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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, can you prove Ganesha and Vishnu don't exist? How about Zeus? What exactly does evidence for the non-existence of something look like? Once we accept the absurd notion that rejection of a claim or belief has a burden of proof then literally all unfalsifiable claims have credence.
There is an invisible pixie in front of you, undetectable in any empirical way, care to prove it isn't there?
No, but you also don't see me creating a website called Pixie Republic, to let the world know I don't believe there's pixie in front of me.
Don't be obtuse John.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Atheism is the position that there is insufficient or no evidence that any god or gods exist.
All Abramists deny the existence of documented and 1st person testimony of interactions with gods like Hera, Apollo, Diana, Poisedon and more plus heaps of demi gods like Achilles and Hercules.
There are witness accounts of those gods' conversations and interactions just as there are for Odin, Loki, Thor et al.
How do you justify your disbelief in those John?
Perhaps atheism is the position that no evidence exists for God. But clearly such a claim is temporal, meaningful only in the presence of ignorance. Atheism can't argue that evidence will never exist. After all, that will require having access to information that is not and perhaps never will be available.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore atheism is a presumption. It may be a reasonable or unreasonable presumption, but a presumption nonetheless. Like a man that believes all swans are white, because every encounter with a swan has been white, you can't predict the day when you'll encounter a black swan.
I haven't read any holy books from Poseidon or Thor unfortunately. So I'm unaware of any testimonies that claim to have a 1st person encounter with them. There are such accounts from Islam, Catholicism, and Mormonism. I simply don't make anything of those claims, they have seen the Virgin Mary or their respective angels. I don't try to justify my beliefs at all, I merely find them intriguing and withhold my opinion until it becomes relevant. I try to understand the world, not pretend I already do. Calling their testimonies lies, is far too easy and uninteresting for me.
John 61X Breezy: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
That may be a reasonable position on a binary yes-no question. Is there a god or isn't there a god? But Christianity, Islam, and all the other theistic religions have accumulated vast bodies of "knowledge" defining the characteristics of god. Once you start doing that, it's no longer a binary question. The odds lengthen, and the burden of proof is multiplied. Every "fact" about god is an extra number in the reality lottery. And if you ask for evidence for even one of those numbers, it always comes down to personal things like "faith" or "revelation." At some point, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.
BTW, most swans in Australia/New Zealand are black with red beaks.
Oh BULLSHIT Breezy! Not believing a myth is not a presumption. God isn't a fact until disproven. You aren't trying to understand the world. You are apologizing for accepting a myth without any proof whatsoever.
"Perhaps atheism is the position that no evidence exists for God."
Oxford English dictionary
Atheism
Noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
No matter how many times you mendaciously claim atheism is a belief or a claim, it really isn't, unless you're too dim to understand that an atheist and atheism are not the same thing?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "
Of course it is, what a truly asinine cliche. The lack of evidence for unicorns is evidence they don't exist, but not according to you apparently.
"Therefore atheism is a presumption."
Wrong again, atheism is the rejection of a presumption that has failed to demonstrate proper evidence to support it.
"I don't try to justify my beliefs at all, "
Nonsense, these pages are filled with you making such claims and assertions.
"I merely find them intriguing and withhold my opinion until it becomes relevant."
That's laughably false, you have denied scientific facts, tried to redefine the dictionary, and made endless laughable attempts to reverse the burden of proof, withhold your opinion indeed, that's risible.
"I try to understand the world, not pretend I already do."
Is that an opinion you are withholding? denying scientific facts that are evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, because they refute the creation myth of your chosen superstition is not withholding your opinion, nor is it remotely trying to understand the world. It's a fundamental failure to grasp reality, or understand what the scientific process is and does.
Well, that's interesting. Keep in mind that when I said "Perhaps atheism is the position that no evidence exists for God" I am merely responding to the post above me, which said: "Atheism is the position that there is insufficient or no evidence that any god or gods exist."
Perhaps that is all atheism is, or perhaps it isn't. Better yet, perhaps you should have addressed your response to Old Man Shouts, since it seems it is his statement you find to be a "mendacious claim."
I'll let you two sort it out.
Perhaps while we are "sorting" out a non argument (points for trying to foment one as a distraction)...How about you answer my questions?
Why do you believe the massive amount of testimony regarding the existence and inter reactions of other gods ( Which you admit you have not read) is lies and fantasy whilst the uncorroborated testimonies of your sect of Christians is the correct one and the testimonies are true?
I don't believe I've made such claims though, to the contrary in my response to your question I said I don't make anything of those testimonies. I hold my judgment until it becomes relevant. Of course, I do have reasons for being Christian. But arrogance doesn't mix well with religion.
You seem to have held yourself as Christian, which is based on testimony.
Are you saying that those are not the method by which you joined your faith?
Are you saying they have no relevance to the received word of your god?
