Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
That's like asking you define a unicorn when you disbelieve someone else's claim they exist, and ask for evidence.
Especially since no two theists ever have the same definition. Many don't even have the same deity.
It's an open ended request for the best objective evidence so theists have the most latitude and scope I could give.
Your posts have shown clearly you don't know what critical thinking is, and your made up stats are simply risible, even as metaphor.
Define the deity you claim exists, then demonstrate the best objective evidence you have.
If you don't have any objective evidence then either say so, or just ignore the thread as it's not for you. All you're doing is attackingcatheism and atheists because they don't share your beliefs, without bothering to address a single objection any atheist raises.
For instance you have ignored questions that are directly salient to claims you have made.
If your deity is perfectly merciful why is there ubiquitous suffering?
If your prophet wrote a moral template from a perfect deity why does it condone killing murder.
If your prophet understood objective morality from a perfectly moral deity why did that deity not make him understand that the sexual abuse of 9 year old children can never be moral?
How can you claim the Koran is a blueprint for objective morality, then immediately insist it has to be subjectively interpreted?
These are just a sample of the questions you have dodged since you came here. If you want a respectful dialogue start by having the intellectual integrity to at least try and give candid answers to questions. Instead of preaching to atheists, with sententuous sermons.
“Did I say they were? Or did I make a distinction between the two?” Sorry if misunderstood. I normally understand it when someone uses / to describe to thinks they are implying they are almost the same or go hand in hand. Kinda like saying athlete/boxer or musician/artist.
“Well that is quite the strawman there” Funny how every single thing I mention, almost every single atheist calls it a strawman.
“nor did I say that all theists follow him” You did not say ALL but you did say theist. According to the Cambridge dictionary theist means someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods. So for future reference please be more specific, try Christian, Jew, Hindu or whatever you are specifically referring to.
“Christiaity and Islam are both theologies, they both reside under the umbrella of monotheism” That is not entirely true for Christianity, given the trinity not all Christians believe in Monotheism. That is actually up for debate in the Christian community, this is why I say that people here always tend to generalize and want to put all theists under the same umbrella.
“I said "A lot of theists move the goal posts in most discussions, lack the ability to clearly define what they are talking about"” True, and both sides (atheists and theists) are equally guilty of this. However, I think the main reason for this is, again, due to atheists not defining which “god” they are referring to and tend to lump them up all together even when talking to one specific theist. Accuracy is key for any meaningful and fruitful discussion.
“Ah now this is interesting, So you believe your god comports to reality?” When speaking about Islam, I absolutely believe its comports to reality.
“Oh dear, It literally is the opposite. But you are entitled to your opinion. If you follow the multiverse concept” While I disagree with you here, since it’s a concept I guess there’s no need for me to further voice my opinion.
“as in the consequence of various theories and low energy laws of physics, you literally have no need for a deity nor any creation of any sorts.” Yes, you still do. Whether its energy, waves, pixie dust or tinker bell, something had to start from somewhere to create either 1 universe or multiple.
“I would enjoy to see theists actually do this, Christians and Muslims alike.” I would as well, personally, I have tried doing this but, people never stayed on topic and kept asking random foolish questions that had 0 to do with what I was talking about so I gave up. I think I have seen 1 or 2 other threads where some Christians tried the same but, ended up getting crucified (pun intended) with the same out context and irrelevant questions. Maybe some guidelines would help but, I doubt everyone will stick to them.
“Personally it strikes me as strange that theists would come on to a site such as atheist republic where by definition, the people there have a lack of belief in a god and/or find there to be a distinct lack of evidence to support it. But then expect them to play by their rules, quite odd I think.” For me, I came here to try and see things from a different perspective. I am a very curious person and figured let me look at the “other side”. Unfortunately, since my first thread I have been met with almost nothing but insults, arrogance, ignorance as well as a plethora of “fake news” aka made up stories against Islam which I proved to be fabricated. Luckily, I am not one who gets offended or cares about what idiots have to say hiding behind a computer. It seems these forums are just like everywhere else for the most part. The second you even respectfully challenge the way people think, they will immediately begin hurling insults and talking about irrelevant things in an attempt to play to the “crowd”. People are more worried about what the viewer/crowd (see what I did there? lol) thinks then the person they are actually addressing. Which is why almost all conversations that I have had ended up as a waste of time.
