There is no evidence for abcense

231 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
JO: RE: Why do you keep

JO: RE: Why do you keep giving examples of racist Christians or how some misused the Bible to justify their evil? ANOTHER FUCKTARD POST I SEE. Why don;t you just enlighten us all to the sect of Christians that are not misusing the bible. You know. The one sect that uses it correctly. Here I will hellp. Just circle your answer. " Oh fuck! I can't list them all. I don't have enough time. A person would need a TWO VOLUME Encyclopedia to do that.
World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001). The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"

Tell you what, you buy the books and then let us know which sect is using the bible the right way and how you ruled out the other 32,999 Christian sects.

RE: You must realize that it is absurd, bizarre, and illogical for anyone to claim that the Bible is anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic attacks rise worldwide in 2018, led by U.S., west Europe: study

UN Condemns Rising Antisemitism in Europe, US | Voice of ...

Report: Anti-Semitic Incidents in US Remain Near Historic Levels in 2018


Sheldon's picture
Atheism has no dogma or

Atheism has no dogma or doctrinal teachings, so beyond the lack of belief in a deity an atheist may believe or disbelieve literally anything.

Christianity has long established dogma of antisemitism over centuries, and that is the context under which the Holocaust was perpetrated in a central European country that was almost entirely Christian at the time and had been for centuries, in a continent that was itself majority christian for centuries.

How long are you going to ignore my point that being a christian was a requirement for the German SS, who of course ran the extermination camps?

Or the point about a 1939 census showing over 94% of Germans were Christian's?

Each time you repeat this point and ignore these facts reinforces how dishonestly your approaching the topic, to satisfy your own bias against legitimate criticisms of christianity.

Then there is the bible depicting a deity that performs and encourages its followers to commit, ethnic cleansing and genocide, and sex trafficking women and girls. And of course the bible, and even Jesus's endorsements of slavery?

You can pretend it' you have a problem with Jo, but do you really think we can't all see you're dishonestly evading questions you don't like.

Nyarlathotep's picture

Jo - If someone had lack of faith that any God exists, but for political expedience claimed to be a Christian.

That is a red herring, who cares. Will you be retracting your demonstrably false statement or not?

Delaware's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

I was referring to how Hitler presented himself as a Christian for political expedience.
How is it a red herring?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - How is it a red herring?

Jo - How is it a red herring?

Because my complaint was about your statement regarding objectivity.

Why did you tell us no objective standard, when it seems you don't believe that?

Sheldon's picture
Hitler claimed to believe a

Hitler claimed to believe a deity existed. He said so many many times, he also exhibited some of the most common bigoted hatreds derived from christianity, namely antisemitism and homophobia. The fact that as a dictator he wanted power for himself and not the church doesn't change these facts.

Why do you want to misrepresent Hitler as an atheist so much Jo? It's not like atheism is the source of antisemitism or homophobia is it, or that atheism causes people to become mass murderers. Since atheism has no dogma, doctrine or creed.

Hitler was a christian, there are plenty of vile people who happen to be Christian's Jo, to deny this is absurd.

xenoview's picture

If you lack belief in a god then you are an atheist. If you are claiming to be a christian because everyone else does it, then you are religious in name only.

Cognostic's picture
Faith is not necessary for

Faith is not necessary for belief in a god. Faith is what you have when you have nothing else. If a person identifies as Christian, and they believe a god exists, they are a Theist. (Christian is an extremely broad category with over 30,000 different belief systems and new ones being invented all the time. At any point in time, any one-third of all Christians will tell you that the other two-thirds are not really Christians.) In your example, the politician is as much a Christian as any other Christian unless you want to implement the "No True Scotsman fallacy.

Sheldon's picture


There is no evidence Hitler didn't believe in a god, hostility to established churches does not remotely suggest one is an atheist. There is an abundance of evidence Hitler believed in god, from his lifelong self identification as a christian and a catholic, to his references in written books to be doing god's work. To his virulent antisemitism and homophobia, both of which form centuries of European christian ideology.

Delaware's picture
@ Nyarlathotep.

@ Nyarlathotep.

Yes, based on self identification I agree.

If I met someone who said his name was Scottie from Scotland.
I would call him that even if he had never even visited Scotland, and had no ancestral ties there.

I was trying to address the claims that conflate Nazi's with Christian's.
It is a guilt by association fallacy.

