claremont:

Atheists are simply people who ask for clear incontrovertible evidence that God exists irrespective of whether this God is being painted in a positive or negative light by any of the Abrahamic faiths. In the absence of any evidence, then it is simply an indulgence in irrationality to believe in the irrational!

Jenwitemi:

This is a question to atheists. I would understand that quite well if that is the case, with the scriptures of the world religions having painted the picture of the creator as a psychopath gone berserk. But what if these scriptures of  these world religions are totally wrong? What if God isn't like that at all?

- What if God is not a psychopath run amok(as those scriptures suggest)?
- What if God does not live only in the scriptures of these so-called 'world religions'?
- What if God does not need our worship via these religions or any other, for that matter(as the scriptures claim)?
- What if God does not need our daily praise?
- What if God does not have a "chosen people or culture", as the world religions suggest?
- What if God has no preferred religion?
- What if God leaves us to create and adjust our morality and ethics as we grow and evolve, instead having them handed down to us via scriptures?
- What if God has created no hell, except the one we create for ourselves here on earth?
- What if there is no paradise except the one we create for ourselves here on earth?
- What if God wants only wants our continual intellectual, mental, psychical, spiritual and physical evolution via our daily interactive experiences with the physical universe around us and beyond through every means available without restrictions?
- What if God only wants to stay in the background and watch us evolve in all these areas and levels without interfering in any way, except to merely set the stage.


Would the atheist see the probability of the existence of God as less threatening and more acceptable if all these above mentioned questions are in the affirmative? Are the atheist really against the creator or just against the very perverted images of it created by the priesthoods of the world religions? Just curious to know from the in-house atheists what their thoughts would be on this.

Sweetnecta:

@Claremont; « #2 on: Today at 03:25:02 PM »can you provide a clear incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist, irrespective of the obvious that could the order on this earth be without a Controller Who maintains the order?

Sweetnecta:

why isn't the water in the sea and ocean bowls spilling into space?

Sweetnecta:

why is the people on the surface of the earth not just falling and flowing into space as the earth travels to its destination in its daily rotation in its orbit?

Sweetnecta:

@Claremont; « #2 on: Today at 03:25:02 PM »can you provide a clear incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist, irrespective of the obvious that could the order on this earth be without a Controller Who maintains the order? why isn't the water in the sea and ocean bowls spilling into space? why is the people on the surface of the earth not just falling and flowing into space as the earth travels to its destination in its daily rotation in its orbit?

KunleOshob:

I think what atheist have a problem with is various religious doctrines which might seem incoherent or contradict each other. They now demonstrate their aversion by deluding themselves that there is no God. It still beats my imagination how any right thinking person can come to the conclusion that earth and all it's millions of living organisms just happened by accident/chance then started evolving also by series of accidents. It is glaring that there is a super intelligent creator behind all these. Even if you don't accept any religion, it is the height of delusion to claim there is no God.

KunleOshob:

I think what atheist have a problem with is various religious doctrines which might seem incoherent or contradict each other. They now demonstrate their aversion by deluding themselves that there is no God. It still beats my imagination how any right thinking person can come to the conclusion that earth and all it's millions of living organisms just happened by accident/chance then started evolving also by series of accidents. I[b]t is glaring that there is a super intelligent creator behind all these. Even if you don't accept any religion, it is the height of delusion to claim there is no God.[/b]

claremont:

Atheists are simply people who ask for clear incontrovertible evidence that God exists irrespective of whether this God is being painted in a positive or negative light by any of the Abrahamic faiths. In the absence of any evidence, then it is simply an indulgence in irrationality to believe in the irrational!

KunleOshob:

I think what atheist have a problem with is various religious doctrines which might seem incoherent or contradict each other. They now demonstrate their aversion by deluding themselves that there is no God.

KunleOshob:

It still beats my imagination how any right thinking person can come to the conclusion that earth and all it's millions of living organisms just happened by accident/chance then started evolving also by series of accidents. It is glaring that there is a super intelligent creator behind all these. Even if you don't accept any religion, it is the height of delusion to claim there is no God.

Uyi Iredia:

if you have a basic handling on law , you will realise this: That evidence is an exertion of will. It is also very subject to personal bias.

Uyi Iredia:

@ Martian Spare me the ad hominem and focus on the points made. I simply made the observation that any request for evidence is a product of will, and is subject to bias. Any evolutionary process is as a result of intelligence. Check this: www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog

Uyi Iredia:

, And lemme also add that the definition of evidence you gave fails because it is conscious beings in the first place that assign the value of evidence to otherwise non-evidential material. Anything can be evidence for anything depending on how well the defendant states his/her case. Things in and of themselves aren't evidence, it is humans who take them as evidence. Hence my posit that evidence (like intellect)requires the exertion of will. You seem to be highly misinformed about the driver of all evolutionary processes.

babaearly:

@op

that shouldnt be questions for atheists. why talk about what doesnt exist?

