Quantcast

Self Defeating Atheists

 

About the author: As “America’s Leading Liberalologist,” Bill Finlay pokes fun at the liberal left while exposing the evil that undermines freedom and faith throughout America. He also provides common sense solutions to bring the United States back into the path of honor as “one nation under God, with liberty ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • John Hart

    It’s interesting that when science finally starts to reveal the hand of God forming Reality for God’s purpose, atheists, claiming to be scientific, don’t have a clue what the discoveries mean. Proof, give me proof God exists they demand for a concept of god that’s essentially gibberish. They expect believers to explain the unexplainable and think it justifies their unjustifiable position.

    God is the one and only eternal relationship, all others are temporary, especially our lives. Everything has a cause, atheists think it’s a mindless mechanism and use the fact believers can’t explain what caused God, to rationalize it. The truth is God is a relationship of Love Truth and Will, a codependent unified being. Reality is an information process within God’s mind, designed to be an interface to the Quantaverse of possible beings and give us a chance for eternal existence by choosing to follow the Law of Love Christ suffered and died to show us.

    • djstucrew

      How, exactly, has science finally started “to reveal the hand of god”? Some specifics would be nice. If true, I’d think it would’ve been headline news!

      We atheists can speak for ourselves, so you don’t have to blurt your inaccurate guesses as to what we think.
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

      When believers make a claim, we demand proof. As Carl Sagan once said, “the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence.” You completely ignore your own circular reasoning: you say: “Everything has a cause,” and then belittle those who ask, “what caused god?”
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

      Another great intellect, Christopher Hitchens stated, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim.
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

      So you’re saying there is a god. Atheists are simply saying: prove it.

      • John Hart

        The problem is atheism is self defeating. One must have an open mind to see how the discoveries reveal the Creator’s hand. For those who take the design of reality for granted, assume it’s an uncaused process that just is, evidence revealing the true cause will mean nothing. It is astronomical improbability the information within the simplest living cell came about by chance. The same is true for the laws of reality and the dark energy forming bubbles of galaxies in space.

        Millions of man years have been spent trying to figure out the laws of nature and we’re not there yet.

        God loves you but without faith you can not feel God’s love. God does not intervene in the lives of sinners, to do so would undermine life’s purpose. Everyone is made with free will but to really live one must choose to follow God’s eternal law, the law of love all others are derived from.

        • djstucrew

          Atheism is the neutral position: we are all born “atheists” — you have to be taught about god(s) and the supernatural. An atheist is the ultimate open mind, going where the evidence leads. “Design” is a hypothesis, created by humans as an explanation for what we see. Unlike a theory, which can be tested, design is not falsifiable; absolutely anything we discover can be claimed as supporting it. This is why it fails.

          I hear design people compare the universe to a watch, the implication being that a watch couldn’t appear by itself without a watch maker. Incompatible analogy aside for the moment, the discovery of a watch would have a reasonable person looking for one of two things: a store from whence it came OR its maker. If the watch was old, one might look for the maker’s inscription. It might lead us to a shop where, even if the maker was dead, we’d find evidence: tools, plans, parts, etc. Possibly even the bones of the watch maker. No such analogy applies to the universe. Some humans, with a very limited intellect and nearly blind as senses go, can only imagine some other, bigger, more powerful version of themselves as having created the universe. Their reasoning seems hinged on being unable to answer the question: “how else could it have happened?”

          Science has, over time, come up with these answers. Where we once had god tossing thunderbolts and being personally involved in the hatching of every egg, we now understand the processes involved, none of which need a god. This is why you might hear people talk about “the god of the gaps,” as god has been pushed farther and farther backward into those areas yet unexplained by science. If we apply Occam’s Razor and consider how often and how regularly this has happened, it’s time to ask, “is a god really necessary at all?”

          By the theists definition, god is an uncaused process. Such a postulate violates all of the laws that theists claim evolution does; information from nothing; a special exception to “everything must have a cause” or “prime mover.” How can one rationalize both? One of the laws of physics states that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed, but they can be changed from one to the other. So why not skip a step? We know that the “big bang” happened, but was that indeed the creation of everything, or was it simply a change in what already existed and always will exist?