In Arlington cemetery or in the Allied cemetery in Normandy what do you see?
Rows and rows of crosses.

I had many family member fight in WW2.
Two of them died in that war.
They also self identified as Christians.

If you were a communist, should you have to answer for Stalin and Mao?
If you were a Socialist, should you have to answer for National Socialism (Nazi)? Or what is going on in Nicaragua?
If some Atheist does something horrible, should you have to answer for that?
It is the same when conflating Christianity with Nazism.
What some Christians have done, is no more relative than what some Atheist or Communist have done.

Unless someone can show the Bible condones or encourages Nazism.
It is just an attempt to smear. A guilt by association fallacy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Hitler may have called

Jo - Hitler may have called himself a Christian but by no objective standard was he.

Are you withdrawing that false statement, or not?

Delaware's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Yes, and here is a better statement.

Hitler self identified as a Christian.
However, his antisemitism, and Nazi philosophy in general, are found no where in the Bible.
In fact the Bible essentially says the opposite of what Hitler believed and practiced.

Nazism is closer to Nietzsche than the Bible.
Does this sound at all like a Nazi philosophy?
"the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Darwin
Would it be fair to conflate Atheism and Science (Darwin) with Nazism?
It would be more accurate than to blame the Bible.
Both would be guilt by association and more of a smear than of either being responsible for Nazism.

CyberLN's picture
Jo, you wrote, "In fact the

Jo, you wrote, "In fact the Bible essentially says the opposite of what Hitler believed and practiced."

I would stake a month's wages that every atheist poster active in these forums could list a number of places in the bible where it encourages the sort of behavior in which hitler engaged.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cyber

@ Cyber

Jo has already been given comprehensive evidence of the racist, genocidal nature of his preferred 'holy' book, but has 'apologeticed' it his satisfaction. Which is why we now refer to Jo as "ol pretzel face' and "the best friend of atheism".

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Hitler self identified as

Jo "Hitler self identified as a Christian."

Making him a Christian and he was also raised a christian, and baptised a christian.

Jo "Nazi philosophy in general, are found no where in the Bible."

Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are actively practised and encouraged by the deity in the bible. Nazis swore oaths to Hitler "before god", antisemitism and homophobia has been indoctrinated into European Christians for centuries, Hitler was a christian, as were the SS who ran the death camps, you're sounding ever more desperate Jo.

Jo "Would it be fair to conflate Atheism and Science (Darwin) with Nazism?"

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, so that would be absurd. Some of the top scientists fled Germany under Nazism because of their distortion of the scientific facts of things like species evolution into the entirely unscientific race laws their propaganda labelled social Darwinism. You'd have to be pretty ignorant or very biased not to see through that lie.

Just as you'd have to be pretty desperate to claim Nazis were not Christians when 94% of all Germans were Christians at that time...and it was a mandatory requirement of the SS soldiers who ran the death camps to be christians, or at the very least theists. Now I doubt there were many Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus in the German SS, and how likely is it any were Jewish? That doesn't leave many theists to choose from in a country that was overwhelmingly christian now does it.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Hitler self identified

Jo "Hitler self identified as a Christian.
However, his antisemitism, and Nazi philosophy in general, are found no where in the Bible."

Neither are Christmas trees Jo, are you saying we should suspect duplicitous intent from anyone putting up a Christmas tree and claiming to be a Christian?

You are still ignoring the fact that the populace of Nazi Germany was 94% christian Jo, why is that?

You are still ignoring the fact that all members of the German SS were required to be Christian's Jo, why is that?

You do realise that the KKK is a christian organisation don't you Jo?

How about the Westborough Baptist church, are they Christians Jo?

You keep ignoring the fact that Christians have espoused antisemitism for centuries Jo, why is that?

Sheldon's picture


No one has conflated Nazism with Christianity Jo, that's a lie. They have however pointed out the fact that Nazi antisemitism is a derivation of centuries of European christian dogma. Of course antisemitism is a religious persecution, what else would it be? Though this claim as well as being yet another lie from you is pretty ironic given how often religious apologists try and equate atheism with both the Nazi Holocaust, and Stalin's mass murder, and Mao come to that.

By definition someone with no ancestral ties with Scotland who had never been there is not Scottish. Again I can only hope you're being ironic.

