Discussions With Theists

[Burner]

In the last few weeks, I have engaged some theists on this forum regarding some of their beliefs.
I consider myself an atheist, meaning I do not believe in your claim of a god simply because I don't believe whatever evidence you put forth for your belief is wanting.
I can honestly say someone like @Liberty will try to give an explanation for a particular matter as best as he can, using what relevant passages of the Bible he can to back up his views and even some straight logic to try rationalise his belief.

My issue is with other lister who are theists but totally incapable of having an honest conversation about a particular topic, but will instead veer off into topics they have zero understanding off when challenged to explain something they believe.
Listen people, beliefs are not something you choose, you must be convinced by something to believe something. You do not choose to believe in Jesus or Allah or fairies or ghosts. You believe in something because there is a convincing piece of evidence that leads you to the conclusion that X is true or false.
But here is the thing, when someone starts to poke holes in the logic of why there is an inconsistency in your belief you should either supply the evidence to fortify your argument or say you just don't know.

For example, if you are trying to defend flat earth as evidenced by the bible and when questioned about it, you start trying to deflect by saying "yeah, well you cant explain how evolution is real and not just a theory". This not only shows how ignorant you are on evolution as a science, it also indicates how scared you are that something makes sense and you can't come to terms with it. Hell, be brave enough to say you believe something for no good reason and decide to be irrational about the matter.

Also, if you tell me X happened therefore it is real or true, I or anyone else for that matter, should require more than your word to believe it. Anecdotal evidence is the WORST evidence you should ever present to be believed. Even in any court of law, eye-witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence you can present simply because the witness could be lying, misremembering or mistaken.

If you make a claim or an assertion, the burden of proof is upon you to show it is true. If I offer an explanation for why your claim is wrong and you discredit my explanation, YOURS DOES NOT HOLD TRUE BY DEFAULT!!!!
For example:
Me: the bedside lamp in my bedroom fell over on its own, it must have been a ghost.
Wife: Maybe it was a strong gust of wind.
Me: Impossible. The windows and the doors were both closed at the time and I was the only person in the room. Therefore it was a ghost.
All I have done in this case is rule out wind as the cause. There are all manner of simple explanations ranging from earthquakes, electrical fault, magnetic fields to completely outlandish ones (since we have ghosts on the table) like aliens, goblins, demons and fairies, that should be on the table till they can be ruled out.
The best answer to what just happened is the lamp fell over and I have no explanation for how it happened.
The moment I say claim ghosts, then I have to SHOW how ghost are the only explanation (or the most probable) for that particular phenomenon.

 

[Ole Waru]

You want to see in order to believe, well it's unlikely that you'll get that because it would be unfair to others. Let's take your example of the lamp, what if 30 minutes before the husband had prayed for a sign that supernatural beings exist, is it wrong to say that his beliefs are now strengthened because he made a petition and an event matching that petition occurred?

 

[Burner]

You want to see in order to believe, well it's unlikely that you'll get that because it would be unfair to others. Let's take your example of the lamp, what if 30 minutes before the husband had prayed for a sign that supernatural beings exist, is it wrong to say that his beliefs are now strengthened because he made a petition and an event matching that petition occurred?

Yes. It would be wrong for his beliefs to be strengthened based on that one instance. Correlation≠causation.
Let us have the same circumstances and let him pray/ask and let us see if the same results occur. Repeat it again and this time petition any other god. Repeat again without anyone in the room and petition from outside.
Give some data to back up the claim then you can have a leg to stand on when asserting your claim.

You want to see in order to believe, well it's unlikely that you'll get that because it would be unfair to others.
While seeing it myself would at least give me cause to actually take your claim seriously, it at least gives me something to investigate if its true. If i told you I had a solid gold bar in my house, you may not believe me but you know solid gold bars are an actual thing. Your next step to believing me would be to ask me to show you the bar. The next step would be to administer some kind of test to prove it is indeed solid gold.
As far as the supernatural goes, you first have to demonstrate that the supernatural is something. Not having an explanation for something happening then ascribing it as supernatural is a fallacy. What it is, is unexplained.

 

[Ole Waru]

Let us have the same circumstances and let him pray/ask and let us see if the same results occur. Repeat it again and this time petition any other god. Repeat again without anyone in the room and petition from outside.
Give some data to back up the claim then you can have a leg to stand on when asserting your claim.

In order for a deity to be considered one the deity must not be subject to the followers, God cannot be put to the test, what you're proposing here is putting God to the test and seeing the result, if God is a superior being he will not allow himself to be subject to the tests of men.

 

[Ole Waru]

Give some data to back up the claim then you can have a leg to stand on when asserting your claim.

Let's take another example, when a person wakes up in the morning and prays "give us this day our daily bread" and they proceed to go and search for work to do and consequently get work and get paid and buy food, if this occurs for a month, does it satisfy your requirements?

 

[Burner]

Let's take another example, when a person wakes up in the morning and prays "give us this day our daily bread" and they proceed to go and search for work to do and consequently get work and get paid and buy food, if this occurs for a month, does it satisfy your requirements?

No it wont. There are have to be variables introduced to show a causal link. If the same person wakes up and say prays to a different god one month and the next month doesnt pray at all etc. and do everything else the exact same way and we see whether they get work, get paid and buy food.
Give me data points to show me that only praying this way, you "get your daily bread". At that point you can now show a causal link or at the very least a correlation between praying and getting sustenance.

 

[Ole Waru]

If i told you I had a solid gold bar in my house, you may not believe me but you know solid gold bars are an actual thing. Your next step to believing me would be to ask me to show you the bar. The next step would be to administer some kind of test to prove it is indeed solid gold.

