Why can't atheists understand that God isn't an argument...?

Question

...based on science and reasoning? It's based on faith. That's why a religious person can never win a rational argument about God. Yet atheists continue to argue with them and act like "Yeah, we've won, because you can't counter this argument!" They can't seem to grasp that that's not what believing is about...

Answer 1

I will admit that God may exist, if you admit that your Religion is a lie. You go first.

Answer 2

You misunderstand atheism. Atheism isn't a faith or a belief. So there is no argument "about" god, for atheists.



Rather, if a Theist truly finds comfort in their faith, they're not made insecure by anyone's lack of faith, or anyone else's faith that is different from their own.



If there were a being supreme to the human consciousness, it would be incumbent upon it to believe in us. Because limited mortal consciousness, thus an inferior consciousness to that of anything deemed a "supreme being" , would never be able to comprehend that which is well and above their understanding.

All holy books, including the Bible of course, are man made.



If god did exist, as creator of all that is and as the only creative power responsible for the presence or existence of everything, god knows it wouldn't be a matter of faith that professes it true. It would be a matter of fact.



While faith precludes fact.



God is not an argument for atheists.

It's an argument for Theists. Making the proclamation an invisible all mighty power exists, requires proof it is so. Faith isn't proof god exists. Rather, it's proof an individual can choose to hope it does.

Answer 3

"There's no evidence for God, but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist."



congratulations for being so honest, that is extremely rare in a abrahamic theist. and you are correct absence of evidence is not evidence for absence but what it does mean is that there is no good reason to believe it is there. i could say that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, you can't prove that it is not there nobody can but it is not sane to believe in the teapot. to an outsider such as myself how do i tell the difference between this god of yours and a child's imaginary friend? i can't so why should i even entertain the idea that this exists?



also, u have no idea about the history of your religion and how harmful it has been and how harmful it continues to be. i assume you are of abrahamic faith due to you capitalizing the g in god, i apologize if i am mistaken. i would like you to get your bible and read this verse to see if you still think it is in anyway a "good" book and i hope this helps you to understand how the morals perpetuated by this book have harmed countless generations. exodus 21.

Answer 4

I understand what you're saying, but arguments cannot take place without two participating factions. Religious people can't seem to grasp non-belief....and they're far more intolerant of anything/anyone different from themselves than any other coalition of people. I've seen many instances where groups of people gather together in a cause for something that directly affects THEM...the only time I see religious people gather together in a cause is when it's AGAINST something that has nothing to do with them...other than the fact that they don't believe in it...

Answer 5

Let me solve your problem for you.



In the field of statistics there is a field called subjectivist or personalistic probability. It is based only on your prior beliefs and subsequent evidence you collect. You can have any prior belief you want, you just do not get to have your own facts. You can have your own view of the facts, but the world is what the world is.



Now subjectivist probability is nice for two reasons. First, two observers with different prior beliefs, each seeing a sufficiently long amount of information, will arrive as close enough conclusions as to be no different. The exception is called a "degenerate prior." A degenerate prior is a belief so strongly held that even an infinite amount of evidence against it will not cause the person's belief to budge.



If you have a degenerate prior then learning is actually impossible because you cannot see your errors. It is as though you had an IQ of 0 on that topic, intelligent as you may be on any other.



Now if you do not have a degenerate prior, then you can learn, even if very slowly. Still, speed really doesn't matter that much in the real world.



Now let us assume you have been an adult for 10 years and each day you observe one piece of information relevant to the god exists/god does not exist argument.



This argument is binomial, that is it is either true or false. This is convenient because over ten years you should have collected 3650 pieces of information. You have said there is no evidence of God. I will take you at your word.



Now, at the beginning of adulthood, we are going to allow that you are a "true believer," but that you admit one chance in 10,000 that God does not exist. That is your prior belief is equivalent to 9,999 observations that God is real and one observation that God is false.



Now you have collected 3,650 false observations. Adding your one prior giving you a probability for God now of 9999/13650 for a seventy three percent subjective chance of God existing given your prior beliefs.



On the other hand, had you started as an atheist, giving God only one chance in 10,000 of existing the probability that God exists is now only 1/13650 or 7/1000 of 1% chance God exists.



Now as a subjectivist believer, you can also ask other people their data. You can go back in history and look for valid evidence. So let us assume you collect 100 years of evidence looking for evidence of God and find none. Your probability falls to only 21%. You are now at least an agnostic or a functional atheist.



