Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[foghorn]

What do we do that makes us all the same?
Last I heard a theist was somebody who believes in God. Not read or thump the bible

That is a false claim.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Put another way… if you lack, or are without, or point blank refuse to, believe in a God, You are atheist. You agreed with me in that.
So how am I attacking anyone? Or being dishonest. Serious questions

The title of the thread is...​

“Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).”​

STOP your diversionary merry-go-round of definitions of atheist and theists.
Reported for diversion of thread.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Problem is cowardice. Believers are afraid they'll come to their senses.

 

[Trek]

The title of the thread is...​

“Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).”​

STOP your diversionary merry-go-round of definitions of atheist and theists.
Reported for diversion of thread.

I think it is obvious that no one can prove such a thing. And that’s the point of the thread.
But so what! That is the next question. Now the author of the thread should give accountability for why he posted such a open and shut case thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

atheist -
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is fine. For a long while there, you made no distinction between those who believe god does not exist and these who don't believe he does exist. Those are two very different things. It my not be an important distinction to you, but it results in flawed logic when you go to discuss it.

One cannot prove a negative. It is impossible for anyone to try to prove that god does not exist. Any atheist that tries to so is going to run into trouble.

What most atheists do - I being one of them - is simply not be convinced of things unless they are convincing. This the rational way all humans work, you included. You would not simply take my word that unicorns exist, you would want evidence.

And, were to produce a spirally horn from my pocket and say 'there is your evidence', you would likely say 'that evidence is not convincing; spirally horns have many mundane explanations.'

And were I to say 'Just be honest with yourself. Why are you in denial of unicorns?', you would (rightfully) look at me like I'm an idiot.

And were I to say 'Your entire world view is invalid because you come from the stance of someone with a non-belief in unicorns', you would probably stop talking to me at that point.

It seems pretty silly when I say it out loud, doesn't it?


I have never seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation. Unless someone wants to step forward and show me something new, I have no reason to suppose a god of any description exists. No one has stepped forward. No one has een been able to define this thing they believe in.

Including you. It's amusing how you project your own doubt: you declare I am dishonest because I don't believe in something I can't describe. Yet you believe in something you can't even describe yourself. You can't even describe what you believe. You're not dishonest with me; you're dishonest with yourself.

But thats OK. Beliefs don't have to be rational. And it's beside the point.

The point is in thread title. So far, no believer here has been able to defend their belief (whatever flavour of belief they prefer) in a god.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it is obvious that no one can prove such a thing. And that’s the point of the thread.
But so what! That is the next question. Now the author of the thread should give accountability for why he posted such a open and shut case thread.

Thank you for your honesty.

On this we agree. I think the existence of the thread is needlessly antagonistic - on the verge of religion-bashing for its own sake. I respect people regardless of their beliefs. Where they get into trouble is when they start asserting it everywhere. It begs push-back.



What surprises me is that you believer(s) took the bait. It was't a question that needed you to weigh in on; you would have done better to just chalk it up as a lure to enage you in bad faith.

But you did take the bait. And you put forth the very flawed arguments that are trivially dismantleable. Sorry about you luck there. You would do better to engage in a discussion whose premise if that of good faith, and this one wasn't.

 

[billvon]

So you believe in God?

Yep. I think there is something we would call a god out there. Pretty much a guarantee that it is nothing like what the various holy books describe, though.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't guarantee anything. Cthulhu be with you.

 

[Trek]

That is fine. For a long while there, you made no distinction between those who believe god does not exist and these who don't believe he does exist. Those are two very different things. It may not be an important distinction to you, but it results in flawed logic when you go to discuss it.

Both sides of the same coin. And they both use a ‘lack of evidence’ as a reason for their positions, then there is no real distinction. Because ultimately they believe the same thing but use different approaches. I am not interested that you are an atheist, I am only interested in why you are atheist.

What most atheists do - I being one of them - is simply not be convinced of things unless they are convincing. This the rational way all humans work, you included. You would not simply take my word that unicorns exist, you would want evidence.