Nazi ideology wasn't remotely socialist, do you even know what socialism means? It was a totalitarian regime that centred power in one party and one leader, and industry was entirely subjugated to the will of that party and it's leader, it was the very antithesis of socialism, try looking beyond the name they called themselves.

Christian dogma is responsible for centuries of antisemitism and persecution and mass murder against Jews. Just because it isn't in the bible doesn't mean christianity is expunged of any responsibility for what it has taught for centuries.

Once again no one has equated Nazism with christianity, and the fallacious attempt to smear was directed at atheists by theists. As is always the case.

Calilasseia's picture
It is just an attempt to

It is just an attempt to smear. A guilt by association fallacy.

You mean like your attempt to peddle Weikart's repeatedly destroyed drivel as fact? The drivel he spreads in pursuit of creationism, claiming Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust? Or that Hitler was an "evolutionist", despite massive evidence to the contrary?

Oh, and speaking of that massive body of evidence refuting Weikart's well-poisoning garbage, some of which I presented here, I'm still waiting to see some sign of recognition of that body of evidence on your part, let alone any substantive attempt to address it.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia,

@ Calilasseia,

I have never heard of Weikart and don't recall ever reading anything by him.
I was responding to the quilt by association fallacy some had presented.
I was evaluating the actions and the philosophies behind the Nazi's.

Do you beleive everything a politician says?
Do they never pander to the audience?
Shouldn't we go by what they do more than what they say?
Did they not misuse both science and Christianity?

Calilasseia's picture
In reply to this ...

In reply to this ...

I have never heard of Weikart and don't recall ever reading anything by him.

In which case, it's a strange coincidence indeed, that you repeated his exact apologetic fabrications.

I was responding to the quilt by association fallacy some had presented.

By presenting a well-known piece of well poisoning as a purported "rebuttal" thereof? Hmm, an interesting diversion into the weirder regions of discoursive malfeasance, this ...

I was evaluating the actions and the philosophies behind the Nazi's.

So the fact that I've provided a comprehensive view thereof in this earlier post, is going to be ignored?

Do you beleive [sic] everything a politician says?

I refer you to this part of the post in question:

Now the diligent will know that I've cited elsewhere, that Hitler was an arch-cynic, and he was certainly a reprobate of the most thoroughgoing order. But, he most certainly believed in a god of some sort, most certainly culled much of the fuel for that belief from contemporary christian culture, and made frequent use of christian imagery in his political and polemical utterances. As I have stated in previous posts elsewhere, his own particular species of theism was a peculiar one (though by no means unique) in that he considered that he was, in some sense, the next divinely ordained saviour. Again, a delusion that is not unique to him, but what of course was unique was the single-minded ruthlessness with which he pursued that vision.

That, and the documented historical facts, should be telling you something important. Hitler may have been prepared to lie tactically to achieve his aims, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he either renounced any religious ties he possessed, or made any substantive move to remove religion from the society he was striving to create.

Do they never pander to the audience?

Actually, you'll find his political rhetoric was aimed at manipulating the audience to fall in line with his views. Hitler sought to build a nationalist society founded upon a racial conception, which, as I've documented in that past post, he derived from Lanz von Liebenfels, who was himself a Cistercian monk prior to being defrocked in 1899. I'm still waiting to see that historical connection addressed substantively.

Meanwhile, why did Hitler paint at least one piece of manifest Catholic iconography as part of his artistic oeuvre, if he wasn't religiously inspired? A piece of Catholic iconography that was painted before he launched his political career? That painting dates from 1913, and Hitler only started to move into politics seriously after his service in World War I. When he did move into politics, the anti-Semitism latent in German society (arising, as one other commenter has already explained, from Martin Luther) had now started to become more overt, courtesy of the Dolchstosslegende.

Once again, the rest of us here are dealing with verifiable historical fact.

Shouldn't we go by what they do more than what they say?

Such as signing a Concordat with the Catholic Church in 1933? Do you think the Catholic Church would have signed the pact in question, if they had harboured any serious doubts about Hitler's willingness to let them continue conducting their business in Germany?

Did they not misuse both science and Christianity?

I've already covered in detail how much of the Nazi view of the world was actually pseudoscientific, not only courtesy of that passage in Mein Kampf covering Hitler's farcically naive view of biology, but Streicher's assorted weird fabrications, some of which led even Nazi administrators to doubt Streicher's sanity when they were published.