That the collection of writings making up the NT can be completely disregarded?
I would love to hear how you are a Christian and a member of the RCC.
What is the RCC?
RCC..... Roman Catholic Church. (Don't feel too bad. I had to figure out some of this stuff myself. lol)
No, once again John I suspect you wilfully misunderstand.
Atheism is a null position. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore atheism is a presumption." that is a fallacious statement. You get it right in the first sentence, but then you draw an inference that is not supported. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that is all. Your analogy is false.
And yes you can say Atheism is the position that a god or gods is not proven, yet every atheist I have met is willing to countenance that one day proof may be forthcoming.
Why do you not read the Iliad? Aeneas's Journeys? Any Ancient Greek literature? The plays are really good, Aristophenes in particular. Plenty of examples of eyewitness accounts of the gods doings, screwings, their offsprings' misdemeanours etc. Why is that so less believable than one god splitting into three, becoming his own Father and son while having sex as a ghost with a minor?
Or is only that testimony that relates to the Greek Pantheon unreliable and made up whilst the collection of stories in the Bible are all true and from impeccable sources? Love to hear your reasoning whilst one set testimonies is undoubtedly true and the other is not.
Five hundred hippies high on pot and drunk on wine do not offer valid testimony.
And before one counters with "That's not fair, how can you claim they were all drunk and stoned"? I ask, can you claim otherwise? They were in serious remorse, probably in the middle of an Irish wake. I have good reason to believe his followers were quite smashed.
Okay, so a couple of people have taken us off track here. I want to steer us back to the road. The thread is a statement that says testimony is not in itself proper evidence. Just because someone says that they saw something or something is true does not make it true. In fact, the law assumes that it isn't true until it is corroborated. Christians like to use forms of testimony to say that their god is real, yet they can't and will not corroborate any of those testimonies. In fact, they can't even substantiate that any of those testimonies actually occurred. For example, bibles produced after 300 ADE (depending on which version you actually reference) claim that 500 people witnessed the resurrection of jesus. Well, we know that that is a logistic impossibility and we know that that claim was introduced some 300 years after the supposed event and was not part of the original text. We don't know who actually wrote the claim, but they could not have had firsthand knowledge and quite probably made the whole thing up or were direct to.
The fact is a claim that there were 500 witnesses to an event in which that claim was made by someone who could not have any knowledge of the said event is a false claim.
This thread is NOT about the validity of the supposed resurrection, but rather the fact that the testimony associated with that event and all other events is false because there is no corroborating evidence. The bible cannot and is not substantiation of itself. That would be like me stating that personally know and am in contact with an alien and claiming as proof that statement is true by saying "because I say so."
But the apostles and other Christians were willing to go to there deaths in the belief of Jesus resurrection that substantiates it for me. Also the great Apostle Paul says that there also were over 500 who saw the risen Christ yet some have fallen asleep; meaning that there were some still alive as his writing that a person could go to with any questions that they had. That substantiates it for me.
Not verified.. That anyone died for it. Where do you get this information?
The fact that Christianity survived the turbulent years early on is a sure sign that God was leading the way here .to the sum total of over two billion Christians world wide today shows how god was guiding it. And you want to be in a little secret it will continue to grow .you haven`t seen nothing yet.
"The fact that Christianity survived the turbulent years early on is a sure sign that God was leading the way here "
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
"to the sum total of over two billion Christians world wide today shows how god was guiding it."
Argumentum ad populum fallacy
"And you want to be in a little secret it will continue to grow "
Except it isn't, in most developed countries the opposite is true, the US is an anomaly in that respect, but even there atheism and secularism is increasing.
Nope, not a word you say is true or logical AG and is far off topic.
There were not 500 witnesses and there is no proof that Paul said or wrote anything you say he did. Numbers of christians don't prove anything. You haven't proven any direct involvement of any god. The fact is that the number of christians is dropping in record numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christia...
@Agnostic Believer: "willing to go to there deaths"
Does that automatically make them right? Muslim fanatics go willingly to their deaths because they believe that Allah will give them 72 virgins to play with in the afterlife. Are they right? They're certainly sincere.
And by the way, Paul used his Roman citizenship to get out of crucifixion. If he really believed in Jesus, why didn't he ask to be crucified instead? Instead he went for a quick, clean decapitation.
Yes but the major difference is that terrorist cause destruction and death and property damage while the Christian populace loves life and meant for happiness. the Christian went to their deaths because they saw and believed to propagate life to sustain life; jesus said that he came that we may have life and more abundantly .The Christians went to their deaths with the hope of life prolonging it.
Fucking BULLSHIT AG!
Christianity has NEVER been about love and peace. It has always been about control and property! Christianity caused the genocides in 6 continents in the name of the lord! In comparison, islam is the cause of some terrorism. Hmmm... 100s of millions murdered vs. 100s of thousands.
