So atheists, what if you are wrong

a reply to: Leahn

You know what? Never mind, I'm going to do something more constructive with my time and watch T.V.

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: peter vlar
Could you explain how exactly not believing there is enough evidence to show that any creator entity exists at all, let alone the specific Christian version of he/she/it, means that I cede all authority to speak for myself to Richard Dawkins? And you're ranting and raving about fallacies? impressive degree of cognitive dissonance you've got there.

Because your post speaks for itself. You said that if you saw evidence, you would change your opinions. Yet, your post says that you do not believe that there is enough evidence which means that you have already admitted, albeit unknowingly, that you understand that there is evidence for the existence of a creator entity. You simply dismissed it as being 'not enough'.

Atheists like to state that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' which simply is a way of preemptively dismissing any and all evidence that could possibly be presented, as what exactly constitutes 'extraordinary evidence' is never trully defined.
So, no, you wouldn't believe evidence if it was shown to you. You would dismiss it. As I said, at least Dawkins was candid and sincere about it, which I can respect.

That was a hell of a long way of saying "Why no Mr. Vlar, non of my hyperbolic ranting means that Mr. Dawkins does in fact speak for you". Thanks.

Now that I got the facetious bent out of me...

Here is your chance... what EVIDENCE is there for YOUR version of god? And while we're at it why is YOUR version of god the superior one when there are far older versions of theology still in existence? Because your statement that I would never believe any evidence and absolutely dismiss it if shown to me is utter bull s#. My statement was a generalized one reflecting the varying beliefs of a wide variety of atheists and agnostics.

You're simply splitting the hairs of semantics because you've already passed judgment on me which is very contradictory to the teachings of Jesus if I may be so bold as to say. Furthermore, I have admitted nothing, unknowingly or knowingly, regarding my beliefs. You chose to interpret a statement in a way that reflects your own confirmation biases here out of sheer ignorance to my actual beliefs.

For the record though, what I do in fact believe, is that what is presented as evidence by Christian apologists, is in fact very wanting and does not actually meet the criteria for evidence. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or fall under the auspices of the scientific method then I don't believe it to actually be evidence of anything aside from confirmation bias.

What is generally meant by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that the person saying such has some sort of background or at least a deep interest in various scientific disciplines and consequently relies on the scientific method as a way of gauging the veracity of any claims presented. I fall into the former and as such, will follow the data wherever it leads. Whether it is in a direction I agree with or for, or not. The evidence is what is important, not my current level of understanding of how things are taught or should be.

For example, work I was a part of 18 years ago and was laughed at for is today considered a scientific fact by my former peers. Why? Because I followed the data. It just took increased DNA sequencing coverage over a dozen years to reach the point where it could come up with proof that substantiated what we hypothesized. The reverse is also true, if someone presents something that there previously wasn't proof of and they suddenly do, I will change how I view that paradigm and indeed follow the evidence. That's how science is done. Far more people than not, operate under that principle.

Do you in fact have any evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and be independently reproduced and tested? If you do, by all means post it with citations. As someone who considers themselves an Atheist leaning agnostic, which means while I don't actually believe in any deities I am more than open to the possibility, all you have to do is show me the money. I will gladly go back to my former parish and immediately go to confession if you can provide quantitative evidence of a deity.

a reply to: Leahn

you are confusing my question about one line of your reply to mymymy, with something I myself wrote.i/e/ mymymy's reply to you. You said that if you were wrong then you would be satisfied that you led a "pious, satisfying and happy life for which you have no regret". I was simply asking if the implication was that people who do not believe or question the existence of divinity were incapable of living as good, kind Christian people despite their lack of faith or belief in supernatural entities. If that's not your implication, then great. It was a simple yes or no question though. My point was that I treat people with kindness and compassion and live a life pretty well in accord with a message I find to be beautiful despite buying into the demi-god nature of the alleged person called Cristos when the Greeks wrote about Paul and his proselytization's.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: Leahn

You know what, YOU are why people rail on religious people on this site. You act like you can't comprehend a simple question.

If there is a biblical God, WHY HAS HE NEVER GIVEN SOMEONE A MISSING LIMB BACK? WHY HAS HE NEVER PERFORMED A "MIRACLE" THAT CAN BE VISUALLY SEEN OR PROVEN?

Is that simple enough for you?

The reason why I can't comprehend your question was already stated. You seem to assume that He should. Yet, you cannot clearly state why, so I am reduced to guessing what exactly is your point. If someone wishes to step in and clarify, I'd be grateful.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Turn the tables, play your game, ask yourself the same question instead of your constant judgement you accuse others of

How is this "Playing our game", Religious individuals made this question first. This topic is pointless. It's the exact same copy as my original one. If you have any context to add to it, add it there. Original topic

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I would be the first to "believe" if clear scientific evidence was presented in a way cant be interpreted as anything else.