Lets say you told two friends that you had a gold bar, the first one believes you and congratulates you on your achievement, even seeking advice on how he might be able to acquire wealth. The second one insists on seeing the bar, and even after seeing asks for it to be tested to verify if it's real gold. Which of the two would you value most and if you were to leave the bar of gold as an inheritance to which would you give. The point im driving to here is the whole concept of faith, and why a supreme being has reason to value acts of faith,

 

[Ole Waru]

If every human being demanded proof in the manner you are stating don't you think it would be foolish to honor such a request? that's why it doesn't happen

 

[Burner]

In order for a deity to be considered one the deity must not be subject to the followers, God cannot be put to the test, what you're proposing here is putting God to the test and seeing the result, if God is a superior being he will not allow himself to be subject to the tests of men.

First of all, you would have to define what a deity/God is. If you are talking classical definitions, that is, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc, showing this being is real is absolutely necessary. If i can't test something or have a rational reason to believe something is true, why should I believe it?
If I told you I have a unicorn but I won't show it to you and it won't allow you to see it until you believe unicorns are real, you would dismiss my claim.
Sure you can't prove that i don't have a unicorn but you have no reason to believe it either.

 

[Ole Waru]

First of all, you would have to define what a deity/God is. If you are talking classical definitions, that is, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc, showing this being is real is absolutely necessary. If i can't test something or have a rational reason to believe something is true, why should I believe it?
If I told you I have a unicorn but I won't show it to you and it won't allow you to see it until you believe unicorns are real, you would dismiss my claim.
Sure you can't prove that i don't have a unicorn but you have no reason to believe it either.

If you sat down in your computer and through programming created an intelligent program, let's say artificial intelligence type of thing capable of being conscious of themselves and their surrounding, would you be under obligation to reveal to them all the details of your world, including things they cannot comprehend? would you be obliged to answer every question they ask? simply put, by virtue of being it's creator you don't have to

 

[Burner]

Lets say you told two friends that you had a gold bar, the first one believes you and congratulates you on your achievement, even seeking advice on how he might be able to acquire wealth. The second one insists on seeing the bar, and even after seeing asks for it to be tested to verify if it's real gold. Which of the two would you value most and if you were to leave the bar of gold as an inheritance to which would you give. The point im driving to here is the whole concept of faith, and why a supreme being has reason to value acts of faith,

This is out of the ballpark because Im not certain my decision on whom to leave the gold would be pegged on who believed me first.
However, let us say a supreme being values acts of faith as you put it. Why would the faith of the one who asks for proof of something be of less value than that who believed just like straight away? Is it how I came to believe something more valuable than the fact that I believe the same thing with the same fervour?

 

[Burner]

If you sat down in your computer and through programming created an intelligent program, let's say artificial intelligence type of thing capable of being conscious of themselves and their surrounding, would you be under obligation to reveal to them all the details of your world, including things they cannot comprehend? would you be obliged to answer every question they ask? simply put, by virtue of being it's creator you don't have to

True. However, if such a program after "investigating" its surroundings and seeing there is nothing about its environment that shows there is a creator, would it be wrong it coming to the conclusion that no such thing exists?
I do not see anything that points to a creator or programmer of reality so to speak. But other people do. And when I ask for proof of it, I am told the programmer does not need to reveal itself or answer my questions. So why should i believe this creator exists?

 

[Burner]

If every human being demanded proof in the manner you are stating don't you think it would be foolish to honor such a request? that's why it doesn't happen

No it would not be foolish. It would be a certainty and that is comforting. Wouldn't you rather have certainty that something is real?

 

[Ole Waru]

No it would not be foolish. It would be a certainty and that is comforting. Wouldn't you rather have certainty that something is real?

so what would be the ideal proof?

 

[Burner]

so what would be the ideal proof?

To be honest, i dont know. But if an all knowing god did exist, he would know what would be sufficient to convince everyone.

 

[Topha Chris 254]

To be honest, i dont know. But if an all knowing god did exist, he would know what would be sufficient to convince everyone.

God's Evidence is everywhere for you to see it. Open Your eyes and ask yourself why the universe is so perfect n Our Solar System is still able to Sustain lives.

 

[Burner]

God's Evidence is everywhere for you to see it. Open Your eyes and ask yourself why the universe is so perfect n Our Solar System is still able to Sustain lives.

This is also known as the fine tuning argument and the here is fallacy in it. You think the universe is perfectly aligned to sustain us. Therefore it is a sure sign that it was designed with us in mind.

The truth is that there is no reason to believe such tuning exists. As humans we can only survive in a very very narrow band on variable. You need oxygen, you need water. You cant get too hot or cold. You are susceptible to microbes that are in the air you breathe and food you eat. All manner of gamma rays and xrays and ionizing radiation can kill you in minutes. You can be killed by all manner of beasts your only advantage true advantage on this planet is a better brain and aposable thumbs.
There nothing about how we understand the universe working that requires a god.

The truth is that this universe as amazing as it is, there is reason to believe it made for us.

 

[Berlin]

Not believing in the Christian god doesn't make you an atheist.

 

[Burner]

Not believing in the Christian god doesn't make you an atheist.

True. I dont know if this was directed at me but i dont believe in the existence of any gods or the supernatural.
Therefore i am an atheist.

 

[Berlin]

True. I dont know if this was directed at me but i dont believe in the existence of any gods or the supernatural.
Therefore i am an atheist.

The flourish with which you declare your belief borders on a reckless arrogance, therefore all I can to one such as yourself in matters spiritual is this.

Look at the bigger picture often, you'll come to understand the true nature of Mwene Nyaga.

All in all you are on the right path.