As for "misusing" Christianity, well, until assorted adherents of the requisite mythology can arrive at a consensus with respect to the purported "message" being presented therein, any talk of "misuse" of said mythology and its assertions is founded on quicksand. In short, if adherents of the mythology cannot agree with each other what said mythology is purportedly saying, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to know when it's being "misused"? We're still waiting for adherents of this mythology to present a consistent view of its contents, and as a corollary, any apologetics being peddled in this vein remains nothing more than yet another exercise in blind assertion, which, of course, is all that supernaturalists have ever had.

Quite simply, the whole "Hitler was an atheist" bullshit is nothing more than a duplicitous piece of well poisoning, peddled by mendacious supernaturalists who have no substantive argument to offer in support of their mythological adherence, and seek instead to deflect attention from this massive deficit on their part, by erecting a gigantic and specious "guilt by association" ad hominem of their own. Indeed, I'll deal with the whole of this "Hitler/Stalin/Mao were atheists bullshit as follows:

One. Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. And as such, provides no motivation to do anything other than question those assertions. On the other hand, we have a wealth of observational data informing us how religions are cited by their adherents as strong motivation to kill those who do not conform. Inquisition and the Crusades, anyone?

Two. The individuals frequently cited as purportedly "killing in the name of atheism" by pedlars of this bullshit well-poisoniong meme, perpetrated their horrors for two reasons - first, pursuit of the objectives of a well-defined political ideology, and two, consolidation of personal power. Atheism had nothing to do with this.

Three. Those same individuals, when their backgrounds are properly researched, are found to have connections with supernaturalist belief. Pol Pot was raised in a Theravada Buddhist household, and spent part of his education in a Catholic high school. Mao had Buddhist parents and received a Confucian education, not encountering Marxist politics until the relatively late age of 24. Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary. Hitler was a Catholic, who never renounced his Catholicism, and indeed, devoted space in Mein Kampf to praising the Catholic Church and its modus operandi (some examples thereof I presented in that previous post).

Four. As for the question of the body counts, an inconvenient fact that supernaturalists frequently (and deliberately) overlook, is that modern perpetrators of atrocities had access to modern weapons for the task. Anyone who thinks, for example, that the Crusaders, or Inquisitors such as Tomas de Torquemada, would not have racked up a far bigger body count if they had been given access to 20th century weapons, needs to re-take their basic history classes, given the body counts they racked up with nothing more sophisticated than swords or bows and arrows to hand. If the Crusaders has been given access to nuclear weapons, they would have turned the entire Middle East into radioactive lava in the name of their god without even drawing breath. Torquemada would have been creaming himself with delight at the prospect of sending the "heretics" to modern concentration camps.

Five.. With respect to the tiresome attempt by supernaturalists to point to Marx's famous dictum about religion being the opium of the people, as purportedly being an "atheist polemic", this is complete garbage. Even critics of Marx's political philosophy, understand that his opposition to religion was principally on practical grounds, taking note of the observational data present in his time, that religion was frequently used as a tool of political control of the masses by an exploitative ruling class. He did not, in any of his numerous writings, tackle the existence or otherwise of a god type entity as an ontological question, because ontological questions of this nature were not his primary conceptual remit. His remit was that of the political philosopher, and, to his credit, he didn't stray outside that remit and pretend to possess expertise elsewhere. Unlike a good few supernaturalists I could mention.

Six. One embarrassing aspect of the use of this well-poisoning bullshit by smug, self-satisfied supernaturalists, is that none of them are aware of the fact that whilst these individuals were responsible for nameless horrors, one atrocity they did NOT commit was systematic child rape - unlike a good few Catholic priests and "megachurch pastors" we've learned about of late.

I think that about wraps it up for the "Hate figure genocidal dictators were atheists" garbage.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Calli

@ Calli

I love the fact you enjoy making flattened theists into jig saw puzzles...No wonder they take a while to be put back together....

Tin-Man's picture


...*deeeep relaxing breath*.... Ahhhhh.... *satisfied smile on face*.... As usual, always a pleasure to see you shred theist "arguments" into tiny pieces of confetti... *chuckle*...

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Please keep in mind that my original response was to those who tried to make Christians and Christianity guilty by association with Hitler.

I just went to Wikipedia type sources to get my information.
"Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic. In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition.
Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church". Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him"."

Do you agree with the above quotes?

