Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[Trek]

Moderator note: This thread was split from another one in which Believers were asked to provide evidence for the existence of God.

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

Faith is not a response to that, it's a dodge. We've had several thousand years for such proof to be found and so far, nada.

www.sciforums.com

Trek tried to shift the focus onto the reasons why he believes atheists lack belief in God. Those posts, and related replies, were split to this thread.
-----

I don't disbelieve God, all I ask for is evidence.

You are lying.
You don’t want to accept that there is God.
That is what lies behind your atheism. Not a lack of evidence

 

[Trek]

Again, presumptive. I grew up Catholic. I went to church and Catechism every week.

lol!!!
That is the equivalent of saying “I’m not racist, I have a black friend”.
The truth from perspective having chatted with you, and reading what you write in this silly thread, is that you are in denial of God. You only use the evidence card to get you out of actually expressing that denial.
You’re an interesting case

 

[Trek]

I have been in your shoes; you have not been in mine

What shoes would those be?

 

[DaveC426913]

You are lying.
You don’t want to accept that there is God.
That is what lies behind your atheism. Not a lack of evidence

Reported.

 

[James R]

Trek:

I don't disbelieve God, all I ask for is evidence. That's the lot of we flawed humans; we can't know truth, all we can do is look at the world we see and decide the most practical way to move forward in it.

You are lying.
You don’t want to accept that there is God.
That is what lies behind your atheism. Not a lack of evidence

What led you to the conclusion that DaveC was lying?

How do you know what DaveC wants to accept or wants not to accept? Do you have a magical window into DaveC's mind? Did your God tell you what DaveC wants to accept? Please explain how you know what you claim to know.

To me, it sounds like you prefer to believe that DaveC doesn't accept that there is a God because, for reasons you imply you know but which you haven't specified, he doesn't want to accept there is a God, rather than to take DaveC's statement at face value - that he doesn't accept there is a God because he hasn't seen sufficient evidence that there is a God.

Why should an unbiased reader go with your unsupported assertions about DaveC's hidden motives and desires, rather than with DaveC's straightforward statement of his own reasons?

On the face of it, your clams that DaveC has hidden motivations that you say you know about, without specifying what they are or how you know he has them, are very weak. Don't you agree?

Please explain.

 

[Trek]

What led you to the conclusion that DaveC was lying?

To say one doesn’t believe in God due to a lack of evidence means you know what evidence of God looks like.
If you you know what evidence of God would look like, you would stipulate that particular evidence as a reason.
It seems to me that the “there is no evidence” card is a deflection

 

[Pinball1970]

If you you know what evidence of God would look like

No, we have been shown how the universe is without the need for a god. All the claims of a god intervening and structures in the universe having a god origin including us have been over turned.

Volcanos earth quakes and thunderstorms

The movement of planets

Mental illness famine and disease

Birth death crops , shooting stars

Rainbows.

Life on earth

The creation of the universe

 

[DaveC426913]

To say one doesn’t believe in God due to a lack of evidence means you know what evidence of God looks like.

... to me.

It means I know what evidence I would accept as pointing toward God as opposed to some more plausible explanation.
A burning bush is not evidence of God. A tome full of parables and rules for behaviour is not evidence of God. etc.

If you you know what evidence of God would look like, you would stipulate that particular evidence as a reason.

It doesn't work that way. The onus is not on me to provide evidence that I don't think is evidence.

Especially since my list is infinite. I don't believe a burning bush is evidence. I don't believe a flood is evidence. I don't believe trees or birds or bee are evidence, etc.

Am I getting warm? Are you about to interrupt and say 'No no no! You've got it wrong! The evidence you should be looking at is X and Y!'

Well, why don't we just skip the middle step of me guessing? Let's start off with you telling me what evidence I should be looking at. Because, as it stands, anything I have already seen is not it.

It is up to you (collectively) to present evidence to support your claim. Ideally, you'll start with your best evidence.

It seems to me that the “there is no evidence” card is a deflection

Look, I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster for lack of evidence. It is not up to me to root out every possible blurry photo and drunkard's account of ripples in the water and say 'I don't believe this is sufficient evidence'. It is up to the Loch Ness proponent to provide that evidence to support his claim. Presumably he'll lead with his best.


Is that a deflection? It's not. What is a deflection is God proponents putting the onus on skeptics. Pony up if you've got anything.

 

[Trek]

No, we have been shown how the universe is without the need for a god.

Stop lying.
You have been shown a minute snapshot of the universe. There’s more reason to believe there is an intelligence behind the manifestation, than it just popped into being willy-nilly, or it is eternal

All the claims of a god intervening and structures in the universe having a god origin including us have been over turned.

There is no way you, an atheist, could begin to know that. As far as you’re concerned there is no God. Period. You have absolutely no reason to really accept that unless you’re a materialist, and materialism cannot come to any real conclusions

 

[Trek]

It means I know what evidence I would accept as pointing toward God

What is the evidence that would point towards God?

 

[DaveC426913]

What is the evidence that would point towards God?

