Pow! There Goes An Atheist 1.1 Down

Christian: Why do you believe that God does not exist?

Atheist: Simple, there is no evidence for existence of God.

Confused

Christian: How is no evidence for existence of God, evidence for nonexistence of God?

Atheist: What do you mean by that?

Christian: Well, if CSI or FBI find no evidence that Kray Brothers murdered Bill Bob, does that mean Kray Brothers did not murdered Bill Bob?

Atheist: No, but no one can  know for sure if they did or did not murdered Bill Bob.

Christian: You are correct, that position is called agnosticism. Simply means  no enough knowledge to decide.

Atheist: So for me to be an atheist, I need to have evidences that God does not exit?

Christian: Yeap. Moreover even if one succeed in refuting all arguments for existence of God, that by itself does not entail nonexistence of  God.

Atheist: How about the problem of Evil?

Christian: Well, we already answered that one last week.

Atheist: Yeah right! How about evolution?

Christian: Even if evolution is true, it does not entail nonexistence of God, because God could create a universe that evolves.

Atheist:  That is possible! Well give me time to think about that, and I will come with arguments against existence of God.

Christian: I am looking forward. Thank you for a wonderful chat.

Atheist: Thanks back to you.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Pow! There Goes An Atheist 1.1 Down

  1. Prayson: “You did not answer my question, Which argument for God assumes things, and what are those things assumed?”

    Well, I’ve gone through the whole website trying to find unanswered things, héhé, it’s too easy for you to get away through time passing by…I’m almost perfectly sure you see what I’m talking about, Prayson, you can be a little more honest, héhé…the argument William Lane Craig loves to bring up when he starts: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause…”, etc…almost every single debate from the man…no, I don’t know what you call it…”Ontological argument”? “Kalam’s argument”? I sincerely don’t know…but don’t use that as an excuse to not answer, héhé…you can do better than that…

    There was no time before the Big Bang, one point used thoroughly in it all, yet God decides to create the universe at a point in time rather than at another, as is hailed in another…I was just commenting on the bizarrery of the whole thing…

      • Héhéhé…I think I’ve made that pretty clear…and I think so has William Lane Craig, I heard him so many times…roughly “Since there was no time [“or space” — not sure he says exactly that], the cause must be timeless [“and spaceless” or something, he adds]”…

        • Okay, I will list them down: You said “no time”

          Lists Of Hehe “unanswered” Assumption in Arguments for God
          1. Begin of Time

          What else is assumed?

  2. using this logic, you must also believe in unicorns, fairies, witches, ufos, martians, sasquatch, spaghetti monsters, trools, elves, ghosts, sea monsters, yeti, etc.

  3. Well, héhé…I’m not sure if the word “positive” is the right one to use…and I’d say you can justify believing unicorns, fairies, goblins and such DON’T EXIST, because what they are claimed to be capable of doing hasn’t been verifiably observed at any instance in the past (all magic), which makes them improbable…there are, of course, myriads of reasons to fail to believe in them (most importantly the fact that one never sees, hears, feels, or interacts with them; héhé, sounds somewhat familiar?)…

      • Héhé…re-read my comment…most of my teachers, my parents, my classmates all firmly believed in these things…they had went to voodoo ceremonies and SEEN bizarre things happen…they weren’t reading them from 2000-year old books…if anything, I’d say their faith had a more solid basis…

        As for your philosophical arguments (the universe has a cause, etc), they never lead to a Christian God anyway, only to a Deist one, and I don’t find such a position terribly indefensible…but I’m sure science will make it redundant (of course, I don’t accept Hawking’s and other scientists ideas as of yet; a lot of it is speculation, though there is some evidence to back them up)…

        • You are true it lead to Deism. We could see this in late ex-notorious atheist Antony Flew. I would present Historical Resurrection of Jesus to point one to Christianity.

      • Héhéhé…to my knowledge, I’ve shattered that point (the Resurrection) at least 3 subsequent times on here, only to be ignored at each one (and I thought, a couple months ago, banned from the site)…I heard about Anthony Flew, héhé…again, appeal to authority, you like to mention him alot, I think you have a couple articles about him, gleefully hailing him as a Deist…I don’t cite nonbelievers (héhé, most people are believers anyway) as if it helps my case in any way…just playing the philosophy game since I mentioned philosophy, I’m not seriously protesting that you mentioned him…

        I want to make clear that I don’t accept those arguments, I think they assume things we aren’t in a position to assume at this stage (especially the requirement that something setting the universe into motion had to be personal, that might be the case but I don’t think the people making the argument know what they’re saying…I always wonder why astronomers don’t come to that conclusion, I guess they need to think harder about it and learn from people who know much less about astronomy)…it’s easy to seduce people with the argument, it’s easy to attempt to use the ignorance (in astronomy) of one’s opponents to make an argument compelling…Richard Feynman once dismissed 2 philosopher for attempting to prove that consciousness couldn’t be created using words, logic, reason, the whole arsenal from Craig-like folks…he said: “It’s a scientific question, science has to answer it”…that’s what I’d say about this issue, throwing propositions around, based on “facts” that we aren’t yet sure of (relying on our intuitions) isn’t the way to arrive at the right conclusion…whatever IS really going on, it’ll be counterintuitive, as Daniel Dennet likes to precise…