Here is a few more from the same source.
"In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." — Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
"He was not a practising Christian but had somehow succeeded in masking his own religious skepticism from millions of German voters."
"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed." — Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - "The Führer is deeply

Jo - "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian...— Goebbels Diaries

Forgive me if I don't believe a word from the Third Reich's minister of propaganda.

/e: In fact, a good way to convince me something is false, would be to tell me Goebbels said it is true.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Did they not misuse both

Jo "Did they not misuse both science and Christianity?"

No, they distorted scientific facts. Nothing they did isn't actively encouraged by the christian deity in the bible, and they did nothing that christian deity hadn't done in the bible. Virulent antisemitism and persecution of Jews has been a central tenet of christianity for centuries, almost from its inception it cited Jews as "christ killers" and equated them as less than human. For many Christian's these long established prejudices persist today. It's still not clear why you think christianity can be expunged of responsibility for this centuries old prejudice, as you refused to answer when I asked, but to claim antisemitism isn't part of christianity, just because it's not specifically mentioned in a bible that was largely created before such distinctions existed, is facile nonsense.

Would you consider antisemitism to be a central tenet of Islamic ideology? That's not specifically mentioned in the Koran as far as I'm aware.

You're talking nonsense Jo. Also you still haven't acknowledged the fact that nazi Germany was 94% christian, and that being a christian was a requirement for soldiers joining the German SS, who ran the Holocaust death camps, why is that Jo?

Randomhero1982's picture
Well said Nyar...

Well said Nyar...

I mean, it's like trying to discover which posters are fucking idiots.

We can make deductions from evidence given, which tends to be quite clear in many cases!

But it's a simpler task when one claims to be a fucking idiot.

Self identification and/or preponderance of evidence go a long way!

Grinseed's picture
Jo, you are neither difficult

Jo, you are neither difficult or demanding, on the contrary you have been most helpful. It is clear you have missed the main thrust of my post and you neatly provided the reason for your misunderstanding.

You seem obsessed with "objective falsifiable evidence". The real issue here is not about any particular question or answer, but more about how all questions and answers are perceived and understood.

I described two simplified perceptions of reality, basically yours and mine, theist and atheist. You agreed with me that in your reality your god is real; he is your Alpha and Omega.
You went off on some tangent suggesting I described your god as a screaming tyrant using force and undue pressure. Your descriptions, not my meaning.
I used the word "influences" intentionally and I did not use the word "unduly" and I still maintain that as a theist, your thoughts and intentions are always "influenced" by your god and his laws, even if using, as you said, his "still small voice". I do understand the theist notion of 'free will'.

I will assume you agree with my explanation and understand I am not dissing you or your faith in anyway and push on.

I need you to read the following with as much tolerance as you can muster. I have revised the original, replacing it with a blunter version in a bid to get my meaning through to you. In my earlier explanation you simply disregarded my statement that no god exists in my reality by emphatically insisting he existed in yours and by demanding I prove, with objective falsifiable evidence that he didn't exist in mine.

So with the risk of repeating myself yet again, in my atheist perception of reality your god does not exist. Period.
You are disagreeing right now.
Understandable, but nonetheless, besides the obvious cultural and literary effects of christianity and the bible, your god does not exist in my reality, has no influence, no "still small voice" and certainly with no screaming or undue force.

I know you disagree and will insist your god is right here with me in my reality, but I cannot accept that and you cant prove it and I know better than to demand or expect any sort of evidence. And yes I cant prove he doesnt inhabit your reality, but I don't need to because he is not my claim. I think he only exists as an idea inside your head and nothing more.

Just re-read the last three paragraphs and try not to react negatively. Seriously, give what I have just written some consideration and accept that I am being completely honest.

Now consider the enormous differences between our perceptions.
Then consider what I wrote earlier regarding your questions about objective falsifiable evidence, ie "you are suggesting a single outcome for two sorts of claims which ignores the fundamental differences between them." Those fundamental differences centre on a reality with a god and one without.

Neither reality can be proven true, because there can be no objective unfalsifiable evidence presented for either case.

This is why from a single perspective, theist or atheist, one person's notion about a god can be "rational" and another person's "irrational". There can be no standard that can be applied with such a glaring difference like an omnipotent god creating such a huge disparity.

Using the same line of reasoning for all interpretations is simply not feasible in such a situation. The theist and atheist interpretations are mutually exclusive and no amount of apologetics or reasoning can overcome that.

Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story.

