Why so necessary to do that ?

[Magic Man]

After determining atheistic point of view, I determined that non believers can go to any extent to prove non existence of God. Why it is so necessary to do that ?

And further why it also so necessary to press like, funny, winner, love, useful, optimistic, creative and most importantly informative button when somebody reply in favor of atheism ?

What is the "atheistic point of view", other than "I don't believe a theistic god exists"?

The good part is it's not necessary to go to many extents to prove that the evidence for theistic gods' existence is sorely lacking. The real question is why is your evidence for your god lacking?

 

[chinu]

I see bucket loads of protection here. I wonder why?

Perhaps, wonderland is the only right place for you.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps, wonderland is the only right place for you.

Insults don't work.

You continually post threads addressed to atheists and now you gripe because atheists visit the threads and agree with their fellow atheists.

Its almost like you have an agenda going here.

 

[chinu]

I could equally argue that any 'true atheist' would be unaffected mentally by a loss in a single debate.

If the evidence were there, most atheists would *love* to believe. They just see the evidence given as being *very* weak and completely unconvincing. The lack of belief isn't the foundation of our mental health as belief seems to be for theists.

I don't know what make you think that loosing a debate affect mental health of a true theist. I loosed debate many times, but, this really NEVER affected my mental health in any way or another.

But yes, I don't like any abusive language. And, I have a very good solution for that. I start ignoring such people.

 

[chinu]

You continually post threads addressed to atheists and now you gripe because atheists visit the threads and agree with their fellow atheists.

Asking question about something doesn't mean I have any kind of problem with that.

Its almost like you have an agenda going here.

No agenda. Stop wrong assumptions.

 

[chinu]

It is normal to show support for posts one agrees with.

Thank you for providing me the BEST answer.

Why should there be an exception for posts arguing for atheism?

That is NOT my question.

 

[ChristineM]

Asking question about something doesn't mean I have any kind of problem with that.

No agenda. Stop wrong assumptions.

If you say so, i am just considering history

If you say so. I am competing history and current content.

Nothing more.

 

[PureX]

In general atheists simply don't have a belief that deities exist. But the burden of proof is on the theists: THEY are the ones making an existence claim, so the burden of proof falls on them.

1. "Belief" is irrelevant. Theism is a branch of philosophy based on the proposition that a "God" of some sort exists, and exists in a way that somehow effects humanity. We can accept that proposition based on the argument in favor of it, or reject that proposition based on the argument against it. What we "believe" or "disbelieve" about it is just unrestrained bias.

2. It has long been established that proof is not possible for an existentially transcendent entity. So demanding proof of it is a fool's errand at best, and is disingenuous on the face of it. However, because theism is presenting the proposal, it is obliged to present whatever logical evidence it's using to justify the proposal, first, and for consideration.

Evidence, however, is not proof, and should not be expected or demanded to rise to that level. And the evidence should to be defined by the proposition, not by the antagonists of the proposition.

 

[chinu]

What is the "atheistic point of view", other than "I don't believe a theistic god exists"?

Difference is asking question in response to question.

The good part is it's not necessary to go to many extents to prove that the evidence for theistic gods' existence is sorely lacking. The real question is why is your evidence for your god lacking?

 

[chinu]

If you say so, i am just considering history

If you say so. I am competing history and current content.

Nothing more.

No I really don't understand what you mean by saying this.

Please explain ?

 

[chinu]

After determining the theistic point of view, I determined that believers go to any extent to prove the existence of God. Particularly @chinu .
Why is it so necessary to do that ?

That is my question. You answer first.

 

[alsome]

Why do a lot of atheists ask questions about the evidence presented to prove their god exists at all. Their answers are soooo far from truth ???? And we ask in a different way and get the non-sensible, I mean---there aren't any angles are there ? And trumpets in heaven ? Give me a break here----this is trolling for meat !

 

[chinu]

I get an impression of Sufi.
That was reinforced by the story he shared recently about the waters of madness. It is a Sufi teaching story.

I follow all religions. I learn from all religions. I believe that the beginners of all religions taught the one same thing with NO any bit of difference. All differences are created by the people thereafter, thank you.

 

[ChristineM]

No I really don't understand what you mean by saying this.

Please explain ?

I am sure you do understand. It really is easy to read. But never mind eh?

 

[chinu]

I am sure you do understand. It really is easy to read. But never mind eh?

Of course it is easy to read. But, seriously I really don't understand what you meant by saying all that.

 

[Nakosis]

I would say that atheists are unconvinced by the evidence God has given for His existence.

I would say unconvinced by the claims made by other folks on God's behalf.

People who are convinced they can make claims about God. Since I don't really know these people, I've no reason to trust their claims.
Also, as I've come to learn more about what the subconscious mind is capable of, I think it is quite possible for the subconscious mind to create an experience to support one's belief. I assume the evidence you refer to is spiritual in nature?
Spirituality IMO is the realm of the human psyche. I'm happy to accept the apparent reality of "spiritual" experiences, however I see this more as evidence of what the human mind is capable of than God.

 

[Polymath257]

1. "Belief" is irrelevant. Theism is a branch of philosophy based on the proposition that a "God" of some sort exists, and exists in a way that somehow effects humanity. We can accept that proposition based on the argument in favor of it, or reject that proposition based on the argument against it. What we "believe" or "disbelieve" about it is just unrestrained bias.

