while the books on the subjects are equally huge, none of them stand up to scientific scrutiny, or repitition, so we are expected to leave that rational part of us at the door.

Sarah x

So? Vast portions of modern Astrophysics, Mathematics, Quantum Mechanics, and Evolutionary Biology either don’t make sense or must be taken, at least in part, on faith. Obviously neither you nor I rejects those ideas. You may object that those have a scientific backing while Transubstantiation doesn’t, but that has examples and a philosophical backing. Now, you do need to take it on faith - I’m not denying that. What I am denying is that you need to either give up reason to believe it or reject it because you have to take it on faith.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’ve never heard of anyone killing innocents, just because they believed in a god. That this is impossible for an atheist is trivially true by definition.

It’s not trivial to those being killed because they are of a different faith to someone else.

Again, that’s trivial: obviously atheists don’t believe in hell.

My point is that is what people of faith do, not atheists. Can you imagine the mental torment inflicted on some, especially children, when they believe they are wicked and damned to an eternity of suffering,

I’ve never heard anyone do this. Have you? Please share.

Youre kidding me? Salman Rushdie lives under police protection - muslims have been trying to kill him for writing a book!!
Hundreds of people died in riots all over the world when an unheard of paper in Denmark published cartoons of Mohamed. Muslims from denmark went to Egypt to whip up a storm which saw embassies being torched and hundreds of millions of dollars damage with hundreds of lives lost - over a cartoon !!!

So what? Maybe atheists just don’t typically read 2000 year old books?

How can you look at the ticking timebomb that is the middle east, remembering the slaughter of people on both sides of the conflict with Israel, and say ‘‘so what’’ !!!

I’ve never heard anyone do this. Have you? In any case, what is the relevance?

Popes and Orthodox patriachs did a good line in this - and the mental torture inflicted on those anathemised if they try to hold their faith must be the stuff of nightmares.

I’m not so sure about that. If you offer some evidence for your position, I’ll see what I can make of it. I think your claim will either turn out to be false, or it will turn out to be trivial and irrelevant.

Trivial and irrelevant?? It’s people of faith who believe they are on their way to heaven and 72 virgins that blow up hundreds of people and themselves.
It’s people of faith that claim land in the middle east and have the blood of innocents on their hands,
It’s people of faith that led the crusades and inquisitions.
It’s people of faith that stole children from their families and baptised them, refusing them to go back to their families. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
I dont think any of that is trivial or irrelevant.

Sarah x

 

[Betterave]

Yes Betterave it is a philosophy forum. Keep in mind what John Paul II said to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 10, 2003, " I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful."

Stephen Hawkings is an atheist and currently on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee. He doesn’t hate the Pope. It doesn’t seem to bother the Pope or me. I have quite a few friends that are atheists and they sure don’t scorn me.

Why point this out to me? What is your point? (Other than you have a burr under your saddle, so you feel the need to buck.)

 

[Betterave]

The basics - well, some churches will tell you god made the earth in 6 days - as an article of faith, others wont.
Some will tell you there is a trinity, others deny this.
Some will tell you Jesus is truely present in the bread and wine, others say nonesense you are sacrificing Jesus again.
Some will tell you the bible is all you need, others will tell you its the church.
Some will tell you God is a diety, others a person, yet others a spirit.
Some will tell you there is purgatory, others deny this.
Some will tell you Christ has come, others will tell you he is still to arrive.
These are just some basics that those of faith simply cannot agree on, and they are prepared in some cases to go so far as killing in the cause.

Fair enough. But the question is: are you correct in characterizing these as “the very basics”? I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a pretty vague notion, and not very helpful - unless the various religions happen to agree that these indeed *are *“the very basics” (which seems highly unlikely).

As for being irrational, I think I am being asked to leave my critical mind at the door - noone can explain transubstantiation - we have to accept this. No one can explain one god but three persons - we have to accept this. The list is huge, and while the books on the subjects are equally huge, none of them stand up to scientific scrutiny, or repitition, so we are expected to leave that rational part of us at the door.

You claim no one can explain this stuff, we have to accept it. I claim that these are half-truths which in any case do not entail leaving one’s rationality at the door. I claim that your implied criterion (“scientific scrutiny” in terms of “repetition”) will not stand up to rational scrutiny.

 

[Betterave]

It’s not trivial to those being killed because they are of a different faith to someone else.

“Atheists (who by definition don’t believe in God) don’t do bad things in the name of God” is indeed a trivial statement, even to those being killed by non-atheists.

My point is that is what people of faith do, not atheists. Can you imagine the mental torment inflicted on some, especially children, when they believe they are wicked and damned to an eternity of suffering,

1. Why would a child believe this?
2. This thought might torment some children, I don’t know, but suppose the thought of dying and being snuffed out caused torment to some children? Isn’t the truth of the matter what matters to a rational person, not the possible psychological vagaries that might go along with various truth-scenarios?

Youre kidding me? Salman Rushdie lives under police protection - muslims have been trying to kill him for writing a book!!