Being convinced of something your satisfaction.
That is anything but rational. This thread idea is not rational. It is entirely irrational.
I don’t care about whether or not unicorns exist so why bring them up. Let’s keep the topic on God.

It seems pretty silly when I say it out loud, doesn't it?

That’s because it is pretty silly.
Let’s keep the topic on God, and what you think God is why you need specific types of evidence. That’s far more interesting.
Don’t you think?

 

[Trek]

I have never seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation.

So what?

Unless someone wants to step forward and show me something new, I have no reason to suppose a god of any description exists.

That’s ok.
So why do you spend years of your life talking about something that is as illusion to yourself as a unicorn. You people in here seem to be obsessed with not only talking about God, but throw temper tantrums, throwing out reports, and banning people who simply show how silly your understanding of God be is.

No one has stepped forward. No one has een been able to define this thing they believe in.

We define God all the the time, what are you talking about. At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.
Just google. Here are basic definitions from wiki..

God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaveC426913]

Both sides of the same coin. And they both use a ‘lack of evidence’ as a reason for their positions, then there is no real distinction. Because ultimately they believe the same thing but use different approaches. I am not interested that you are an atheist, I am only interested in why you are atheist.

OK, so I was right the first time. You make no distinction.

Likewise, you'll agree that you and fire-and-brimstone Bible-thumpers are two sides the of same coin.

Or perhaps you'd rather drop the strawmen?

Being convinced of something your satisfaction.
That is anything but rational.

This is an indefensible - and frankly, kooky - assertion. It can be dismissed outight.

This thread idea is not rational. It is entirely irrational.

Nevertheless, you have engaged in it, so you accept its terms.

I don’t care about whether or not unicorns exist so why bring them up. Let’s keep the topic on God.

You are unable to think rationally about God. I am employing an analogy to help you see some logic without triggering your pre-existing belief in the conclusion.

It is an analogy wherein you are put in the position of wanting evidence for something you do not believe in - which is precisely what you have been harping on about. That is a perfectly valid debate technique.

If your stance here were rational, you would not need to shy away from a valid, neutral analogy.

That’s because it is pretty silly.

Yes it is. I'm glad you see that. That is a huge admission on your part.

That's three times now you've conceded.

I'd say this thread is done.

 

[DaveC426913]

So why do you spend years of your life talking about something that is as illusion to yourself as a unicorn.

The same reason I spend time arguing about crime, corruption, poverty, and a host of other issues with the world.

You people in here seem to be obsessed with not only talking about God,

You didn't have to engage. But you did.
This wasn't your thread; nobody hijacked your conversation. You came here of you own free will.

but throw temper tantrums, throwing out reports, and banning people who simply show how silly your understanding of God be is.

Defending Jan now, are we?

We define God all the the time, what are you talking about. At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.
Just google. Here are basic definitions from wiki..

"We"? Wiki is not here. You are.

So, is that how you define God? Is that the God you are defending here?
Are you comfortable with us lifting anything from Wikipedia we see fit to challenge you on?

Or perhaps, more-to-the-point: when you asked what evidence I was looking for of God, if I had said "Oh, the one Wiki lists", would you have accepted that , and you would defend that in good faith?

At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.

The only God to be debated is yours. Wiki isn't here to defend itself. What is your definition of God?


You now, Jan tried this exact same dodge many years ago. He simply could not describe the very thing he believed in. It doesn't matter whether you are Jan, you are a clone of him.

In fact, I think I may take a page out of your book with the one-label thing. I'm just going to refer to (what was it you said?) "you people" as you Jans. I'm sure you're OK with that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Thumpers" works too.

 

[quant]

There are basically three types of religion that have evolved since ancient times:

• Animism : where inanimate and animate objects are imbued with special powers. Into this group of religions fall voodism, African beliefs etc.,
• Naturism: where the forces of nature are worshipped such as the sky, the seas, thunder, lightning etc., Into such religions fall the majority of major civilizations such as Graeco roman and Indo-aryan.
• Lastly there are the religions that question the basis of existence, in this group are the Judaic, Islamic and Egyptian beliefs.