      • The “personal”-part of the whole argument, it’s assumed that someone has to decide to do something at a point in time…what that means I don’t know, especially that time didn’t even exist before the Big Bang, as is hailed in another part of the argument…

      • Again, I really hope this falls in the right spot, I can imagine someone coming to read our discussion and not being able to follow (maybe you can edit everything, put things back in place or something)…anyway, I don’t know their names (they all have important sounding names, haha)…it’s the one that shows that a personal God had to create the universe, I don’t know what you call it…

    • In the same way that you justify believing in God (you do know some people still believe in them, right? At least I heard a this one guy talking about the way his grandfather or something in Ireland or somewhere like that actually believed in those things)…you say you heard something, you were helped in a way that you wouldn’t have if they DIDN’T exist…you present coincidences and pretend they leave no room for natural explanations…you say it’s hard to invent such a thing…you say you saw one running away while in the fields…you say one changed your life, brought you luck that you wouldn’t have without them…there are many ways to “justify” believing that fairies, unicorns, goblins exist…

      Hell, héhé, I don’t know why I’m talking about remote places in Ireland, what about Haiti where I come from? I was LAUGHED at for mocking the idea of people turning into cows, for saying that I didn’t believe in “mèt dlo” (some mermaid like creature in the waters, actually were said to live in a river near where I lived, a neighbor would talk about the 3 days she spent under there)…and you know they believe in zombies (so do you, héhé, Jesus did rise from the dead after all)…they believe in very Greek-like gods over there…you DEFINITELY can justify believing in fairies…some of their anecdotes would make great Hollywood movies (a friend once used to hear screaming from a house his parents later fled from)…

      • Héhéhé…I said “I guess” because I’m pretty ignorant (and I actually know it) about all that and I’ve heard most experts say (including Hawking himself) that there’s no real (maybe “direct” wasn’t the right word) evidence to support his ideas, that they had not been demonstrated yet…very VERY far from being as well established as evolution, héhé…and I’m not sure any observations were made to really make the whole idea, the observations that were actually made, applicable to the universe itself, but I’m not sure I know what I’m talking about at this stage (héhé, it’s not hard to admit that)…

    • Well, observations in the lab and such, things popping into existence,,,not direct evidence, I guess…

  4. Christian: Why do you believe that God does not exist?

    Athiest: You clearly do not understand that atheism is the absence of beleif – there is no evidence or reason to accept claims for a god. Atheism is not a beleif in no gods, atheism is a reject of beleifs in gods.

    It’s the same non-beleif that Christians have in the Greek, Roman, Norse, Aztec, Mayan and other culture’s gods, only atheists don’t stop beleiving until the entire list of the 10s of thousands of gods and goddesses that have been worshipped is exhausted.

    So, the only difference between a believer of any given religion and a non-beleiver, is the number of gods contained in the religion perferred by the beleiver.

    Christian: ???

      • Héhéhé…nice try, but atheism isn’t a belief to begin with…you can’t have an absence of belief in something that’s not a belief, that’s not to be believed…you can’t have an absence of belief in the non-belief in unicorns or Santa Claus…

      • Héhéhé…clever twisting of the issue…YES, not believing that God doesn’t exist doesn’t need justification…that said, the Christian (since the questionner isn’t a 50/50 agnostic, IS a Christian) also believes God exists, thus must justify that…a nonbeliever who just fails to believe God exists doesn’t have some belief behind that as a believer does that he/she needs to justify…

        You only need to explain yourself about not believing in something after you’ve been presented with “evidence” for it (it’s your task to knock it down at that point, you do need justifying if you stay in your position…which is what you’ve watched me do about the resurrection and other things, for instance,on here…someone who doesn’t believe evolution happened (fails to believe it) only needs to justify his/her position after being presented with the evidence…of course, a Creationist or such would also have to justify believing in the story to begin with, even without embracing evolution (I think many fail to see this, they think knocking down evolution is evidence for Creationism. I’m going to check out your new article after this))…William Lane Craig always says something like: “He has provided no evidence that atheism is true”, héhé, after a nonbeliever knocked down his arguments that Christianity (and such) are true, which is all you’ve got to do, really, to continue not believing in something (again, you only need justification after being presented with “evidence”)…

        An example of someone claiming that God (probably) doesn’t exist and justifying himself would be Stephen Hawking, citing the immensity and the carelessness of the universe around us, how petty humans are in it (of course, an argument for a Christian-like, caring God)…he also argued God (even a deist one) wasn’t necessary to explain our origins in his “recent” book…he’s making a positive claim, in the first case…in the other, he’s showing a more economical solution…while the 2nd is no evidence that there isn’t a creator, it does justify not believing God exists (not “believing God doesn’t exist”)…