          Humans cannot wrap their minds around the concept of infinity. Hell, they’re hard-pressed to imagine big numbers at all. We discuss government budgets in the trillions of dollars as if we can even comprehend a trillion of anything. Suffice it to say, most of us cannot even grasp a million. SCALE evades us. Suffice it to say, then, that given any amount of matter and energy and an infinite time scale, not only are the conditions for life possible, but it’s mathematically impossible for them to NEVER happen. As much of a longshot as it seems to our limited intellectual faculties — and I’ll grant that it IS remarkable — I’ll also say that it was inevitable. We are here, at this time, asking these questions, simply because we’re the result of the happy chain of events and it couldn’t happen any other way.

          We have made remarkable progress discovering the secrets of nature and the universe, and to belittle our progress ignores much. By “not there yet,” I must ask, “what is the destination?” Are you speaking of the ever elusive “grand unified theory” or simply saying that we don’t know everything? Whittling it down to three major theories, I’d say, is a pretty remarkable achievement! No other beings have discovered general relativity or quantum mechanics. We learn new things every day. Little by little, we mine the knowledge that will be considered granted by tomorrow’s generation. Just as we don’t truly grasp how huge our understanding of Newtonian orbital mechanics is today, the Higgs-Boson will be old news in 20 years, no doubt augmented by much more exotic information. And this is the thing: ALL of the problems with our understanding of everything is due to our limited senses. ALL.

          In Galileo’s time, we simply had to observe. Our senses were just fine for studying the motion of the planets, observing the seasons and deducing the shape of our world. We began to develop aids to our senses: lamps, so we could shed light in dark recesses; lenses, so that we could see things both farther out and, turned inward, ever smaller. These new technologies revealed much, but also led to new questions. And thus it has been ever since: as we look ever smaller, we begin to run into limits. Light becomes useless at the atomic level — photons are just too big! Some ingenious person came up with the electron microscope, giving us a smaller substitute for light and showing us things never seen before. Today, however, the particles we “observe” are far, far smaller. There is no possible substitute for light. At present, our tools are mathematics and observation based on ever more sensitive detectors. (The Large Hadron Collider.) And answers are coming. This isn’t “faith.” This is history.

          I’ll close by saying this: just as the theist says that we must “have an open mind” to see “the hand of the creator,” I would counter that a truly open mind would also consider that there may well be no creator at all. The point of our search is to find out what is true, not what we wish to be true.

          • John Hart

            You are obviously looking for something no one can give you, something you have to figure out for your self. I can explain little of what I know. I started out rejecting the concept of god I was taught but I always knew there had to be a God. There are two ways god exists. The one with the little g everyone has. Atheists deny they have a god and that there is a God. In other words they have no real concept of god or God.

            God is a concept for communication with others, of course from one perspective “others” are just projections of one’s mind. Perception works like a virtual reality tracking sensory input. In fact everything one experiences is just “information” and there is no way to prove we are not just “bits processed by mechanism” like in the Matrix.

            Compared to the Universe you’re just a speck of dust, yet you can imagine what it is because it’s imagining what you are. God exists the same as any being. Reality is an interface, not the place where you reside. Your memories exist in the Quantaverse and are patterned into reality by God for a purpose. Once a being is created it can not be destroyed only isolated by it’s own acts.

            The Supreme Being came before Reality, which is an information process, not physical things. Relativity is the clue atheists miss and Quantum mechanics the unrecognized proof Reality is caused, not the cause. All it takes for a mind is memory, law and evolution but to be eternal Love must be it’s guide. Ever growing, absolute truth, infinite will and unlimited love, is the mind of God.

            There is no way to make anyone see this truth, no way to explain the science behind it. The deceiver exists in every man, only faith in the Person of Love, known to people as Jesus or Krisna ….. can take away it’s blinding hand.

          • djstucrew

            That is some interesting and convoluted theorizing that I don’t think ever came from any pulpit ever! It also ignores some pretty well-established facts. For instance, you (and most religions) put an extreme amount of importance on one’s acts and attitudes — that “good” people will be “saved,” and “bad” people be damned — yet what is the nature of good and evil?

            I began asking that question when I saw a documentary on lobotomies. Back as early as the ’20s, this procedure was used to “cure” many mental maladies. Based on the odd case of Phineas Gage, a railroad worker whose personality was changed drastically after an explosion sent a railroad spike through his brain. Scientists naturally then associated that part with the deficiencies they saw: a lack of self-control and good judgment meant that the part of the brain damaged must be responsible for that. (And they were correct.) They then began to theorize what other parts of the brain did, and a whole new science was born.