Where does science stand as compared to these religions? Till the time of Newton and even possibly up to James Clerk Maxwell, it was logic and reason that prevailed, where nothing that could not be proved by empirical experiment was taken to be true. While certain reasoned beliefs were held to be true, these beliefs were based on logic and verifiable observations, such as the rotation of the earth or the movement of the earth around the sun and so on. However, post Max Planck the scenario undergoes a complete change from being a rational, logic based science to one that was largely replaced by supposition in the form of probability or even worse to a science that was based on the uneasy foundation where no other explanation was available. Relativity both special and general relativity falls squarely into the latter group.

What is the basis of these statements. Take quantum mechanics it is based on the belief that “at the level of the very, very, small thing behave differently from the behaviour of macroscopic objects”! The 2024 Nobel prize awarded to Anne Huillier, Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Kraus have proved the falseness of this statement by showing that it is possible to accurately track both the position and the momentum of an electron. This effectively cuts the ground under quantum mechanics as does the invention of optical atomic clocks which demonstrate in an unquestionable manner that atoms emit and absorb photons at the rate of hundreds of trillions of Hertz. The arthritic, illogical and baseless QM explanation of this process cannot explain such phenomena. True QM claims that it offers a PERFECT explanation for atomic spectra, but this is just not true: other better explanations exist.

This means that the whole of quantum mechanics becomes redundant and supports the view that it has functioned more as an animistic religion than as an empirical science. Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers. Any opposition is ruthlessly put down, as in the case of Bohm, who was founded from his tenured chair at Princeton and finally had to flee the country itself, although the claim is that this happened due to his early association with Marxism. The huge privilege in this kind of behaviour is that it enables the theory to enforce its views by (a) creating an impenetrable mathematical hoo-doo capable of baffling any reasoned approach and (b) by crushing all dissent through the use of formidable force. Are there alternatives? Yes there are. Read: Redefining the Electron” available on Amazon.

 

[exchemist]

There are basically three types of religion that have evolved since ancient times:

• Animism : where inanimate and animate objects are imbued with special powers. Into this group of religions fall voodism, African beliefs etc.,
• Naturism: where the forces of nature are worshipped such as the sky, the seas, thunder, lightning etc., Into such religions fall the majority of major civilizations such as Graeco roman and Indo-aryan.
• Lastly there are the religions that question the basis of existence, in this group are the Judaic, Islamic and Egyptian beliefs.

Where does science stand as compared to these religions? Till the time of Newton and even possibly up to James Clerk Maxwell, it was logic and reason that prevailed, where nothing that could not be proved by empirical experiment was taken to be true. While certain reasoned beliefs were held to be true, these beliefs were based on logic and verifiable observations, such as the rotation of the earth or the movement of the earth around the sun and so on. However, post Max Planck the scenario undergoes a complete change from being a rational, logic based science to one that was largely replaced by supposition in the form of probability or even worse to a science that was based on the uneasy foundation where no other explanation was available. Relativity both special and general relativity falls squarely into the latter group.

What is the basis of these statements. Take quantum mechanics it is based on the belief that “at the level of the very, very, small thing behave differently from the behaviour of macroscopic objects”! The 2024 Nobel prize awarded to Anne Huillier, Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Kraus have proved the falseness of this statement by showing that it is possible to accurately track both the position and the momentum of an electron. This effectively cuts the ground under quantum mechanics as does the invention of optical atomic clocks which demonstrate in an unquestionable manner that atoms emit and absorb photons at the rate of hundreds of trillions of Hertz. The arthritic, illogical and baseless QM explanation of this process cannot explain such phenomena. True QM claims that it offers a PERFECT explanation for atomic spectra, but this is just not true: other better explanations exist.