You are correct, faith admits no evidence and so is degenerate. Logically speaking then, since such people are incapable of learning where faith could be involved, such people should not be allowed to enter into the public debate. At least the one who is learning slowly can learn, though it could take decades to learn this.

Answer 6

It's not an argument at all... It's more of an excuse.

Answer 7

That's all fine and good, but there are plenty of religious people who are trying to convert people using logical fallacies and faulty reasoning. You can't help but wonder why anything based on personal "faith" is proselytized at all. You can't preach God without at least attempting to reason with others, even if your belief in God is unreasonable. I'm not trying to bash your religion when I say this, since I myself am a deist, but you can't use the "faith" cop out when plenty of religious people do try to argue their point. When atheists call people ou

Answer 8

if thats so, then why do beleivers in this god argue that everone else has to agree?



why do a lot of the organised religions actually demand their followers to go and convert when its converting people who dont have just 'faith' and so science and reasoning would be the way to do that



god could exist,

i have no idea if it does or doesnt,



but what i do know is beleivers cant prove it, and so cant expect eveyrone else to agree and believe it too,

unless they have proof and rational scientific reasoning for that to happen

Answer 9

Hey, just think of it this way. What's the harm in believing?? IF atheists are wrong, they's goin' to HELL. Sorry about their luck. Don't worry about them, they'll see in the end. They'll all be praying on their deathbeds. That's when they'll believe. But, it'll be too late. =0)

Answer 10

There's no evidence for Santa Claus either but he doesn't exist. Same for peter rabbit. Same for unicorns. Yet there's lots of stories written about all of them. Faith means you have surrendered your critical reasoning to some concept that you accept without question. If that works for you, fine. I need something more compelling than warm fuzzy stories backed by the threat of eternal torment if I don't believe without question. And most of the religions are built on some many contradictions that it baffles me how any thinking person would just say "amen" ( or the equivalent) and accept what is shoved at them.

Answer 11

This is a long way from traditional Catholic theology....



I think St. Thomas would be disappointed with such a suggestion. He insisted that faith must be rational or the intellect would dismiss it.



St. Augustine wrote that while the existence of God can not be proven with certainty, there does exist rational signs that "signs" that suggest he may. "Just like when you see deer tracks in the sand you can rationally assume that a deer has crossed the beach without witnessing it"



Aquinas' five "proofs" for the existence of God have been considered by many rational and intellectual people to be some of these "signs". Not physical proof from nature of a supernatural being....but rather...philosophical arguments that suggest a God "MAY" exist.







EDIT.....I/2 WAY DOWN PAGE TWO????? Doh!

Answer 12

Can you understand that many people want to overcome ignorance. You can bring a Theist to evidence , but you can't him think. Sad, isn't it

Answer 13

"I believe the word faith has been skewed from the original purpose the Bible had in mind. When you say faith now a days it is way to easy to attach the words "leap of" or "blind". The word in English that i would suggest that really captures what the new testament concept had in mind, is the word trust. Cause you notice that trust is something that needs to be earned. It is based on some kind of knowledge or information. When you have an experience with someone, and have a knowledge of their capability you place. your. trust. in. them.

When the apostles went out to reflect the teachings of Jesus and when Jesus did that, he gave information, did works of power to demonstrate the legitimacy of that information then invited people on the basis of those things to put their trust in Him.

That's what biblical faith is. It's not just an intellectual acknowledgement. It's an awareness of the truth of something and a willingness to act because you've been so convinced by the truthfulness of this.

In the end of the gospel of John, John says why he wrote the gospel, He says many of these things Jesus has done that's not included in these books but these things, these signs and wonders (miracles) have been included in order that you would believe that Jesus is the son of God and in believing have life in His name.

John is willing to write an entire gospel giving evidence so that people will put their active trust in Jesus as savor and in so doing that having eternal life that comes from investing your trust in God."

If you are talking about today's definition of faith, I would say it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. And I personally believe there is a crazy amount of evidence that God exists. Heck He cannot create the universe and leave no evidence....the universe IS the evidence haha. But yes I understand that may seem insufficient for those who don't believe. I'm sorry but if someone believes they are just a bunch of molecules floating around, that is one sad life. And i don't know how we woulda got morals out of that, you don't see planets floating around with morals lol

Answer 14

Umm...