            The trouble with lobotomies, though, is that they were more often fatal than not. It was brain science by trial-and-error. But, over time, answers did come. Featured in the broadcast was a woman who had been admitted to an asylum after killing her husband and children. Despite her small size, it took several men to place her in restraints and popular opinion at the time was that she was possessed by demons. She was eventually lobotomized. Lucky for her, and the documentary, she was one of the rare survivors. She was also one of the rare success stories. Today (the doc was made in the ’80s), she’s a gentle grandmotherly type who loves to entertain visitors over tea, tend to her garden and baby her cats. Anyone would be happy to have this former mass-murderer as a grandmother; the term “sweet little old lady” seems invented for her.

            So what does this say about good and evil? To me, it says one thing: WHAT and WHO we are is INEXTRICABLY LINKED to the MATTER in our heads. If you alter that matter, you alter the personality. You can remove memories; you can remove abilities; you can remove senses; you can change attitudes and basic personality all by meddling with the MATTER in our heads. We truly are living in a material world, and we are all material beings. The evidence is umimpeachable.

            Gods described in the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other bibles defy basic logic in this regard: they’re said to be all knowing — they know what has happened and what will happen — and, further, they created each person in their own unique way. Presumably, then, god knew that Hitler would commit mass genocide and Jonas Salk would heal. If we accept that said god gave people free will, then he dispensed with his foreknowledge. This might explain his huge screw up, when he looked at the world and decided that it was so bad he had to kill everyone and everything save a few survivers in an ark. He shook the cosmic Etch-A-Sketch because he screwed the pooch! Obviously, he had no idea how things would’ve turned out, or he would have been responsible for the creation of evil. (And we could say the same of Satan’s genesis, if we’re to believe in devils, too.) There is simply no other way to interpret these actions… except, of course, that they never happened and that scripture is poorly written fiction from eons ago.

            When you get right down to the smallest of scales — the basic foundation of what is “reality” — information and physical matter are identical. All that exists is matter and energy, and we’re beginning to understand that they, too, are one in the same. Information cannot exist without matter/energy. Now, I suppose that is one place where believers could plug-in god, but don’t be too quick! Because this places some pretty strict limits on a god — what he can and cannot do. To me, it is more logical to see things as they are, not “plug” any gods into things that plainly don’t require any and accept the fact that god(s) is a made-up fiction created by the limited faculties of limited beings who are virtually blind to the universe as it is. Be honest here: which is more likely?

          • John Hart

            You have raise very important issues and your logic is good. When you understand Reality the way I do, and that doesn’t mean blind faith, it’s strictly scientific and agrees with correctly interpreted Scripture. The problem is everyone is deceived, even or especially the Pope and the only way to keep from falling victim is honesty and faith.

            God didn’t kill Egyptians, mosquito’s did. Jews were warned by by God and they put blood on their posts to stop it. People with faith can see what is going to happen because God knows. That doesn’t mean things are predestined, it means God exists outside of time! Think about it…

            When the economy crashes, are you going to blame god if Christians have been warned and are prepared for it?

          • djstucrew

            In what way is faith in a god “strictly scientific?” How do you know if/when scripture is “correctly interpreted,” and what about the authenticity of the scripture itself? (Not all scripture is created equal.) Nothing in the Bible states that god exists “outside of time.” Also, if he knew how things were going to end up, why did he press the cosmic “reset” button with the flood?

            You’ve brought to mind another interesting point: if god exists outside of time and “knows what’s coming,” is he then powerless to stop or alter said timeline before it happens? If not, why did he let these disasters play out? If one controls time, is there any meaningful difference between that and “predestination?” Is god really Dr. Who? 🙂

      • bizeditor84

        Just to point out a logical falsehood and flaw. You wrote:
        “Another great intellect, Christopher Hitchens stated, ‘That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’ The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim.”
        As it happens, one can state nearly any proposition in the form of “making a claim.” Thus, the atheist makes the claim: “there is no God.” Under your dictum, the atheist has the burden of affirmatively proving that claim.
        The atheist cannot legitimately respond by asserting “you can’t prove a negative,” because that assertion is not true. You can prove negatives. Often that is done by first establishing what evidence and means of reasoning work to prove the affirmative of the same issue — and then looking for evidence either way. (In mathematics there are numerous proofs of “negative” propositions as well.)
        The “burden of proof” assertion is a debater’s method of trying to avoid having to make an independent proof. The more interesting discussion is one where people offer the evidence and arguments for both sides, and leave it for audiences and readers to decide which is more convincing.