Advanced mathematics is also the basis of the theory our universe is a simulation. So id have to say no it would take more than that.

Im not against there being a god or creator. I just feel through the evidence i have seen over the years there is no proof that these "supernatural" entities exist. While there is a boatload (get it? Little noah joke) of evidence supporting the scientific history of earth and the universe as well as the way life developed on earth.

im not saying science isnt flawed but it is always evolving and changing as new information comes to light. Trusting a book written thousands of years ago by people that would deem space travel or even human flight as supernatural seems highly illogical to me.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Here is your chance... what EVIDENCE is there for YOUR version of god? And while we're at it why is YOUR version of god the superior one when there are far older versions of theology still in existence? Because your statement that I would never believe any evidence and absolutely dismiss it if shown to me is utter bull s#. My statement was a generalized one reflecting the varying beliefs of a wide variety of atheists and agnostics.

a) Kinesins. b) The Christian worldview is the only one that can correctly account for mankind's behavior that many times is both detrimental to themselves and conter-intuitive.

You're simply splitting the hairs of semantics because you've already passed judgment on me which is very contradictory to the teachings of Jesus if I may be so bold as to say.

Which one?

You chose to interpret a statement in a way that reflects your own confirmation biases here out of sheer ignorance to my actual beliefs. (...) For the record though, what I do in fact believe, is that what is presented as evidence by Christian apologists, is in fact very wanting and does not actually meet the criteria for evidence.

How exactly is claiming that I am ignorant and biased regarding your actual beliefs and then claiming that you believe exactly the same thing I just said about you is a counter-argument?

What is generally meant by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that the person saying such has some sort of background or at least a deep interest in various scientific disciplines and consequently relies on the scientific method as a way of gauging the veracity of any claims presented.

The scientific method is not the only way to gauge the veracity of a claim. In fact, it is a very limited way to do such. It only applies to repeatable experiments of natural sciences. It cannot, in example, prove a mathematical claim. Do you have any reason to believe that our argument rests within such scope? If yes, why is that? Isn't this a case where, having only a hammer, everything must be a nail to you?

a reply to: borntowatch

First - why do you care?

I'm an athestist. I don't believe in a creator god that 'judges' lower beings. I believe in reincarnation (and christians did before the Council of Nicena or somesuch - my christian history is long in the past) and believe that all we take with use into the after (between) life is our state of mind and it is for that purpose that we practise virtue inorder to cultivate a clear and peaceful state of mind. Whether you go to a hell (state of anger or greed or envy) or to a heaven (states of compassion, gratitutde and generousity) is really up to us and not dependant on some athromophorized creation of the collective consciousness.

I choose ever moment whether to act (speak and think) in accordance with what will lessen my suffering or increase it and until we can see TRUTH we are bound to the world our state of mind creates for us. Heaven and Hell are at the crossroads of hear and now.

Am I worried about being wrong - no. I'm not afraid of death and what's next (the process yes but not the product) because I practice virtues every day and my world changes as I change.

I think it's really 'lazy-ass' to 'believe' that you can do what you want and at the last breath repent and be saved. I would and have been afraid in that state of mind. You do have to pay for what you do. It's as certain as death - maybe not this time but somewhere down the road when the necessary causes and conditions arise you will receive what you have sown. The best 'protection' is to not make more suffering.

a reply to: borntowatch

An atheist can never be "wrong" to think what they think. Most people don't believe in dragons and they are not wrong to disbelieve them. If dragons were suddenly found, it's not like the average non-dragon-believer is going to say "Oooh, I was sooo stupid for not believing this thing I had no reason to believe!"

I'm not an atheist but I'd be judged just like one if the average churchianity version of their god is the one that exists. I look at it like this: If the Abrahamic god exists (as the "one true gawd"), I would imagine he would be smart enough to realize he made people with a sense of discernment and would understand why people don't believe in the church "just because". If he did judge everybody like that, I wouldn't regret my choice because that's definitely not the sort of scoundrel I'd want to spend eternity with.

In my religion, nobody goes to an eternal hell fire just for being skeptical.

a reply to: borntowatch

Pascal's wager.

Unfortunately there's really nothing to be wrong about. We can literally watch what happens to someone when they die. We bury our dead.

a reply to: bananashooter

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you have done studies on this, figures, stats?

a reply to: borntowatch

So atheists, what if you are wrong

So what if you're your wrong and the Abrahamic god that you worship is nothing but the deceiver? The demiurge?

from your thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The God of the Old Testament is Jesus. YHWH is love. Jehovah is Jesus. Its that simple.

