• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Folly of Atheism

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
The problem is that most people do not consider the evidence to be evidence.
But what most people believe about the evidence does not prove anything.

Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe the earth was round, but most people were wrong, as we found out later.
Click to expand...

It may be 'evidence' but it is is not reliable evidence. That is why many people do not consider it to be evidence. By that standard there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god too. It is best to admit that your belief is based upon faith.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Bob the Unbeliever said:
Prove it.

Better yet? Prove that Benevolent Garden Pixies are NOT directly responsible for All Human Progress--

-- because I have it on Good Authority™ that no human ever got Inspired to think of a Good Idea, but what a Garden Pixie sat on his or her shoulder, and whispered Good Things into their subconscious.

Whichever "proof" you use to show Garden Pixies are myth? I'll apply with Equal Logic to your god-claims
Click to expand...
I do not have to prove anything to anyone...
People need to prove it to themselves if they want to know.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
ArtieE said:
I think you mean "I believe the coming of Baha'u'llah released the Holy Spirit into the world...". If you phrase it as a fact you are required to provide evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt that it actually happened.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is more accurate. I believe it. :)
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
Obviously they are beliefs. I do not have to type "I believe" in front of everything I believe.
Click to expand...
Then we can just assume everything you say is a belief or an opinion unless you specifically state it's a fact and provide sufficient evidence. That's easier. Same for me of course.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
Then we can just assume everything you say is a belief or an opinion unless you specifically state it's a fact and provide sufficient evidence. That's easier. Same for me of course.
Click to expand...
All statements are belief. Facts are of another breed.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
It may be 'evidence' but it is is not reliable evidence. That is why many people do not consider it to be evidence. By that standard there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god too. It is best to admit that your belief is based upon faith.
Click to expand...
What is reliable is very subjective so what is not reliable to you is reliable to me.
Why do so many consider the Bible reliable evidence?
I consider it evidence that God exists, but I do not consider it very reliable.

I do not know how you could have evidence against a God existing but I do know that there is evidence against a certain kind of God existing. The All-Loving God Christians believe in is a case in point. All the suffering in the world is evidence against such a God existing, but God could exist and be a different sort of fella.

My belief is based upon faith coupled with evidence because what cannot be proven with evidence must be taken on faith.
I do not even like God most of the time so why would I choose to believe in God if I had no evidence?
I am stuck with believing in God only because of the evidence :( just as you are stuck not believing in God because you see no evidence.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
ArtieE said:
Then we can just assume everything you say is a belief or an opinion unless you specifically state it's a fact and provide sufficient evidence. That's easier. Same for me of course.
Click to expand...
That works. Anything related to God or Messengers of God is a belief since it cannot be proven as a fact..
There are facts that support the beliefs but they do not prove it, not to everyone.

Keep in mind that a belief can be either true or false.
If a belief is true it is concordant with reality in which case it does not matter if it can be proven as a fact.
Do you understand what I mean?
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
God does not make mistakes because God is Infallible.
Humans think that God makes mistakes because humans are fallible.
This is logic 101 stuff.
Click to expand...

God does make mistakes because God is fallible.
This is Bible scripture 101 stuff.

Genesis 6:6
ICB
The Lord was sorry he had made human beings on the earth. His heart was filled with pain.

KJV
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

ESV
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.


1 Samuel 15:35
CEV
Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel.

KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

CEB
Samuel never saw Saul again before he died, but he grieved over Saul. However, the Lord regretted making Saul king over Israel.

​
Repenting, regretting, or being sorry for what one did is an admission that it was wrong; a mistake. We don't repent, regret, or are sorry for things we did right. God says he made a mistake in making man on earth, and he made a mistake in making Saul the king of Israel.

Simple as that: God makes mistakes. Mistakes he even admits to.

.
 
Last edited:
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
That works. Anything related to God or Messengers of God is a belief since it cannot be proven as a fact..
There are facts that support the beliefs but they do not prove it, not to everyone.

Keep in mind that a belief can be either true or false.
If a belief is true it is concordant with reality in which case it does not matter if it can be proven as a fact.
Do you understand what I mean?
Click to expand...
Sure.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
What is reliable is very subjective so what is not reliable to you is reliable to me.
Why do so many consider the Bible reliable evidence?
I consider it evidence that God exists, but I do not consider it very reliable.

I do not know how you could have evidence against a God existing but I do know that there is evidence against a certain kind of God existing. The All-Loving God Christians believe in is a case in point. All the suffering in the world is evidence against such a God existing, but God could exist and be a different sort of fella.

My belief is based upon faith coupled with evidence because what cannot be proven with evidence must be taken on faith.
I do not even like God most of the time so why would I choose to believe in God if I had no evidence?
I am stuck with believing in God only because of the evidence :( just as you are stuck not believing in God because you see no evidence.
Click to expand...

Reliable evidence exists regardless of observer. And the same sort of weak "evidence" that you have for God could be evidence against it. If a book says there is a God without any real support and is evidence for a God then a book that says a God does not exist would be the same sort of evidence. Personally I love the definition for scientific evidence because it first requires the believer to put his money where his mouth his. He has to find a reasonable test for his evidence, a test that could conceivably refute it. Then he only needs to find evidence that agrees with his concept. It is that first step that most theists cannot get over. They will not even try to think of a reasonable test that would refute their God. By the way, relying upon the work of others does not qualify as a reasonable test. One's idea must pass or fail on its own.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
That works. Anything related to God or Messengers of God is a belief since it cannot be proven as a fact..
There are facts that support the beliefs but they do not prove it, not to everyone.

Keep in mind that a belief can be either true or false.
If a belief is true it is concordant with reality in which case it does not matter if it can be proven as a fact.
Do you understand what I mean?
Click to expand...

Now if you could only think of a reasonable test that would refute your God those "facts" could be counted as evidence for your God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top