        • djstucrew

          Obviously, you’ve never been on a debate team before — LOL! No, I’m afraid that if you make a claim, then the onus is on YOU to prove it. I’m a skeptic in just about all things, so I need proof of any assertion, and as Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

          You might take a atheist saying “there is no god” as a claim. It is not. It is a CONCLUSION, which isn’t the same thing. It is also open to modification in light of new evidence. Here’s how it works (using a totally stolen example): you’re walking home from school with a friend who says, “There’s a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage!” Naturally, you’re skeptical, so you say, “Cool! Let’s go take a look!” You get to your buddy’s place and he flings open the garage door. Aside from a lawnmower, a few paint cans and some empty trash cans, you see nothing. “So where’s the dragon?” you ask. “Oh, I forgot to mention that he’s invisible.”

          Wanting to give your buddy the benefit of doubt (and maybe hoping he’s telling the truth), you say, “Okay, then let’s go get some flour from your kitchen. We can spread it on the floor and we’ll see the dragon’s footsteps!” “No,” your buddy counters, “He floats in midair, so he wouldn’t make any footprints.” So you say, “Okay, well then let’s get some spray paint. We can spray it in the direction of the dragon and we’ll see his scales.” “No, that won’t work,” he says, “he’s incorporeal, so the paint won’t stick and just fall to the ground.”

          “My friend has a thermal camera,” you say. “Let’s borrow it so we’ll be able to see the dragon’s fire!” Shaking his head, your friend says, “No, his fire is also incorporeal, so it doesn’t give off any measurable heat.” And so it goes: for every test you propose, your friend has a reason why it won’t work. In the end, the best you can do is agree that the “jury is out” on the topic of the dragon, or you can apply the tool of logic known as Occam’s Razor and reach a conclusion that your buddy, for whatever reason, is wrong. The agnostic is more like the first option; he says, “I don’t know and don’t see any way TO know.” The atheist says, “given the evidence at hand, I must ask, “what is more likely,” and have concluded that no gods exist unless and until more compelling proof presents itself.

          You are incorrect: there is no way, logically, to prove a negative. Zilch. Never been done. Show me one example. I’ll even accept a mathematical one. You may be confusing the discovery of some things via a missing mathematical component, which is how we discovered so-called “dark matter” — where our observations of the universe and our theory of gravity revealed that the matter we saw was insufficient to produce the kind of motion we saw. Computer models showed us that something must be missing. That wasn’t proving a negative in the same sense, but a discovery of something due to its action. This is how we discovered waves.

          Nobody’s trying to “avoid” anything! And, in fact, I’ve been searching my whole life for solid answers to the “big questions.” I go solely where the evidence leads. I have no stake in the outcome; I have no fantasy that I am so attached to that I’d overlook the facts to protect or promote it. Be it beautiful or brutal, hideous or glorious, my intent is to learn the truth of our universe and its origin. This tends to differ from the theist, who only accepts what supports his/her fantasy/dogma/worldview and rejects/overlooks that which does not. Audiences and the masses may decide what they find more convincing, to be sure, but we know that the majority isn’t always right, and the human mind has quirks common across the species, one of which is anthropomorphization. So… what is more likely… ?

          • bizeditor84

            DJ,

            Your post is eloquent and fun to read. But let’s look
            carefully at its assertions.

            1. “There is no way, logically, to prove a negative. Zilch.
            Never been done.” DJ, you realize that is an assertion of a negative, right? That assertion says “There exists no proof of a negative.” But you cannot prove that, according to the assertion.

            In addition, the assertion is an absolute generality. As you know, one counterexample disproves the assertion.

            Finally, the assertion makes an absolute statement about the history of mankind – which is a statement neither you or I could possibly have enough knowledge to prove true.

            2. Whether you or I have been on “debate teams” does not
            affect the validity of your or my arguments. I will grant your validity as a thinker if you will grant mine in equal measure, without resort to comparing education levels or pedigree or experiences on teams. Fair enough?

            3. “I’m afraid that if you make a claim, then the onus is on
            YOU to prove it.” This is an assertion, a claim. On what basis is it so true that it controls whether an argument proceeds? The post’s colorful example of a dragon in the garage is entertaining, but it does not establish why you (or any advocate) can place the burden of proof unilaterally
            on the other side. In Prof. Brooke Moore’s
            book, Critical Thinking (2007), he wrote on page 195: “Incidentally, some people say it’s impossible to ‘prove a negative.’ But difficult is not the same as impossible. And some ‘negatives’ are even easy to prove. For example, ‘There
            is no elephant in the classroom.’” Prof. Moore is not alone among logicians holding that negatives can be proved.
            My post proposed that both sides present information and
            modes of reasoning and let the audience (readers) decide.