2. It has long been established that proof is not possible for an existentially transcendent entity. So demanding proof of it is a fool's errand at best, and is disingenuous on the face of it. However, because theism is presenting the proposal, it is obliged to present whatever logical evidence it's using to justify the proposal, first, and for consideration.

Evidence, however, is not proof, and should not be expected or demanded to rise to that level. And the evidence should to be defined by the proposition, not by the antagonists of the proposition.

Sure. And evidence is something whose truth changes the probability one way or the other.

So, what evidence changes the a priori probability of the existence of a deity?

Also, in the sciences, it is recognized that 100% proof of any general statement about the real world is impossible. But, nonetheless, they can provide 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for a great many things. Theology has come nowhere close to that. It hasn't even managed to get to 'a preponderance of the evidence'.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. "Belief" is irrelevant. Theism is a branch of philosophy based on the proposition that a "God" of some sort exists, and exists in a way that somehow effects humanity. We can accept that proposition based on the argument in favor of it, or reject that proposition based on the argument against it. What we "believe" or "disbelieve" about it is just unrestrained bias.

This is a terrible run-around exercise accomplishing nothing. You want to present ideas of "god" using the same paltry, insufficient forms of evidence that have always been used, then I will most likely REJECT the proposition. Are you satisfied? Or do you have more games you want to play now and say something like "Rejecting or accepting a proposition is just unrestrained hatred for your fellow man who is making the proposition." Believing something or not believing something is a completely fundamental and simple activity that we all participate in nearly all the time. And it isn't, necessarily, driven by "bias" if we choose to disbelieve something until evidence is presented to cover off on the value of truth to the claim. For example, if a stranger is accused of murder, and yet during the time the victim dies that stranger was in a bar with me, then the detectives working the case have a pretty heavy burden of evidence to present to me before I am going to believe them that this man I don't even know committed the murder. I don't really have too much stake in the matter one way or the other. If he is guilty, I want to see him brought to justice, and if not, then I want him to roam as freely as I do. It isn't "bias" that is swaying me toward claiming his innocence. It is EVIDENCE.

So demanding proof of it is a fool's errand at best, and is disingenuous on the face of it.

This is you stating that asking for proof before you will believe someone's outrageous claims about something is disingenuous. Incredibly strange. So when someone comes to you making an unfalsifiable claim about something you cannot possibly investigate, what do you, personally, do? Believe them right out of the gate? Are you being serious?

Evidence, however, is not proof, and should not be expected or demanded to rise to that level. And the evidence should to be defined by the proposition, not by the antagonists of the proposition.

What you seem to be advocating for, right at the end here, is that as long as the evidence is claimed to fit the proposition by non-antagonists of said proposition, then we should all accept it as evidence of said proposition? How about things like "just look at the trees?" Where does that fit as evidence for God? Is it justified to claim that as evidence? Must I accept that as evidence if I am the antagonist to the proposition? Ultimately I am asking - when the subject matter is unknowable, WHO gets to decide what qualifies as "evidence" for that subject matter? Your ideas of the set of people qualified to address items as evidence had better not exclude skeptics of the proposition, I'll tell you that right up front. Not going to fly. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course it is easy to read. But, seriously I really don't understand what you meant by saying all that.

Ok

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence, however, is not proof, and should not be expected or demanded to rise to that level. And the evidence should to be defined by the proposition, not by the antagonists of the proposition.

I missed this the first time I saw it. And I completely disagree with this. Both the proponents and the opponents of a position are free to give their evidence and to argue against the evidence proposed by others. For that matter, the same is true of those that are neutral about the proposition.

So, I agree that proof, outside of pure logic and math, is impossible. But mere consistency is NOT the same as evidence.

For example, it is certainly *consistent* with the existence of unicorns that horses exist. But, the existence of horses is not evidence for unicorns. And, in fact, the existence of horses is not evidence one way or the other for the existence of unicorns.

Someone claiming the existence of unicorns does NOT get to state what is and is not evidence for the existence of unicorns. Instead, they get to state what the properties of unicorns are and offer up what they consider to be evidence. Those who don't think unicorns exist (or that the evidence is weak) get to offer alternative explanations of the 'evidence' or to show how the offered evidence has no bearing on the existence of unicorns at all.

I propose that the same level of evidence for the existence of a deity be required as for the existence of anything else. If the evidence would not be enough to support the existence of unicorns, it isn't enough to support the existence of a deity.

As a common example, the existence of a tree is neither evidence for nor against the existence of a deity. It is simply irrelevant. The reason? Trees would exist whether or not there is a deity. Their existence doesn't change the probability of the existence of a deity at all. The same is true for the rest of life on Earth and , for that matter, for every piece of evidence offered in support of the existence of a deity.

We also know that philosophical reasoning isn't able to provide real evidence. It is far too easy to be mislead by philosophical speculation and there are too many alternatives to any philosophical statement made. Again, philosophy alone cannot change the ultimate probabilities.

So, I would ask what *actual* evidence for the existence of a deity has been given. Ever. What actual observation or argument changes the likelihood of there being a deity one iota?