Lack of belief in god(s) or believing there are no gods?

[Kimdal]

It's a fair question, and one which deserves a fair answer.  You can't simply say you don't want "to waste" time
responding to it, at least briefly.  As an atheist, I see that as a real cop-out, and indicative that you don't actually
possess any evidence.  So... at least 2 or 3 points of proof please.

My claim is that I have no evidence, at least not that satisfies any atheist. Let me elaborate.

I believe in applying scientific method in very many situations. But I also believe that it's impossible to find objective proof for God. Therefore I don't even try to find objective proof for God. Objective hints and evidence are quite enough for me. There are theories explaining that stories about Jesus are just folklore, but reading the "evidence" of those claims, I find them hard to believe, given that I don't require naturalistic explanation. But I understand very well that those claims of Jesus being folklore seems very reasonable if only naturalistic explanations for those stories are allowed in someone's mind.

So you need, first of all, to prove that 
Jesus was a real man.

Most historians, even non-christian, believe that Jesus did exists. But then another question is if the stories about Jesus are reliable. Anyway, I think that reluctance to believe that Jesus indeeded existed is a good example of atheistic bias. Do we have better evidence for Gaius Julius Caesar? Why do many atheists have no problem in believing that Caesar lived, but they don't want to admit that Jesus was historical person?

Nope.  Christians believe what they've been told by their parents or their teachers, or their preachers, none of which
is an unimpeachable source of knowledge.

In most cases you are right and I agree. That has frustrated me for several years. But as I wrote a bit earlier, similar bias exists in atheistic countries.

I see and admit that people, especially me and other christians usually believe what we want to believe.

And this is precisely one of the major drawbacks of theism.  Theists simply believe what they believe regardless, and 
despite any evidence to the contrary. 

I would say that it's a problem of all human beings, atheists as well. I wrote earlier that if my grandma came out of her grave, and having discussed with her, I wouldn't have problem admitting that something supernatural happened. But at least some atheists had very hard time admitting supernatural phenomenon in that case because it's against their world view.

[Kimdal]

I had very strong subjective experience, that could be explained naturalistically. 

Could or could not be explained naturalistically?

Could. I mean that my first experience is very common, mostly strong emotions, easily explainable by atheists. But later I have also experienced some things that I don't think can be explained naturalistically. But I don't see much point in telling those few experiences because I have no objective proof. You don't know me, so you could just say that I'm inventing stories, was hallucinating etc.

[DLJ]

...
if I’m right, rationalism and naturalism can never find the truth.
...

You are not right.

[Kimdal]

And by the way, while I'm thinking of this point, I should inform you that atheists also have personal experiences which confirm for us that atheism is correct, just as religious people of different cultures have experiences which they interpret in accordance with the ideas available to them.  Such anecdotes do tend to cancel each other out.

I'm well aware of that. I have not investigated the claims that buddhist monks can levitate, but I had no problem in believing that. What I have read from the Bible, miracles in other religions are expected. I believe in invisible, spiritual world, which makes it possible for miracles to happen in any religion. But I'm not claiming I can proof my belief to you. I'm just explaining why I understand that there are miracles in other religions, too. I also understand that for a naturalistic thinking they are all the same, with naturalistic explanation.

Furthermore, I believe that it's not possible to get objective, empirical proof of miracles. Lots of miracles are such that after some studying they appear to be just exaggerations or otherwise untrue stories, and the other ones are such that they can not be replicated in laboratory. It's very expected result for atheist that miracles can not be replicated in laboratory. I expect that too, but for completely other reasons. I believe that one basic "natural law" of spiritual world is that it is not allowed to be investigated scientifically.

[Szuchow]

The atheistic bias I talked about is clearly visible for example in the Dan Barker's book. What happened for him is quite understandable and very human: When he became atheist, he began to look many Bible stories in different, atheistically biased way. God seems very cruel, even sadistic, in humanistic (Barker is humanist, not only atheist) point of view. I understand why they see it like that, but it's also very biased way of thinking. In Barker's case, he must have had very different point of view earlier. Even if he believed that all Bible is just folklore, that doesn't explain why he read the Bible stories so differently now.