Martian:

Ad hominem or not, your points are worthless and only make sense to your religious way of thinking.  Evidence is not subject to bias, it has to be objective and be able to prove your point. *1 If it's biased you'll not succeed in convincing the jury. The Casey Anthony trial in Florida is an example of bias in evidence. The prosecutor tried to prove that Anthony murdered her daughter while using evidence that wasn't objective. He lost.

Evolutinary process is not as a result of intelligence, the only people who say that are the proponets of intelligent design. *2 These people are not respected in academic circles because its apparent that all they want to do is insert their god into science.  The method is not objective because they already had their unproven answer of "god did it" before they even came up with a hypothesis.

Anyone who doesn't see anything wrong with the bible is an  or just ignorant. You don't see anything wrong with the bible, so you are an . Ad hominem Its difficult not to call you ignorant when your subscribe to the following madness I found in your link.

[b]Why Big slam = Jesus Christ

It's something that's probably more beautiful than anything that you've ever seen living here in Illinois . Or for that matter California or where I grew up, British Colombia, which I think is the most beautiful place in the world.

I want to show you something that far transcends the beauty of even the scenery that we see on this planet Earth. [Shows Einstein's singularity equation.] But, then what could possibly transcend the beauty of equations of physics? For those of you who are starting to break out into a cold sweat, this will be gone in less than a minute and I'll never show you another one again.

I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe. This equation falls under the theory of general relativity. For those of you who have a background in calculus, you'll recognize this term here as an expression for acceleration.

What Einstein had done was to drive the equation for the acceleration of the entire universe. On the other side of the equation, you see four physical constants. I don't really have to explain them to you, except to point out that they all have positive values.

Four well-known physical constants with positive values, yet there's a minus sign in front. That immediately tells us that the entire universe experiences negative acceleration. The universe is decelerating. That was a tremendous challenge to the theology of his day because in the 200 years previous to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, academic scientific society was operating on the premise that the universe was static. [/b]

"the equation that convinced Einstein that god exists". Einstein didn't believe in gods. Maybe he did though, because "evidence is biased" like you said. Just ss long as long as you don't expect other reasonable and objective people to believe it.


I have an even better link for you to get more "science" that will line up with your beliefs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/

Martian:

Evidence
Proof ordered at trial in the form of testimony,documents, exhibits,objects etc, for the purpose of convincing the jury of the truth of a contention.

That's what evidence is. It's not the arbitrary definition you're making up. Where did you get your "basic handling of the law"? 
Your definition would work if you're trying to convince the congregation of a church or some other ignorant demographic, but it won't work on objective and reasonable people.

About the driver of all evolutionary process, I'm not confused in any way, shape or form.  I KNOW that the FSM is the driver and the evidence is all the beautiful things you see around you. By the way, I'm using your approach and definition of evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> objective in what sense ? even such 'objectivity' is necessarily based on arbitrary axioms that are generally agreed upon. think basic universal rights

*2 >>> I do not think you have researched on what ID proponents have to say. Here are some links for you to go through:

* Evolution, The Untold Story
* If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists
* TalkOrigins’ Misrepresentations of Werner Gitt and Information Theory

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> objective in what sense ? even such 'objectivity' is necessarily based on arbitrary axioms that are generally agreed upon. think basic universal rights

*2 >>> I do not think you have researched on what ID proponents have to say. Here are some links for you to go through:

* Evolution, The Untold Story
* If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists
* TalkOrigins’ Misrepresentations of Werner Gitt and Information Theory

Enigma:

I repeat below basically what I said in another related thread.

In broad terms, {it was the kind of argument in that second link} that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parroting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism Deism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc ---- na so! 

Sweetnecta:
. . . . can you provide a clear incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist . . .

Enigma:

This is one thing that many atheists do not want to face; instead they try to play the sleight of hand that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist ---- yeah right, tell it to the birds!

Enigma:

This is one thing that many atheists do not want to face; instead they try to play the sleight of hand that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist ---- yeah right, tell it to the birds! 

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> objective in what sense ? even such 'objectivity' is necessarily based on arbitrary axioms that are generally agreed upon. think basic universal rights

*2 >>> I do not think you have researched on what ID proponents have to say. Here are some links for you to go through:

* Evolution, The Untold Story
* If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists
* TalkOrigins’ Misrepresentations of Werner Gitt and Information Theory

phxc:

To say that it is glaring that there is a super intelligent creator behind the universe is taking an assumption and turning it into a fact. There could have been a committee of gods that came up with the idea of the universe, or the universe is one big computer program run by a couple of aliens, or the universe was made by a pair of elephant like entities we cannot begin to comprehend. Fact is, there are many possibilities on how the universe came about but to take one of those possibilities (Creator God) and parrot it as fact without proof is an exercise in deception. So it is the height of delusion to claim that there is a God without evidence to back it up.