            4. “I’m a skeptic in just about all things, so I need proof of any assertion, and as Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”
            The problem with this assertion lies in the definition of proof. I imagine the definition of proof will be contentious in our discussion.

          • djstucrew

            1. Not being able to prove a negative is a function of logic, backed-up by mathematics. Of course, if you can prove otherwise, pleas do so. It will rock the academics world.
            2. Since I don’t know you, it would be foolish of me to make any such assumptions. If you read any such thing in my posts, it was unintended. I guess my meaning was that some standard must be set to frame our discussion. Having been on a debate team before, I tend to think in those terms. If you have a better idea, I’m all ears.
            3. Yes, but this “assertion” is another tenet of logic: if you make a claim, then the obligation is on you to prove it. There is absolutely no reason for me to blindly accept what you say, and, in fact, blind acceptance has a proven track record of being quite dangerous. Moore jumps the logical shark, by the way; he postulates something which is obviously untrue and easily tested by observation. Make your elephant incorporeal, able to float in midair like our hypothetical dragon, and again we’ve got a stalemate: one cannot definitively say it doesn’t exist when another person insists that it does. We can only say, at best, that the jury is out until better evidence is presented (something we can test). Or we can apply Occam’s wonderful razor and conclude that the idea is full of crap. 🙂
            4. Again, back to our hypothetical elephant in the classroom, observation amounts to proof. Repeatability also amounts to proof. (I see it, tell you and you take a look and see likewise, etc. This applies to any type of testing.) As I said above, I reject anecdote, which is used to assert just about anything. A look at late night TV commercials is a prime example — LOL!

            I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said, “I keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.” If you’re a believer, then you must think that we have been given such powers of reason to do exactly what we ARE doing: using logic, fact and reason to understand our world and the universe of which it is a part. I would think it would be far less of a sin, then, to employ what we’re given to the best of our abilities rather than to reject those faculties or make them subservient to dogma.

    • Ken Dempsey

      There is no “GOD”, and if there was a God, the it is a Malevolent one. This mythological figure you say is real is not one that if I believed in such a thing would never follow. You say he is all about faith love and hope, That he loves his children… I claim BS. If he was all of what you say he is then explain to me how this GOD could allow so many people to die needlessly in all the wars, terrorisms, crusades, etc all in the name of GOD. How could he allow his beloved children be put to death or suffer at the hands of vile and cruel people of the world? Nope, I am sorry. No GOD. The bible is nothing more than a book written by man to control the people. Sad thing is that Christians around the world tout that book as the truth, but don’t even follow all of its laws and precepts found within it. Just what suits them. HYPOCRITICAL. Some nice stories, but aren’t most fairy tales.

      • John Hart

        Fortunately there is…. What you’re confusing god with isn’t god. God doesn’t make mindless robots for mannequin un-reality, you are Real,
        have choices and can do good or evil. How to know what’s evil the Golden rule tells you. Love is the only eternal relationship, for those that love, time is eternity. Saints aren’t killed by terrorism or any other ism, they are liberated and any man who follows the Law of Love IS a saint.

        I hope this clears that up for you.

  • devilrider

    Only a fool says there is no God. Psalm 14:1

  • djstucrew

    “Who is the fool? Who’s the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows the fool?” – Dream Warriors

    Listen up, Wild Bill. God is a myth. You cannot prove otherwise. Yet, if there was enough doubt, we could very easily dig up the bones of Abraham Lincoln. But we don’t have to, because we have photographs of him. Hundreds… maybe thousandts. We have documents that we can trace the authorship to with enough certainty that it would hold up in a court of law. Yet nobody knows, for sure, the actual author of at least two of the gospels! They were “attributed,” meaning someone took a guess.

    You need to learn the difference between science and mythos. Science encompasses two things: our collected body of knowledge and the method used to obtain it. Science has often been applied to your scripture, and scripture fails. We have proof that it has been altered a great deal over time. We can show where it fails as a historical document and we can even prove that many parts of it were outright plagiarized from other works and/or older religions. (Ever read any Bart Ehrmann? His “Lost Christianities” should be eye opening… and no, he’s not an atheist.)

    And please… the next time you want to talk about atheism, instead of heading into Strawman Land, why not just drop me a line? I’ll be happy to answer any questions or address any issue you might have.