      • One ought to have rational reasons for his or her belief or disbelief. It is what we call Reasonable Faith, or in sense of Atheism, Reasonable Unbelief 🙂

      • For belief, but only after having been presented with evidence, for nonbelief…you can’t go up to a Santa Claus nonbeliever and say: “Why don’t you believe in Santa Claus? Justify yourself!”, no, you have to say something like: “Since I was a child, my parents told me Santa Claus existed. I believe what my parents told me”, or “Last night I found evidence that someone came down my chimney”, then the nonbeliever has to destroy (you can see how easy that’d be) those statements. He DOESN’T have any justifying to do, he only has tearing down to do when AFTER he is presented with “evidence”…in other words, he DOESN’T have a case to present, that’s what is usually meant by “the burden of proof is on the believer”…it’s simple…

        • But atheist are also believers Hehe!

          Children grow out of Santa Claus because they find no reason to believe he exist and that their parents too knows he does not exist. But this is not so with Judeo-God. Even children who did not grow up in family that believe in God start believing him. Thus Santa Claus analogy to God is one of Dawkinian weakest attack to Christianity.

      • I hope this one will fall in the right spot…atheists aren’t believers, héhé…some of us are ACCEPTERS (including me) that God (as spoken of by Christians) probably doesn’t exist…in general, a nonbeliever fails to believe in God…then a Christian comes along and presents his God, Loving, All Powerful, All Knowing, etc, and a nonbeliever breaks the idea apart…in so doing, not only can he resume his lack of belief, but he can realize how absurd the idea is…of course, that’s not how it happens in reality, usually we’ve heard about the Christian God in the first place and have already worked out it doesn’t make sense…

        You forgot a crucial word: “sometimes”…SOMETIMES children go back to belief…and yes, I acknowledge there’s a difference between a unicorn, a goblin, a fairy and God, since the latter explains the origins of the cosmos, etc, while the first don’t…but again, there ISN’T much a difference between goblins, fairies, etc and the Christian God (with all the additional baggage added to the Deist one)…Santa Claus is a very good analogy…well, maybe something we can’t actually go hunt down at the North Pole and watch the skies for…maybe goblins and fairies…

        As a passing detail: I usually hear that parents tell their children Santa doesn’t exist…I could be wrong…

      • Hahaha…I believe he probably doesn’t exist (a huger probability that for a Deist God)…like unicorns, fairies and such…I’m not 100% sure they don’t exist either, but it’s pretty close (99.99999% maybe, héhé)…you CAN’T be sure of anything, at the end of the day…

      • Hahaha…exactly, you’re right, maybe we CAN be sure of something at a point, but we certainly don’t know that at this point…aren’t SURE of that at this point…

  5. Isn’t agnosticism the position that knowledge about the existence or non-existence of God or gods is unknowable? It’s not that the individual agnostic doesn’t know one way or the other, the agnostic position is that it (existence of God or gods) is unknowable.

    As an atheist, I don’t need to prove the non-existence of God in order for me to “know” it, much like the Christian doesn’t need to prove the existence of God in order to “know” it. I know leprechauns and unicorns don’t exist, but I can’t prove it. Some (most?)Christians know Heaven, Hell and Satan exist, but they can’t prove that either.

    • I think you are right. Gnosis is a Greek word for “knowledge” or more specific insight. Agnostic hold a position saying one need to be omniscient to claim certain beliefs.(Example existence of God).

      You are correct in saying one does not have to prove something to know it. But one ought to have rational justifiable ground to hold the position than not holding it.

      Read my article: Burden of Proof: The Atheist’s Rabbit Hole and read the comments to which followed, we had almost the some topic.

      • I used to call myself “agnostic” until I read that sort of definition, though most people I’ve met or read don’t seem to use it…it does look like the right one to use, though…I was afraid of the term “atheist” because I thought it meant “100% certainty that God doesn’t exist” (my sister and a nonbeliever friend like it, though, héhé, the latter for the shock it causes in religious circles: “Atheist?!! Dear Lord!!”), mirroring religious faith…héhé, I now settle for “nonbeliever”, which better reflects the position of most…well, nonbelievers, héhé…

        As Sam Harris suggests, though, we shouldn’t be using a word at all…but I guess being a minority makes that very impractical (when all but one dish on a table are sugar-free, we tend to single out that dish, not the sugar-free ones)…

      • Though I’m sure future generations will realize WE weren’t the bizarre ones, héhé…

      • Hehe said: “I now settle for “nonbeliever”, which better reflects the position of most…well, nonbelievers,”

        I’m considering using the word “independent” the next time I’m asked in person what religion I am. In the US that word is used to describe someone who doesn’t declare themselves to be aligned with any political party. If you look up that definition, it seems to be a pretty good fit (for me, anyway).

  6. Héhéhé…not many people who call themselves “atheist” believe God doesn’t exist…most just don’t believe He exists…

Comments are closed.