But I assume that like myself you’ve only heard *of *this?? I certainly have heard of this kind of thing, if that’s what you meant. In any case, how is this essentially different from what you find in The Gulag Archipelago - atheist punishment of thought crimes?

Hundreds of people died in riots all over the world when an unheard of paper in Denmark published cartoons of Mohamed. Muslims from denmark went to Egypt to whip up a storm which saw embassies being torched and hundreds of millions of dollars damage with hundreds of lives lost - over a cartoon !!!

And how many died under oppressive atheist regimes? I must return your “you’re kidding me?” if you claim to be unaware of these other victims.

How can you look at the ticking timebomb that is the middle east, remembering the slaughter of people on both sides of the conflict with Israel, and say ‘‘so what’’ !!!

Because your mentioning this is not germane to what you are claiming to accomplish by mentioning it (in other words, it’s a red herring). It proves nothing with regard to your contention that religions require one to leave rationality at the door.

Popes and Orthodox patriachs did a good line in this - and the mental torture inflicted on those anathemised if they try to hold their faith must be the stuff of nightmares.

Must it? Anyway, I guess you meant “heard of,” not “heard” again. And I certainly have heard of atheists anathematizing and excommunicating those who don’t share their belief/unbelief - although they obviously don’t use those terms. Haven’t you??

Trivial and irrelevant?? It’s people of faith who believe they are on their way to heaven and 72 virgins that blow up hundreds of people and themselves.
It’s people of faith that claim land in the middle east and have the blood of innocents on their hands,
It’s people of faith that led the crusades and inquisitions.
It’s people of faith that stole children from their families and baptised them, refusing them to go back to their families. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
I dont think any of that is trivial or irrelevant.

In that case please explain how any of it is consequential and relevant in respect of proving your thesis here.

(b.t.w., these anecdotal historical citations don’t even begin to prove your claim: that “stuff like that” (that’s pretty vague) tends to be the preserve of people of faith, i.e., non-atheists.)

 

[atheistgirl]

Fair enough. But the question is: are you correct in characterizing these as “the very basics”? I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a pretty vague notion, and not very helpful - unless the various religions happen to agree that these indeed *are *“the very basics” (which seems highly unlikely).

Well perhaps you would be good enough to list the very basics of the catholic faith so I can take a look at them?
There is nothing vague at all about the basics of the major faiths tenets. They are quite clear.

You claim no one can explain this stuff, we have to accept it. I claim that these are half-truths which in any case do not entail leaving one’s rationality at the door. I claim that your implied criterion (“scientific scrutiny” in terms of “repetition”) will not stand up to rational scrutiny.

Can you prove me wrong by praying for a miracle and making it happen, and have that miracle happen repeatedly under laboratory conditions?
Can you scientifically demonstrate the presence or otherwise in the bread and wine - as it applies in several faiths I am not refering just to the catholic faith and ask the question sensitively with due respect to those that believe in the transformation?
Can you demonstrate the three persons in the one God?
Can you demonstrate that the God of Moses is the same God as Allah, but a different god to the hindu gods in an empiracal manner?
No, no one can?
To me such believes are not rational, and for me to believe any of them means I must suspend my rational mind.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

“Atheists (who by definition don’t believe in God) don’t do bad things in the name of God” is indeed a trivial statement, even to those being killed by non-atheists.

**The definition of an athesit is not someone who by definition doesnt believe in God - an atheist by definition says there is not enough evidence to support that belief and there is probably no god.
If evidence could be produced, I would have no hesitation in believing. **

1. Why would a child believe this?
2. This thought might torment some children, I don’t know, but suppose the thought of dying and being snuffed out caused torment to some children? Isn’t the truth of the matter what matters to a rational person, not the possible psychological vagaries that might go along with various truth-scenarios?

Why would a child believe what their parents and clergy tell them? Are you serious?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

But I assume that like myself you’ve only heard *of *this?? I certainly have heard of this kind of thing, if that’s what you meant. In any case, how is this essentially different from what you find in The Gulag Archipelago - atheist punishment of thought crimes?

Are you suggesting that Salman Rushdie does not have a death sentence passed on him by a faith based system, and that hundreds didnt die because of a faith based system over a cartoon?

And how many died under oppressive atheist regimes? I must return your “you’re kidding me?” if you claim to be unaware of these other victims.

Im very aware of history - look closely at Stalin, Hitler, and others, and look for the shadow of faiths - you’ll see.

Because your mentioning this is not germane to what you are claiming to accomplish by mentioning it (in other words, it’s a red herring). It proves nothing with regard to your contention that religions require one to leave rationality at the door.

It’s completely germaine to the point. To base a claim for land on a book several thousand years old, who’s authenticity is very questionable, and to slaughter thousands in conflict for that land, on both sides, is completely irrational.

Sarah x

 

[tandrew]

“Atheists (who by definition don’t believe in God) don’t do bad things in the name of God” is indeed a trivial statement, even to those being killed by non-atheists.