    • noweareman

      Never been in a foxhole I guess!

      • djstucrew

        Nope! But I carry a Glock. 🙂

    • ClintLowell

      Cant prove otherwise? Ever studied the theory of motion? Something had to moved something from the very beginning …. God does exist …

      • djstucrew

        Ever study actual science? Check into what quantum theory says about empty space and get back to me. There is no reason to plug a hypothetical god into any hole (or “gap” as we sometimes call them) in our understanding of the natural universe. God is a myth.

        • ClintLowell

          God is not a myth my friend. Theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only self conscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as “potentia” in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until self conscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993). Theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only self conscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as “potentia” in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until selfconscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993).

          • djstucrew

            The operative words: “theorists” (those who propose theories), and “speculate” (take a guess). Indeed, this premise is anthropocentric in the extreme! It’s a wild guess to explain the Heisenberg (sp?) Uncertainty Principle. It also ignores the billions of years when there were no living things to observe anything. If you understood the words you were cutting/pasting (obvious from the repeated sections), you would understand that this is one of thousands of theories, and seems to say that our universe is impossible because nothing was alive at the outset. If you try to jam a god(s) into the equation, then you must explain how said god came to be. Sounds like mythos to me.

          • John Hart

            God is a relationship, not a thing. Reality is an information process in the mind of God, designed so beings can have relationships and discover the power of Love.

          • djstucrew

            As told by believers, god is a living entity. One has a relationship with everything in their environment, no matter how tenuous. It would seem reasonable, then, that any living entity in my environment so vital to my existence and well-being should be fairly obvious, like the air that I breathe or the food I eat, or at least as much so as the other living entities around me. And that’s the thing: there’s no evidence. Zip, zilch, nada. And don’t think I haven’t looked. At one point, like most of us, I took believers at their word and their teaching at face value. My first year of college was spent at a Christian school. I even taught classes at one time. But I’m not an addictive or delusional personality. (I am unable to be hypnotized, for instance, and don’t enjoy being drunk.) So, after years of finding no evidence in support, and quite a bit to the contrary, I came to the conclusion that not only are there no gods/spirits, but that there is no supernatural realm at all. I still keep an open mind, but anything amounting to evidence is nowhere to be found. No worries, though; I’m quite happy, love deeply and hate no one. I hope you can say the same.

          • bizeditor84

            You wrote:
            “[A]ny living entity in my environment so vital to my existence and well-being should be fairly obvious, like the air that I breathe or the food I eat, or at least as much so as the other living entities around me. And that’s the thing: there’s no evidence. Zip, zilch, nada.”
            Two points come to mind.
            (1) The first sentence asserts that finding what “should be fairly obvious” is the method of detecting a Creator. That’s just an assertion. Do you have a basis for that assertion, i.e., a showing that things vital to your existence must be fairly obvious or else they don’t exist? (Would Darwin have been justified in saying that DNA does not exist because it was not obvious to him?)
            (2) The second sentence asserts “there’s no evidence.” I assume that refers to evidence of a Creator. Lacking here, however, is a definition of what kind of evidence would be credited. So far, the first sentence suggests the only evidence accepted is that which is “fairly obvious.” Yet science routinely deals with evidence that is not obvious and many times only indirectly detected.
            My experience as a former atheist and now as a theist talking to atheists indicates that atheists claim “no evidence” as a talking point but are unwilling to agree upon a standard definition of evidence. Thus, atheists (I was one) typically will assert any contrary evidence “isn’t evidence.”

          • djstucrew

            Those are great questions! Yes, I guess I should’ve been a bit more detailed. Let’s put it this way: the mechanics of our biology and universe are present in tangible form. The biggest obstacle to our understanding of how everything works is our senses. While we made many great discoveries by simply using our eyes, ears and logic, the bigger discoveries came when we amplified those senses; we turned our telescopes toward the sky; we turned our microscopes toward the pond water; we created even more powerful instruments and racked-up discovery after discovery. They were there to be seen: DNA, the atom, germs… they weren’t “hidden” purposely, nor did they evade our detection. We invented and applied mathematics. Truth is out there for all to see. We sometimes just have to invent clever ways to see the things our senses cannot. That’s what the Large Hadron Collider is all about.

            So I’m not limiting my definition of “fairly obvious” to the macro, or that which can be readily observed at all times, but that didn’t exactly translate in my post and I was remiss in my assumption that any reader would follow that implied thought.