Actually.

I have to disagree with you on that.

There is evidence on God





God exists:

1. Cosmological argument, first cause thing. Everything has a cause, where did it come from. You can’t know where it comes from

2. Teleological: The design argument: design implies a designer, the university has design.

3. Anthropological movement: lost my notes on this one :/

4. Moral agument: Moral law, implies a moral law giver. There is moral law, therefore a moral law exists.

5. EVOLUTION: Does not question the answer of origin. How can you have order arise from natural and simple things into something complicating when you have 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your saying order appeared out of nonorder and the whole idea of spontaneous generation.



Miracles: By definition, Miracle is a divine intervention into the regular course of the natural world; it is the special act of God that produces a purposeful even which appears in the world and would not or could not appear otherwise.

1. Special act of God that has a purpose.

2. Has to have theological demention

3. Spinosas 4 points: 1. Miracles are in direct violation with nature, 2. The laws of nature are un-changeable, 3. Therefore miracles are impossible. Christian response: Natural laws are descriptive not prescripture. If a miracle happens in a exception not a violation.

4. David Hughes argument: Unalturable experience has established these laws. The wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence human experience provides. Therefore the wiseman should never believe a miracle has occurred unless the evidence for a particular miracle is greater then the uniform experience of mankind.

5. We need to weigh the quality over quanity



Man Exists:

Who exists



Bible:

More manuscripts supporting it then Homer's Illiad and including archeological and outside sources it cannot be denied as these events actually happening.

Answer 15

at "the bible is infallible", just because someone doesn't have to same beliefs as you doesn't mean that there doing horrendous stuff. I get my morals from my parents, and what I believe is important, not from a book, and if they happen to be the same, then thats cool but it doesnt make or break what i believe

Answer 16

I understand that. But that's not the point.



Faith is still not wanting to know what is true. If Christians insist that God exists, then he only exists inside their heads.

Answer 17

That's fine but why can't Christians understand when you try to force your faith and morality on the rest of us we don't much like it?

Answer 18

By your own reasoning, isn't it a lot to ask nonbelievers to accept legislation based on your 'faith'? Ridiculous, no? Keep that crap in church and we won't have a problem.

Answer 19

There's no evidence for Santa, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist either.



~

Answer 20

It's fine if you have beliefs,

but the problem is people who force those beliefs on others.

And, if they tell people to not listen to opposing view points.

That is a form of fascism.

Answer 21

Does it really matter? There are unanswered questions of which the most unanswerable is the origin of (take your pick) the universe or God. There will likely never be an answer. The only reason it might matter is because so many religions have usurped God and used Him as a weapon against those with whom they disagree.

Answer 22

Because I don't believe in following things with lack of any credible evidence.

Answer 23

Oh, just like bigfoot! I guess that means we should stop trying to explain to people that unicorns arent real either. After all, they're based on faith not scientific proof or logic as well.

Answer 24

Religion is like a penis

It's fine to have one.

It's fine to be proud of it.

But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.

And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my throat.

Answer 25

You sound like you're venting rather then asking a question. I'm an atheist, and I completely understand what you're saying. I think the reason that people fight against that is people they find God illogical and silly and want to prove how so.

Answer 26

When you decide something based only on faith, it's impossible to know when to stop. I'll stick with facts and evidence, two things which theists have none of.

Answer 27

God is explicitly evident by science. It's not a matter of reason, the issue is moral, not scientific. To be atheist, you must attack reason at it's very core by saying that mind or awareness doesn't exist sovereign to matter or law. You must go infinitely beyond saying that your computer fell into place by chance & say that the first cells did. You must turn to pulling rabbits out of hats. but if you love your *self* enough, you'll do it.



You said "there's no evidence for God" which is the same as looking at your computer & saying there;s no evidence for man. It's called cause-effect rationality & it's foundational to what separates man from beast. You have an effect, you need a cause. The only possible rational explanation for this cosmos is an un-embodied awareness. Jesus said "for God is Spirit" the word spirit is synonymous with the word "mind." Information comes from an intelligence, not by chance. Chance isn't a creative force & it doesn't create anything, especially not laws. Energy is just another word for power, which the Bible says over & over that God is all-powerful. Matter is just an illusion & you break it down to light which Christ said repeatedly "I am light...I am the light" thousands of years ago & Genesis makes it clear that light governs this reality, not macro-matter "let there be light." The bible says that the worlds are sustained by the *Word* of God & we know that information is what sustains our universe, not chance. Quanta is just one great communication-process like the Bible has said for thousands of years.