Seeing genocidal tyrant (this is how is god depicted in the Bible) as genocidal tyrant is being biased? So I guess calling Hitler abhorrent would be biased too? If one don't view god with christian eyes then it is plain to see that he is monstrous but I guess admitting (even to oneself) that one worship such despicable being isn't easy, which result in apologetics.

My explanation is that every person wants to defend his view for himself, and atheism is easier for him if he thinks that God of the Bible is horrible god, even if that's just a made-up story.

I don't like sugar coating things so I'll say this straight - one must be deeply indoctrinated or have nazi like morals to think that biblical god is anything else than monster. No evil is beyond him whether it is killing nearly everything or fucking a guy life for a bet.

[Alan V]

My claim is that I have no evidence, at least not that satisfies any atheist. Let me elaborate.

I believe in applying scientific method in very many situations. But I also believe that it's impossible to find objective proof for God. Therefore I don't even try to find objective proof for God. Objective hints and evidence are quite enough for me. There are theories explaining that stories about Jesus are just folklore, but reading the "evidence" of those claims, I find them hard to believe, given that I don't require naturalistic explanation. But I understand very well that those claims of Jesus being folklore seems very reasonable if only naturalistic explanations for those stories are allowed in someone's mind.

This gets back to what I mentioned in post #18. The reason why we seek naturalistic explanations is not because of bias but because of knowledge. To be consistent with the world we already understand very well and in great detail through science, anything unusual in it very, very likely has a naturalistic explanation.

People can and will believe whatever they want in addition to that science, but atheists see no reason to go out on a limb for anything. Why should we?

[Kimdal]

Seeing genocidal tyrant (this is how is god depicted in the Bible) as genocidal tyrant is being biased? So I guess calling Hitler abhorrent would be biased too?

Yes. No. (Same order as your questions)

Since you drew the Hitler card, I would like to ask you what do you think about allies counter-attacking Germany, killing a lot of Germans, also civilians (Dresden bombing, for example)? Most people would agree with me that the allies had good reasons for all this killing of lots of people. I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

[Szuchow]

Seeing genocidal tyrant (this is how is god depicted in the Bible) as genocidal tyrant is being biased? So I guess calling Hitler abhorrent would be biased too?

Yes. No. (Same order as your questions)

How you decide that one genocidal tyrant is good and another one is bad?

Since you draw the Hitler card, I would like to ask you what do you think about allies counter-attacking Germany, killing a lot of Germans, also civilians (Dresden bombing, for example)? Most people would agree with me that the allies had good reasons for all this killing of lots of people. I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Here is the thing - allies despite questionable decisions like Dresden were totally justified in using violence against nazis who started the war and committed unspeakable atrocities on basis on nationalism and racism. They (allies) despite not being all powerful did not need to resort to genocide to deal with nazi menace. Your god who is supposedly omnipotent decided to kill almost everything in his flood instead of looking for another solution; compared to this shitty, imagined character Hitler is downright cuddly.

Also if you're seriously claiming that there can be good reasons for genocide then calling you walking piece of shit is a compliment.

[Deesse23]

I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Good reasons for genocide? :  Please do tell ONE good reason for a real good, juicy genocide.

[Kimdal]

Also if you're seriously claiming that there can be good reasons for genocide then calling you walking piece of shit is a compliment.

No offense taken, even though I'm seriously claiming. I would like to ask you something. After all, my reasons to post to this forum was and is that I want to understand atheists better. So, I hope you can answer, in spite of your ad hominem argumentation.

Man has virtually caused "genocides" of mosquitos in fight against malaria. I think we have good reason for these "genocides". What is in the atheistic view that human genocides are never justifiable, but mosquito genocides are justifiable, at least sometimes? I'm not trying to offend you, just understand your reasoning.