“well in closing all I will say is everything within the universe is explained by naturalistic reasoning.” I agree with this statement however, what are the boundaries for naturalistic reasoning to you? For Muslims, not only does it include evidence but, it also includes reason, logic and rational even if science can’t prove but as long as science can NOT disprove it. For example, (I will use a simple one) I know my iPhone or car were manufactured in a plant somewhere, how do I know that? Well, to keep it simple, logically I know something like this does not come in to existence via nature (trees, plants, animal and anything else that falls under nature). Did I see the manufacturing of my phone or car? No, but that does not mean that there isn’t a manufacturer or creator behind this invention. While I have 0 scientific evidence to prove anything I said is true, logically it makes the most sense. Now, I can use science/technology to research and try to find evidence for my claim but, let’s assume I find nothing. Nothing to prove nor disprove my “belief” that my phone or car are manufactured or created. Does that mean they came in to existence out of nothing? Or simple always existed? See, to me, I think the best way to explain something that is true, we do not need to know or understand complicated math or scientific methods, we simply need logical, reason and rational. Yes, we need science (all of its forms) to understand the details and exact process but, we do not need it to understand big picture. For example, since the existence of humans, we as humans have had some understanding of how children are born. Man sleeps with woman (might be once or be 100 times), something happens inside woman, wait some time and boom, baby is born. While we did NOT know nor need the details 1000s of years ago we were still able to live on till today, where now we have all the details on how a child goes from a sperm/egg to a baby. While our level of understanding is far better today, that does not mean that the process or logic behind our simple and limited understanding 1000s of years ago changed either. Same logic, same understanding on how to make a baby but, all we have today is much better understanding of the detailed process as well as all the benefits that go along with it. I hope I was able to at least get my point across, whether you agree or disagree is a different story, I know I kind rambled on but, hopefully you get the picture.
“So yes I would agree that perhaps arguing a scientific point of view with a Muslim or any other denomination may be fruitless, But of either side (that being theism and atheism/naturalist) who appears to be able to demonstrate their 'beliefs' more accurately?” The issue with that statement is that the word “accurately” is subjective as it depends on your definition of what constitutes as evidence.
“what model works best and is the most accurate? I don't think it is even remotely close.” All depends on what you are trying to prove but, when it comes to religion, I think I have shown how, at least for Muslims, science alone is not what we go based off of. The Quran speaks to our intellect not only from a scientific stand point but, it also includes everything I mentioned above. I will gladly engage anyone who wants to exchange ideas or talk about Islam as long as they understand what the Islamic “evidence” entails. And I say evidence with the quotation marks because it seems we have different boundaries for what constitutes as evidence.
Question for you, is there anything you believe in that is not back 100% by scientific evidence? If yes, why?
Don't worry, it is perfectly fine.
Apologies, it is just a logical fallacy when misrepresenting someone.
I don't feel that is an unreasonable request and so I shall try to do that.
However, I would perhaps say that maybe atheists use 'theist' as a term to define anyone who believes in any deity and hence why the broad brush approach by many.
so the miracles attributed to the prophet within Islam, you claim comport to reality?
i.e. the splitting of the moon, provided food and water supernaturally, curing the ill by touch and obviously flew to heaven on a winged horse (Buraq, if memory serves me right, I sincerely apologise if wrong)
I would delve into why it is the case that a creative influence in the form of a deity isn't require but I fear it wouldn't be of interest to many, but if I'm wrong, let me know and I will happily elaborate.
Furthermore, I think it is more logical and rational to follow the chain of causation, everything from life here, to the formations of stars and all the way to the big bang and beyond, it is all understood in terms of natural causes that conform to reality and do not require the suspension of the laws of nature.
Again, I am happy to elaborate more on why this is wrong, but only if you want me to.
I ask because I do not wish to waste my time otherwise.
We certainly have common ground here, I do certainly agree.
Apologies for the brief segment of your quote from the long paragraph, this is simply to demonstrate I am addressing that point whilst keeping some order to the replies.
That is good that you are open minded enough to do this and I salute you for doing so, bravo indeed.
But like you said in regards to labelling all religion under theists, I would urge you to not broadbrush the entire atheist community.
Many of us are very happy to debate reasonably, but having been on many sites myself you find a lot of rudeness and the same arguments constantly being presented.
That said, of late, there has been a marked up turn in more rational thought from all parties in the forums I frequent and I hope it continues.
I would assert that currently, everything in the material universe can be described, inferred and so on, via naturalism.
I've yet to come across anything that is outside of its domain.
Science or the scientific method never give you that, but it is the tool that gets you the closest to the truth.
But I believe death inevitable and there is nothing that can prevent.
Since so many theists have of late come here to misrepresent themselves as possessing evidence for a deity, it seems apropos to bump this thread, which I originally started specifically for theists to demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity.
Do please note the OP, quoted here:
Since FishNChips007 is still dishonestly claiming to have posted evidence for a deity, I challenge him, and all other theists, to post the best most compelling piece of objective evidence they think supports the existence of their deity, or any deity come to that.
They are if course welcome to search this thread which I created some time ago for this very purpose, and which ti date contains not one shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.
Apollo can simply list all the beliefs he holds without any objective evidence, but that form no part of his superstitious religious beliefs. Since he continues to make the farcical claim that objective evidence can't exist.
Tic tock theists...
It's odd, but for all the many and varied grandiose claims for evidence from theists on here,, and after 2 years, not one piece of objective evidence, or any rationally consistent argument for any deity have been posted in this thread?
Whatever can the hold up be?