"But the apostles and other Christians were willing to go to there deaths in the belief of Jesus resurrection that substantiates it for me. "
Do people never give their lives for an idea that proves to be erroneous? Come on billy, you can't be this gullible surely?
" Also the great Apostle Paul says that there also were over 500 who saw the risen Christ"
What evidence can you demonstrate that this claim is true? Balanced against every human who has ever lived and died and not once risen from the dead?
" meaning that there were some still alive as his writing that a person could go to with any questions that they had. "
No Billy, the claim may or may not have come from someone called Paul, who may or may not have made a claim, for which no evidence can be demonstrated, for an event he is allegedly commenting on but did not see, making a claim that defies scientific facts, making ludicrous claims about the supernatural which abounded in that era of ignorance and superstition.
"That substantiates it for me."
You may want to avoid reading Harry Potter, you'll be under your bed hiding from wizards.
Proof of belief and the willingness to even die for one's beliefs does not make it true. Some misguided souls crashes some airplanes into buildings, the display of ultimate belief? So by your logic, you should be reading the Koran right now. Thousands of young Japanese men committed suicide by Kamakize in defense of their holy land and holy emperor. Once again a display of ultimate belief, and one many of us do not adhere to.
So just these believers were willing to display the ultimate belief, that does not make the belief valid or true.
Paul says this, Paul says that. Holy crap, what did he say, and who were the 500 witnesses? You are inventing things unless you can provide 500 names and proof they were there. Yes, my request is ludicrous, but guess what, claiming 500 is equally so. It cannot be proven by any method.
Here is something somewhat fascinating to me in an amusing sort of way. As is fairly obvious, a great majority of the discussions on here concerning a god are centered around the Christian god, whether it be Catholic, or Protestant, or any of the other such deities. And that is understandable considering most of the members are from regions where these religions are prominent. Sure, Muslims get tossed into the pot every now and then with Allah (who, if I understand things correctly, is basically the same as the Christian god but with a different prophet), but the theists on this site are here primarily defending the Christian god. Right? Well, here is the interesting part (to me, at least): Atheists do not believe in ANY gods, Christian or otherwise. And that is all good and well. But the Christian theists on here are concerned only with the fact atheists do not believe in THEIR Christian god. The Christians apparently have zero problems with atheists not believing in any of the hundreds of other gods that are believed by millions and the other religions that are actively practiced around the globe. Bear in mind each of these other religions have their own holy books, with their own teachings, and their own prophets that are just as real to their believers as the Christian god is to Christians, (Heck, some of them even outdate Christianity by thousands of years.) And no doubt there are many of these religions that have just as many ancient "testimonies" as does the Christian bible. So, that being the case, why is it Christians "condemn" atheists for not believing in the Christian god, but fail to take into account that they (Christians) could be considered equally as "heathen" as atheists by not believing in any of the other religions out there? I actually brought up this matter once to JoC in another thread, but he never really addressed the matter directly. (I know. Shocking, right?) Anyway, in all fairness, on one hand I can somewhat admire an individual who attempts to defend his/her beliefs. I get it. On the other hand, when that individual seemingly avoids direct questions and then deflects and/or ignores basic logic and reason for the sole purpose of maintaining those beliefs regardless of the consequences (even to the point of submitting "dishonest" arguments), then at some point the whole business becomes laughable. As a result, it often ends up with the theist basically proving the atheists' points for them. Just a little something I dredged up from this rusty brain bucket of mine.
Cogently put TM. I find the reluctance, in fact downright avoidance of direct questions by theist, especially Christian theists infuriating.
You ask a question or supply a link directly contradicting (with evidence) their position and they zoom off on another tangent like a blind Capucin monkey driving a dodgem car at the fair.
@Old Man Re: Theist dodge-ball
Yeah, it can definitely get annoying. Still, by their doing so, it often simply helps reinforce my own beliefs/non-beliefs. Until I started watching videos from shows like Atheist Experience, I never really had any experience with hearing any honest/knowledgeable debates about religion/god. And when I started hearing all the lame excuses and all the intentional deflections made by the theists, I couldn't help but think to myself, "Holy shit. They sound just like many of the criminals I use to have to interview on the streets for so many years." I almost feel embarrassed for them sometimes. And after being on this site for awhile now, I have noticed the same pattern of "defense" from the theists. What is sad for me is knowing there was a time in my life many years ago when I was making the same lame arguments and excuses. *shudder*
I hadn't actually thought of it like that TM, but as a layman even though I was a prison educator for some time I can see the similarities in "Testimony" (to bring us back on topic). The deflections, not answering direct questions, showering red herrings like an explosion at Fish Feast all bear great similarities to habitual criminal behaviour.
Both suffer from Cognitive Dissonance and maybe that is the common thread?
Pages