This means that the whole of quantum mechanics becomes redundant and supports the view that it has functioned more as an animistic religion than as an empirical science. Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers. Any opposition is ruthlessly put down, as in the case of Bohm, who was founded from his tenured chair at Princeton and finally had to flee the country itself, although the claim is that this happened due to his early association with Marxism. The huge privilege in this kind of behaviour is that it enables the theory to enforce its views by (a) creating an impenetrable mathematical hoo-doo capable of baffling any reasoned approach and (b) by crushing all dissent through the use of formidable force. Are there alternatives? Yes there are. Read: Redefining the Electron” available on Amazon.

Reported as off topic and for plugging, again, a crank physics book.

I now suspect you may be Dilip D James, the author of this book, trying to drum up sales.

 

[Pinball1970]

516 posts and no evidence for god. We are not asking for conclusive proof, (now at least despite the title) just some evidence, a little bit, a datum, a hint or a wisp.

 

[Trek]

Yes it is. I'm glad you see that. That is a huge admission on your part.

OK, so I was right the first time. You make no distinction.

An atheist is an atheist, and I’ve given definitions at least twice.
I’m only interested in why you are an atheist.

Likewise, you'll agree that you and fire-and-brimstone Bible-thumpers are two sides the of same coin.

Or perhaps you'd rather drop the strawmen?

It’s a poor analogy.
You have admitted to being an atheist.
I haven’t quoted any scriptures, or damned you all to hell for being an atheist.

This is an indefensible - and frankly, kooky - assertion. It can be dismissed outight.

Why? You are literally using your own standard to decide if something is convincing or not. Especially with regard to God. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Nevertheless, you have engaged in it, so you accept its terms.

There are no terms. That’s the point.
The question it poses is entirely silly.
He should know that nothing can really be proven outside of mathematics.
He or any of you people should elaborate on what he means by his question. It is an atheist mindset that produces these types of dialogue.
They do this purely to give justification to their belief. They believe that there is no evidence for God, because they/you are literally incapable of understanding God while you are atheist.
Go and see some ex atheist give a reason why they switched.

You are unable to think rationally about God. I am employing an analogy to help you see some logic without triggering your pre-existing belief in the conclusion.

You don’t know any of that.
It is all guess work.
It’s like a man without sight trying to explain to a person with sight what the person with sight is actually seeing.

Yes it is. I'm glad you see that. That is a huge admission on your part.

What makes you think belief in God requires the same standard of evidence as that of believing unicorns exist.
I don’t care about unicorns.
But if they did exist we would be able to see the evidence.
What evidence do you think belief in God requires? That’s what I want to know.

That's three times now you've conceded.
I'd say this thread is done.

This is you peoples problem.
You’re only interested in being seen to win so you can feel good about yourselves.
This thread exemplifies that.
Now a theist is holding your feet to the fire by asking real questions it has become very apparent

 

[Pinball1970]

So why do you spend years of your life talking about something that is as illusion to yourself as a unicorn. You people in here seem to be obsessed with not only talking about God, but throw temper tantrums, throwing out reports, and banning people who simply show how silly your understanding of God be is.

Well it would be nice to know why people believe despite all evidence to the contrary.

Also some of us are concerned with religion encroaching into our live where we do not want or need it, teaching garbage in the science class, teaching religion as historical fact, being told we cannot be moral without it, sticking its nose into women's rights and sexuality.

Oh yes we are not keen on people flying planets into building too.

 

[Pinball1970]

I’m only interested in why you are an atheist.

That is not the topic of the thread but I will answer.

I am an atheist because all the Bible claims turned out to be false.

 

[Pinball1970]

I haven’t quoted any scriptures, or damned you all to hell for being an atheist.

you have not given us one good reason to believe in a god either.

 

[Pinball1970]

Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers

What? Not the topic of the thread- at all.

Also QM has not done anything regarding belief, it just is. Physicists, the people who actually know what they are talking about, worked it all out in the 1920s and demonstrated it to be true.

We still use some of those equations, and theories today although things have progressed in the last 100 years.