            BTW: DNA was discovered AFTER Darwin proposed his theories on evolution/natural selection. He knew there must be a mechanism behind it at work, so my guess is that his reaction would be more like, “Ah, of course!” It’s action was obvious BEFORE its discovery.

            Theists make many assertions without proof. I’ve observed that there are three main types of “proof” for god(s):
            1. The argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy). This says, “Look at the complexity around you. How else could all this have happened?” The assumption, of course, is that there is no other way. “I can’t imagine how else this may have come to be” is less a proof of god(s) and more a verification of the limitations of the human intellect.
            2. Attacking alternate theories, the assumption being that if your theory is not 100% complete or lacking in ANY way, then mine (theism) must be correct. This is also a fallacy: see: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque. Science, for instance, stops at the “Big Bang.” Although there are some interesting hypotheses, nobody has demonstrable proof as to what touched it off. So, when asked how it happened, science says, “We don’t know.” Religion never says this (aside from the Catholics babbling about the “mysteries of faith” — LOL!) Religion always thrusts god(s) into the gaps in our knowledge, which is why the meme “god of the gaps” is appropriate.
            3. Circular proof (revelation): there is a god because he gave us his word in these ancient scriptures. We know the scriptures are right because they came from god. [An aside: older material is more credible than new material, so my scripture trumps your science text.] This is akin to saying that Spider Man is real because he is in this comic book and SAYS he’s real.

            I’ve just finished a book discussing a fairly hot political topic. In researching it, I had to use what is known as the “system of three.” This means that every assertion must have three independent sources supporting it or it is treated as suspect. While it does seem slightly arbitrary (why not four? Five?), I have found it handy to weed out bad information. To give this argument any standing, every assertion in every scripture must be verified as well. And all of this is AFTER authenticating things such as authorship and source! This is a bit deeper than I’m prepared to go at this point; suffice it to say that you wouldn’t trust a report on nutrition written by PETA, and once a document is proven to be a forgery, whatever is in it is generally regarded as worthless. UNLESS it is scripture. 🙂

            There is a third one that I’m spacing on right now…

            Given that the above, then, is rejected as true evidence, what might YOU assert as evidence? Is there some evidence I’m unaware of that would stand up to, say, the rigors of scientific experiment? Or solid enough even to stand up in a court of law, as loose as those standards are? Or what about a mathematical model of some sort? There are many avenues for evidence! Archaeological (we only know of dinosaurs because of the bones they left behind) or biological (does god have a physical component)? Can you show me anything outside of the three categories? You say you’re a former atheist. So what major, irrefutable evidence was it that turned you around?

          • bizeditor84

            DJ, I appreciate your post’s tone and content. I agree with you about the argument from incredulity – not strong for theists or atheists. I agree with you generally that undermining an alternative theory by itself does not necessarily mean that “my theory must be therefore correct.” It is possible in a situation there are only two possible answers to a question, so disproof of one means the other is correct, but that is not common. I agree that a circular proof is not persuasive, primarily because its conclusion assumes its premises and vice versa. You’ll likely agree atheists (and many Darwinists) engage in circular arguments, just as some theists do. It’s an equal oppt’y fallacy 🙂
            Now, you asked me for the “major, irrefutable evidence” that moved me from atheist to theism. I’m happy to provide evidence – but – a key thrust of my earlier post was the problem of defining “evidence” that will be accepted as evidence. Your post adverted to “archaeological” or “biological” evidence, but these don’t help us agree on the nature of evidence that both of us would agree constitutes evidence.
            Your post described what wasn’t evidence – if you can offer a definition of evidence that is concrete enough to use, then perhaps we can find out where you and I agree and where we disagree. The range of disagreement may be narrower than we imagine 🙂

          • djstucrew

            I’m good with nearly anything that isn’t anecdote. We know about dinosaurs because of bones, primarily. Those are certainly evidence. A great definition is here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
            The only hurdle is that the existence of god(s) or a spirit realm isn’t exactly a formal hypothesis or theory, so knowing the exact parameters to be tested could be tricky. But, hey, we gotta start somewhere!