Funny how atheists christian and religious, non religious are all hateful

Funny how you are all hateful as evidenced by your posts, true christian mercy/hypocrisy.
Why do you care whether atheists get it right or wrong, at least atheists keep an open non judgmental mind

Even Dawkins states that he can't be 100% sure that there is no god. And as far as the comment about god appearing in front of them as evidence to beleive not being good enough... no, I don't think that would count as evidence either. The chances of all known rules of the universe being suspended for the favor of one person is much more unlikely than that the person that "saw" god just "saw" things incorrectly. One person's account of "seeing" god is not evidence in the slightest (and probably shouldn't be to them either). Plenty of people "see" lots of things. My grandmother saw me and called me my dad's name and then had a conversation with me as if I was my dad (as a child)... I'm pretty sure I wasn't my dad. The mind is full of errors. It's takes real evidence to actually know. The kind that can undergo scrutiny, repetition, and done by more than one person.

originally posted by: Leahn
The reason why I can't comprehend your question was already stated. You seem to assume that He should. Yet, you cannot clearly state why, so I am reduced to guessing what exactly is your point. If someone wishes to step in and clarify, I'd be grateful.

According to the Bible, prayers are answered if you have faith.

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24

In all of recorded history, not once, has any person, ever spontaneously regenerated a lost limb. I don't know how many throughout history prayed for it though. More info on the amputee argument: here.

a reply to: Ghost147

Aye, this thread should not have been created as yours came first and, is basically the exact same thing. I think the OP may just be trolling around. Not sure why mods didn't close this thread earlier.

I am a believer if I am wrong then I lived a moral and upright life on this world.

Paul said this,
17 And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished . 19 If in this life only we have hope * in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept .

So it won't hurt me to continue to live righteous and in Christ.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Leahn
The reason why I can't comprehend your question was already stated. You seem to assume that He should. Yet, you cannot clearly state why, so I am reduced to guessing what exactly is your point. If someone wishes to step in and clarify, I'd be grateful.

According to the Bible, prayers are answered if you have faith.

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24

In all of recorded history, not once, has any person, ever spontaneously regenerated a lost limb. I don't know how many throughout history prayed for it though. More info on the amputee argument: here.

Duh...

"Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted [sic] , brokenhanded [sic], Or crookbackt [sic], or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:17-21)

How would he know who to keep out of heaven if he healed everybody?

a reply to: Cuervo

Dude you either don't believe and therefore don't have the Holy Ghost to understand scripture or you don't know how to rightly divide the word of truth when you study as instructed in 2 Timothy 2:15.

But Leviticus is for the nation of Israel not the church of God.

Anyone blemished or not can come to God via Christ in this age.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
According to the Bible, prayers are answered if you have faith.

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24

In all of recorded history, not once, has any person, ever spontaneously regenerated a lost limb. I don't know how many throughout history prayed for it though. More info on the amputee argument: here.

If we are quoting from the Bible, then I have to remind you that:

The passage says that 'believe that you have received' is necessary to receive it. I should also remind you of James, where it says that those that doubt should not assume that he will receive anything from God, and that God refuses to answer prayers done with wrong motives. Furthermore, I should also remind you of 1 John where it says that God will only answer prayers that are according to His will.

The amputee argument is silly. It relies on an idea that God is not the Supreme Being of the Universe, but our butler, somehow under obligation to serve our every whim, if we ask nicely. Are you aware how silly such argument is when I remind you that you are talking about a Being described in the Bible as 'omnipotent', a word whose etymology brings forth the idea of 'unstoppable', a word whose etymology brings forth the idea that the combined might of the whole Universe put together at once against Him is not enough to stay His hand? And you treat Him like your butler? Really?

And as for the idea that such thing is impossible outside of a miracle... Man grows finger back. It can be done. No, I am not saying it was spontaneous. I am just saying that, if a prayer was answered regarding this, a lot of people would quickly point out that it can be done and it would prove nothing.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Cuervo

Dude you either don't believe and therefore don't have the Holy Ghost to understand scripture or you don't know how to rightly divide the word of truth when you study as instructed in 2 Timothy 2:15.

But Leviticus is for the nation of Israel not the church of God.

Anyone blemished or not can come to God via Christ in this age.

It was a joke.

But, now that you mention it, isn't Leviticus the book that most Christians bring up when condemning others? Are you saying it doesn't apply to anybody outside of that place and time?