Let's start by bookending it - establishing that there is some evidence I would consider that God is real - and work backward from -


Wait a minute.... a point of order:

Stop lying.

I see you've done it again.

Why would I engage with someone who simply accuses any opponent of lying when they don't like something?

You've accused me of lying. (Because apparently you can read my mind.) I thought it might have been a one-off, but it's looking like a habit of yours. (I guess you can read pinballs; mind now too.)


Before I waste any time engaging with you, explain why I should, if you're just going to call me or anyone else a liar.

 

[Trek]

Let's start by bookending it - establishing that there is some evince I would consider that God is real - and works backward from there.

Wait a minute....

You’re talking nonsense.
You have no idea of what would constitute evidence for God. That comes with being a real atheist.

 

[DaveC426913]

You’re talking nonsense.
You have no idea of what would constitute evidence for God. That comes with being a real atheist.

Says the guy who thinks he's a telepath...

You think you can read my mind; now you think you can read pinball's mind.

Your best defense is "Everybody is lying."

Explain how you expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Trek]

Says the guy who thinks he's a telepath...

I don’t have to be a telepath.
Your atheist designation tells me all I need to know

You think you can read my mind; now you think you can read pinball's mind.

No. But I can read what you write

Your best defense is "Everybody is lying."

I wasn’t aware I was defending anything.
What am I defending?

Explain how you expect anyone to take you seriously.

By being able to read and comprehend what I’m saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t have to be a telepath.
Your atheist designation tells me all I need to know

Well done. You have successfully dehumanized your opponent. They are nothing more than a label. That's the way to convince yourself you don't have to actually think and consider.

I guess your "theist designation" tells me all I need to know about you? You beat your child with a rod; you shun any man who is blind, deaf or lame, you stone your daughter if she lies with a man out of wedlock. Are you comfortable with a one-word label to which I get to apply whatever meaning suits me?


But more logically, you are guilty of using your conclusion as your premise.

"Your honour: You don't need evidence, just use your eyes! He looks like a criminal! All people of his colour are criminals!"

Believers are hideously bad at logic when it comes to their beliefs. You give them a bad name.

I wasn’t aware I was defending anything.

If you weren't trying to defend your own beliefs, you wouldn't have to call anyone else a liar.


And so we have other believer who sticks their fingers in their ears and says lalala. All they have to do is outright deny what they hear, claiming they can tell when people are lying - and reduce them from thinking humans to one-word labels - and they can wrap themselves in a blanket of their own beliefs. Same thing - every time.
Are there any believers out there who aren't lost in their own Echo Chamber?

 

[Trek]

Well done. you have successfully dehumanized your opponent. They are nothing more than a label. That's the way to convince yourself you don't have to actually think and consider.

Stop playing victim.
The fact you are atheist means that for you there is no God. So no amount of evidence will convince you. But to use “there is no evidence” is just dishonest, because for you there can’t be no evidence as you have no idea what it is you don’t believe in. See how that works.

But more logically, you are guilty of using your conclusion as your premise.

The question was asked of you.
I don’t need to posit a premise to ask you a question.

Q Why don’t you believe in God
A There’s no evidence
Q How do you know there is no evidence
A Errrmmm!!!

Believers are hideously bad at logic when it comes to their beliefs. You give them a bad name.

You are an unbeliever..
What do you know?
All you know is that there is no God. Why?
Because you’re an atheist
That’s all you can ever know

If you weren't trying to defend your own beliefs, you wouldn't have to call anyone else a liar.

I call you a liar because you lied about wanting evidence. You can’t want evidence because you don’t know what evidence is required when asked. You’re better off saying God does not exist. Because that is your truth.
If I am wrong correct me
It’s that simple

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You’re talking nonsense.
You have no idea of what would constitute evidence for God. That comes with being a real atheist.

You have no idea either. Just being afraid of the dark isn't evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I call you a liar

Then there is no discussion here.

You simply deny anything you don't want to hear - and reduce your opponent to a nothing in the process. You have no reason to deny except because you don't like it. Like a 6 year old. You're not 6 years old.


The irony is that it has caused you to lose the argument. Stating that your opponent is a liar is an invalid defense. It takes nothing away from me or pinball because your label doesn't make us something just because you say so. But it does take away from you, because it has left your opposition defenseless. You cannot know the operation of another's mind (which is what you would have to do to call them a liar. Either that. or you would have to show - here, in thread - another knowingly stating a falsehood with the intent to deceive),

So you have left yourself defenseless.

 

[Pinball1970]

Stop lying

Project much?

You have not learned anything whatsoever it seems from previous exchanges, and probably hope we have forgotten all of your ridiculous lies and claims from the thread you ran away from right?

Unfortunately, we do understand science (still) and we DO remember all of your ridiculous lies and claims.

 

[Trek]

You have no idea either. Just being afraid of the dark isn't evidence.

Said like a totally blind from both person who think everybody is like him. He thinks this way purely in the basis that he can’t see therefore nobody else can see.