Delaware's picture
@ Grinseed

@ Grinseed

Thank you for your candor and consideration.

I "seem obsessed with objective falsifiable evidence" because I am frequently asked for it by Atheists.
It is a faulty question.
It presupposed that objective falsifiable evidence can be provided for Gods existence.
Atheist frequently fail to ask the corollary question.

"Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story."
I agree and accept what you said.
However, I think the statement is somewhat incomplete and lacking.
Should it also include that those who do not believe God exists cannot prove it?
Do you have the same lack of faith in there not being any God?
I think it also fails to in any way adequately address the question.

Many Atheist (not Atheism) seem to essentially believe there is no God.
But they only seem interested in rejecting one claim, but not its corollary.

I think I completely understand your "atheist perception of reality your god does not exist."
I understand that we both have a very different perception of reality.

Am I understanding it correctly that we each have a different perception of reality?
How is a "perception of reality" different than a belief?

I understand that you can reject my claim and that don't need to prove anything.
But don't you want to answer the question?
It is easy to reject someones claim.
It is hard thing is to make a correct claim.

Sheldon's picture
"Theists make the claim their

"Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story."

Jo "I agree and accept what you said."

Jo "However, I think the statement is somewhat incomplete and lacking. Should it also include that those who do not believe God exists cannot prove it? Do you have the same lack of faith in there not being any God?"

Fuck me, why do you keep saying you agree with assertions, then immediately post a claim that shows you absolutely do not?

Atheism is not a belief, no matter how many times you rehash the lie that it is. Theism is a belief, and that is the affirmation of a claim. Atheism is not a contrary belief or claim.

Grinseed's picture
The atheist request for

For Jo

The atheist request for objective evidence for your god is not a faulty question, its quite a valid query.
The curious issue here is that most atheists I know would, I think, agree that the answer to this question and its corollary version gets the same answer -"no".

As for answering the question, I thought I had already.
"Theists can't prove the existence of their god by objective falsifiable evidence, because there is none." and "For atheists, regardless of the method and this certainly excludes objective falsifiable evidence, for the very same reason given above (there is none)"
I also added another reason which I will paraphrase for more conciseness, no-one, theist, atheist, can prove a negative claim. It is a logical impossibility. What you think is incomplete and lacking is impossible to supply, sorry.

Don't you yet understand that atheists ask this question because they know the answer is "no you can never provide that objective evidence" and that no-one is even suggesting they could prove his non-existence for the same reason, plus the fact that its not logically possible to prove a negative claim.

If you want to prove your god exists you need a different approach. I can only suggest living exemplary christian lives to impress and challenge us, rather than asking incessantly repeated, impossible questions that have no real answers of value.

Before I go any further with this I need to point out that I primarily identify as an empiricist rather than an atheist. I really only identify myself as an atheist when discussing religion and in fact its not something I would need to call myself but its a term theists label me for not believing in their peculiar faiths. In every other sphere of my life I am an empiricist who relies on material and physical events and experiences to make sense of things.

So is my rejection of the theism a belief?

Of course it is. Your perception of reality and mine are both faiths, but of differing qualities, and ironically both could be simultaneously, absolutely, wrong and there could be an imponderable number of other possibilities to choose from, but if only for the sake of our mental health and survival we are forced to make sense of our shared reality from the few choices available to us, due to various physical,sometimes cultural, constraints with time and mortality in particular.

My personal belief system is built on tangible, measurable, repeatable and even falsifiable experiences. It is nothing like the faith of a theist, who, yes I understand, can be as firmly convinced of their spiritual, innate experiences, which remain nonetheless intangible and largely unevidenced.

Easy to reject claims? Yes, and nothing is easier to reject than the claim for a non-physical, invisible, omnipotent deity who exists outside time and space, who only speaks through a book or singular revelations or through self identified prophets.

It really is very hard to make a correct claim on supernatural issues, if not impossible, and cant be as simple as making a single decision or even accepting a pre-existing subjective interpretation for it.

As an empiricist I have chosen a faith in tangible, evidenced, experience as my path to something called truth and along that path I have revised and altered, and reassessed things I really thought true, and either modified them or rejected them because of things I have learned or intuitively assessed as a result of amassed information. It is not a perfect life, I have gleaned no perfect answers, but it is in essence, an honest, earnest, if messy exploration of it.

Theists can never prove their god's existence. I am never obliged to prove his un-existence for their consideration.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.