To be more specific in my question, I think that atheists consider man just as an animal, so why are we more worthy animals than mosquitos?

[Deesse23]

I have evidence for God, not any god but the God of the Bible

You have repeatedly made this claim. Please share your evidence with the rest of us. You cant? What are you doing here then? Just telling us how biased and wrong we are? Why?

My claim is that I have no evidence, at least not that satisfies any atheist. Let me elaborate.

I believe in applying scientific method in very many situations. But I also believe that it's impossible to find objective proof for God. Therefore I don't even try to find objective proof for God. Objective hints and evidence are quite enough for me. There are theories explaining that stories about Jesus are just folklore, but reading the "evidence" of those claims, I find them hard to believe, given that I don't require naturalistic explanation. But I understand very well that those claims of Jesus being folklore seems very reasonable if only naturalistic explanations for those stories are allowed in someone's mind.

You have evidence for a mythical Jesus, but dont believe. You have no evidence for god, but do believe. Do you see the problem?

Anyway, I think that reluctance to believe that Jesus indeeded existed is a good example of atheistic bias. Do we have better evidence for Gaius Julius Caesar? Why do many atheists have no problem in believing that Caesar lived, but they don't want to admit that Jesus was historical person?

Because we have much more and way better evidence for the existence of Caesar.

I wrote earlier that if my grandma came out of her grave, and having discussed with her, I wouldn't have problem admitting that something supernatural happened.

...and i already told you that you would be most probably wrong. What you "have no problem with" is gullibility, or the ability to believe in stuff because you don tlike "i dont know". pretending to know, ist sill not knowing. Whom exactly are you trying to fool with this?

But at least some atheists had very hard time admitting supernatural phenomenon in that case because it's against their world view.

Please explain to me my atheist world view. Hint: you will be spectacularly wrong, but we both know it wont keep you from upholding that claim.

But later I have also experienced some things that I don't think can be explained naturalistically.

"I dont know", therfore "god". You have said this numerous times, and had been told numerous times that this is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest. Just because scceptics dont accept such faulty and lazy thinking does not make them biased, no matter how often you claim this.

You don't know me, so you could just say that I'm inventing stories, was hallucinating etc.

"We" have said nothing so far about your "personal experiences", since you refuse to share them with us. You however have claimed that they are evidence for your god.
Goess what, tonight i had a personal experience too. *** appeared to me......what, you say i am inventing a story or hallucinating? How dare you!

I have not investigated the claims that buddhist monks can levitate, but I had no problem in believing that.

More evidence for your gullibility.

I believe in invisible, spiritual world, which makes it possible for miracles to happen in any religion. But I'm not claiming I can proof my belief to you. I'm just explaining why I understand that there are miracles in other religions, too.

You believe, based on what? Personal experience you cant and wont share with others? Then what are you doing here?

I believe that one basic "natural law" of spiritual world is that it is not allowed to be investigated scientifically.

How do you know this world even exists? Because you "dont know" some stuff?

[Kimdal]

I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Good reasons for genocide? :  Please do tell ONE good reason for a real good, juicy genocide.

Let's take a juicy genocide you (not me) asked for: Flood when God wanted to destroy all mankind. The good reason was, according to the Bible, that people were causing so much pain and suffering to each other. 

If you have a pet, say a dog, you want to help her if she gets sick. But if she suffers badly and you can't help her, you rather let she sleep eternally that keep her in pains.

Similar thing. All people were causing too much pain to each other.

[Szuchow]

No offense taken, even though I'm seriously claiming. I would like to ask you something. After all, my reasons to post to this forum was and is that I want to understand atheists better. So, I hope you can answer, in spite of your ad hominem argumentation.

Calling spade a spade isn't ad hominem. If you're saying that there can be good reasons for genocide then you're a failure of human being, potentially dangerous to society.