Atheists for some reason love to use the "santa clause" argument as if some Illuminati occult idol has anything to do with anything but in reality they don't believe it themselves, that's just a cop-out based on a superficial shallow & primitive lack of sincerity & lack of wisdom; a byproduct of thinking that you're a monkey & deceptive words are an evolutionary virtue. It tends to be that way when you have a passionate hate for the God of truth, you must love lies by default. but when you make entertainment your main focus in life, then the TV does the thinking for you & you hate the truly deep-thinkers. It's not rational to reject creation, it's not rational to think things can evolve & get better by chance against entropy. It's not wise to love lies but as mankind devolves into a materialistic shallow way of thinking, then his discernment is not between objective truth/error. His discernment is between what makes him feel good & what doesn't. That's the god-complex of the narcissistic militant anti-Christs of this age. They morph all external reality to fit with their own subjective fantasies which in effect gives them their very own god-complex since they believe they can make reality up in their own minds. That's why they manifest attributes of a depraved mind; lies, mockery, scorn, hate, negative humor, disdain against those who make them feel inferior, love of self-glorification... it just goes with being under satanic deception.

Answer 28

maybe you think its ok to believe things for reasons other than it being rational or logical...but let me ask this...SHOULD you? is it ok for people to abandon rational reasons for their beliefs? what might happen when people do that? what tends to REPLACE reason, when it is abandoned?



@the bible is infallible:

by the way...the dead sea scrolls had fragments of the old testament. Fragments. Old testament.

And actualy...there WERE alterations. Just nothing as major as some people speculated.

Answer 29

God is not an argument, it is a fantasy.



If you have faith in unicorns, does that make them a valid object of worship?

Answer 30

"That's why a religious person can never win a rational argument about God."



Well then, I guess we collectively rest out case.

Answer 31

OK, so keep your religion out of science and out of education where we teach "reasoning"!



Kthnxbye!

Answer 32

Faith is useless.



If you believe due to faith, thats fine as long as you don't try to put it in government or schools, but don't expect me to believe you without any reason.



So I suppose I must ask you, do you believe your religion has place in government or schools? If the answer is no then I don't have an issue with you anyways.

Answer 33

it's really simple . . . . believe what you want to believe, but do NOT think it is within your right to force it upon those of us who choose not to believe . . . .



unfortunately the Church teaches that it is your DUTY to be obnoxious, arrogant, hypocritical, and pushy.



just shut up for a while!

Answer 34

Convenient

Answer 35

We don't fail to understand that. What you fail to understand is that things you take on "faith" are not science, and are not things that should be the basis for secular law. You're the side failing to understand.

Answer 36

Because they believe the only things that can exist have to be physical.

Answer 37

Empiricism is based on faith too, once you get past the surface of it.

Do you have a year supply of food?

Answer 38

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

--Friedrich Nietzche

Answer 39

Faith is ridiculous

Answer 40

Because I said so and you cannot refute my evidence, whereas a judge can refute faith.

Answer 41

why not have faith in yourself instead? than you would be able to overcome problems instead of whining about them and hoping they went away?

Answer 42

Amen, brother.



No matter how constantly our brothers and sister in Christ try to argue with atheists, and tell them that they're wrong for doing those awful things, they can't tell us we're doing awful things. Because we draw our facts and morals from the Bible. By the way: did you hear about the dead sea scrolls? Through scientific dating technology, we discovered that they're thousands of years old! Which proves that the Bible hasn't been altered.

Answer 43

I don't understand it either. I think it's because they want to know about religions, but they are afraid to be curious so they turn it into an argument and get defensive about nothing.

Answer 44

Faith is believing something that you know ain't true.



~Mark Twain.

Answer 45

God is imaginary.

Answer 46

Amen!!!

Answer 47

He isn't anything at all, end of story.

Answer 48

there is evidence for god



faith is not blind



god gave us his creation that tells of him



god also gave us eye witness accounts of him working with men

Answer 49

doesnt add up

Answer 50

Those are what are called "elitists".

Answer 51

This is exactly our problem.