            One of the biggest disconnects I see is that theists claim that the spirit realm is totally inaccessible to ours; that they exist completely separate and apart and are totally undetectable, yet,
            A. we somehow KNOW about them, so information (which in physics is as tangible as steel atoms) somehow crosses over, and
            B. a supernatural entity (god?) somehow created our universe — the ultimate interaction.
            This is all beside the fact that he is said to intervene in our affairs, observes and knows everything going on in our little bubble and so on. This suggests something terribly wrong with the entire hypothesis; either there is a spirit world and we should therefore be able to detect it, test for it and find evidence for it, or there is no spirit world and, hence, no evidence, or that there is a spirit world and we are forever cut off from it (and vice-versa) and we only know of its existence via a lucky guess. (Again, if information got to us from there, then it fails the latter definition and should be detectable.

            I sometimes also toss out the idea that even evidence that might stand up in court would do, but given the plastic nature of our legal standards, I’m loathe to go with that one anymore. 🙂

            Anyway, thank you for the kind words and discussion!

          • bizeditor84

            DJ, thank you for your enduring civility in our discussion.
            I value clarity over agreement, so even if we end up disagreeing, at least we should both understand the bases of disagreement.

            Let me ask: can you point me to a scientific source that explains and supports your post’s statement that “information … is in physics as tangible as steel atoms”? My reading on information suggests it lacks mass or detectable energy fields. Let me know where scientists argue otherwise. (The definition of “information” may be the issue, I don’t know.)

            On your post’s main point – I find atheists often shift the argument from “is there evidence of a creator designer” to issues of what various theists claim about the spirit realm or the creator’s intervention in the world. It appears your post has done that. I won’t call the post’s argument names or anything, it is just that we have to see what the theses of an argument are.

            It seems to me a starting point in the discussion would be to address: “is there evidence of an intelligent agent that created the Universe?” If there is no such evidence, then various theists’ thoughts about the spirit world would be interesting as
            matters of psychology or sociology but that is about it.

            Are we agreed to that point?
            (P.S. Your post’s cite to Wiki was truncated – could you indicate what term I can search for there to find what you were citing?)

          • Bizedit

            DJ, I’m finding the system doesn’t allow me to post anymore under my other name, not sure why – so if you wanted to pursue the conversation at all, I’d be game – you could email me directly and correspond that way, or if there is a forum where you’d prefer, I’d be up for that. bizeditor84 at Hotmail dot com.

          • John Hart

            Well said!

    • mtman2

      U -R an an idiot, go bother some one elses site!

  • Timur

    You atheists should pick up and move to China and quit mooching off the American system that was founded on God. Go live out your dreams with other atheists, see how that system works out for you.

    • mtman2

      100 times as many Chinese would be fighting to take their places here.

    • Allen Hall

      Never looked at the Treaty of Tripoli have you?

      Article 11″As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded
      on the Christian religion..”

  • Allen Hall

    This jackass blocked me from his youtube channel because he couldn’t answer any of my questions and I could answer all of his. He’s as pathetic as they come. The only thing more sad than grown men and women with imaginary friends is the
    arguments they use to support their delusions.

  • Bob Martinelli

    Thank you for this. I was looking for something to post on my FB page. Amazing logic…..teeeeeeheeee. Boy oh boy, you are a bright one. BTW my tongue is in my cheek. Wild bill try reading some Dawkins.

  • Gay Jesus

    Anyone who LITERALLY believes in GOD, as in the GOD of both the NEW and Old testament, is a gigantic moron and fool. A book written by lawmakers to control society is NOT the divine word of an eternal power. It is mythology at its most basic form. The Christian religion, like all other religions of the current time, and past, has a place in society for controlling the masses, etc. but true believers as in the temple on the mount, the blood of the Jews, resurrection, etc are complete buffoons. They would be pitied and laughed at if they didn’t echo lunatics like Hitler and David Duke and Timothy McVeigh. people who call themselves Christians are almost always the least intolerant people in the room.

    • bizeditor84

      My, my, a lot of evidence-free assertions, hasty absolutes and generalizations, and name calling. Not persuasive. One of the atheists posting above here quoted Christopher Hitchens saying: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Hitchens wasn’t the first to say that; it is a long held principle of argumentation. G-J’s rant here fails even the atheists’ test of persuasiveness.

  • James Herrington

    @ John Hart – You (like all Christians) are speaking in generalities…Give us specifics and try to refrain from the handy “scripture” card you Christians love to pull.

  • Empiricalitis

    Hmm, maybe this guy can find some documents with Jesus’ signature on them. You know, like the ones we have from Abraham Lincoln. Or maybe some DNA samples. You know, like the ones we have from Abraham Lincoln. Or maybe a photograph of Jesus. You know, like the ones we have of Abraham Lincoln.