**The definition of an athesit is not someone who by definition doesnt believe in God - an atheist by definition says there is not enough evidence to support that belief and there is probably no god.
If evidence could be produced, I would have no hesitation in believing. **

1. Why would a child believe this?
2. This thought might torment some children, I don’t know, but suppose the thought of dying and being snuffed out caused torment to some children? Isn’t the truth of the matter what matters to a rational person, not the possible psychological vagaries that might go along with various truth-scenarios?

Why would a child believe what their parents and clergy tell them? Are you serious?

Sarah x

Truth of God is clearly seen. Have you ever felt love? I have. Have you ever gained knowledge of truth? God is love. Truth is God. All irrational thought begins and ends in hypocrisy. Everyone believes something to be true. Atheists prove the existance of God, for in their reasoning, they claim the truth is, there is no truth.

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl;7569527:

Truth of God is clearly seen. Have you ever felt love? I have. Have you ever gained knowledge of truth? God is love. Truth is God. All irrational thought begins and ends in hypocrisy. Everyone believes something to be true. Atheists prove the existance of God, for in their reasoning, they claim the truth is, there is no truth.

Felt love? Every day

Knowledge of truth - frequently sought and found.

Irrational thought is not hypocracy - it’s irrational thought.

Atheists dont claim the truth is there is no truth - in fact the opposite.

Sarah x

 

[tandrew]

tandrew;7569575:

Felt love? Every day

Knowledge of truth - frequently sought and found.

Irrational thought is not hypocracy - it’s irrational thought.

Atheists dont claim the truth is there is no truth - in fact the opposite.

Sarah x

Nontheless, there is a Truth that precedes our ignorance. This is what God is. I don’t care if your Atheist or not. Everyone has an image of God. Religion has given the term “God” a bad name. Hypocrisy is preaching something you don’t practice. To say there’s no God, is to say there’s no truth. Hypocrisy.

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl;7569608:

Everyone has an image of God. Religion has given the term “God” a bad name.

I dont.

But I do agree organised religion of every kind has some problematic images.

 

[tandrew]

tandrew;7569620:

I dont.

But I do agree organised religion of every kind has some problematic images.

How do you say what is right or wrong without having some absolute? Your image of God defines all your binary terms, good bad, knowledge ignorance,rich poor,failure success,evryone has an absolute, everyone has an image of God

 

[atheistgirl]

How do you say what is right or wrong without having some absolute? Your image of God defines all your binary terms, good bad, knowledge ignorance,rich poor,failure success,evryone has an absolute, everyone has an image of God

Im not an absolutist. That does not mean or imply I cannot have objectivity. I dont require an image of any god or gods to remain a moral human being, enjoy life to the fullest possible extent, know right from wrong, and see and fight injustices as I find them.

Sarah x

 

[tandrew]

Im not an absolutist. That does not mean or imply I cannot have objectivity. I dont require an image of any god or gods to remain a moral human being, enjoy life to the fullest possible extent, know right from wrong, and see and fight injustices as I find them.

Sarah x

On the contrary your not being objective at all, for one you’re being subjective in your term God. I’m not saying your require an image of God. I’m saying you make one up. You’ve already said you feel Love. To be objective you must now contend with whether God is the Spirit of Love or not. This is what all religions have in common and agree with. This Truth is self-evident. Do unto others what you would want done to you. This is the written letter of what Love does by nature. Do you agree?

 

[Pieman333272]

Im very aware of history - look closely at Stalin, Hitler, and others, and look for the shadow of faiths - you’ll see.

Stalin **was **an atheist. The claim that he went to a Seminary is true but he only became a politician and dictator after converting to hard atheism with a dash of Marxism. He and his party killed clergymen, burned a cathedral, and oppressed religion in general not out of separation of Church and State but because according to Stalin atheism was a fact. There is an obvious correlation between at least some of his evil actions and his atheism.

As for Hitler, modern history suggests that while he was baptized Catholic he was either an atheist or neopagan. It is extremely improbable, from a historical perspective, that he was Christian (especially practicing!) or Catholic, ignoring the fact that initiating the Holocaust would have excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church.

 

[atheistgirl]

On the contrary your not being objective at all, for one you’re being subjective in your term God. I’m not saying your require an image of God. I’m saying you make one up. You’ve already said you feel Love. To be objective you must now contend with whether God is the Spirit of Love or not. This is what all religions have in common and agree with. This Truth is self-evident. Do unto others what you would want done to you. This is the written letter of what Love does by nature. Do you agree?

In what way am I being subjective about god when god does not feature at all I have no made up image of a god I do not need. I feel love - yes. The love of my kids, my husband, my dogs, my horses, my hens - my neighbors, my employees, my relatives, the list’s a big one I also give love freely of myself. I contend this is to do with nature, and nothing to do with a god or spirit. Do unto others - the golden rule, is as old as humans, and not very much to do with Love with a capital L deriving from a god or gods.

Sarah x