Man has virtually caused "genocides" of mosquitos in fight against malaria. I think we have good reason for these "genocides". What is in the atheistic view that human genocides are never justifiable, but mosquito genocides are justifiable, at least sometimes? I'm not trying to offend you, just understand your reasoning.

Ever been in school fool? Or you never even bothered to learn for what geno in genocide stands?

Seriously however, did you really compared killing of mosquitoes to genocide? You're that desperate or that dumb? 

To be more specific in my question, I think that atheists consider man just as an animal, so why are we more worthy animals than mosquitos?

Seems that in addition to having morals of a nazi you're dumb as bag of rocks, which I guess is fitting combination. Return to me with this idiocy when mosquitoes manage to build civilization 

[Kimdal]

You have repeatedly made this claim. Please share your evidence with the rest of us. You cant? What are you doing here then? Just telling us how biased and wrong we are? Why?

My reason for being here is that I was reading a book by Dan Barker. He wrote something I didn't understand, so I wanted people in this forum to help me understand. And several responses did help me to understand, so I thank you all for that.

I like to discuss and I like to understand different kinds of people. I didn't want to offend anyone, and I didn't want to get involved in deep discussion in this time of my life. I have never told that you are any more biased than I am. I'm just saying that you are as biased as I am. Am I being unfair saying that? I see that I'm biased, and I'm curious if you see that you are biased, too?

[SYZ]

I have evidence for God, not any god but the God of the Bible.

Can you please list that evidence, point by point, so we can evaluate it?

There are some problems in rationalism and science. They assume that everything has naturalistic explanation. I have reason to believe that that’s not the case, and if I’m right, rationalism and naturalism can never find the truth.

What is that reason (or reasons) for your disbelief in the natural sciences as viable sources of knowledge?
Can you give us a specific example of where the scientific method has failed society as a whole, with regard
to its enlightenment.  And what exactly defines your "truth"?  What is your gold standard?  The bible?

While objectivity and scientific method are good things, it seems to me that atheists have too much faith in them...

Atheists do not have "faith" in the scientific method.  Faith is defined as belief without evidence.  The scientific
method demands absolute, empirical evidence to support its every observation, every theory, and every proof.
Scientists attest to something, rather than simply having faith—which is not based on viable evidence in any way.
There's no viable evidence that a man walked on water, or of a global flood, or talking animals, or life after death,
or turning wine into water, that blindness and leprosy were cured, or that a storm was calmed.  Those are all just
fanciful myths that can only exist under blind faith.

Do we have better evidence for Gaius Julius Caesar? Why do many atheists have no problem in believing that Caesar lived, but they don't want to admit that Jesus was historical person?

Well, for starters Caesar never claimed to have performed any of the above so-called "miracles" LOL.

We also have his books such as De Bello Alexandrino, De Bello Africo, and De Bello Hispaniensi, as well
as a bust made during his lifetime, the Tusculum portrait, and his likeness on silver coins minted during his life.

So... where are the books Jesus wrote?  He was supposed to be pretty smart wasn't he? He could read and write
according to the bible, but apparently chose not to leave any written teachings for us.  Strange indeed.

And remember this classic from your own bible:  "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto
God the things that are God's".  [Matthew 22:21]  Or are you going to claim your bible is full of bullshit?

[Deesse23]

I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Good reasons for genocide? :  Please do tell ONE good reason for a real good, juicy genocide.

Let's take a juicy genocide you (not me) asked for: Flood when God wanted to destroy all mankind. The good reason was, according to the Bible, that people were causing so much pain and suffering to each other. 

If you have a pet, say a dog, you want to help her if she gets sick. But if she suffers badly and you can't help her, you rather let she sleep eternally that keep her in pains.

Similar thing. All people were causing too much pain to each other.

Since your god is all powerful, there was nothing better to do even for him than to kill everybody? He couldnt help poor dog humanity? What can not-almighty humans do to each other that an almighty god cannot fix? What was the suffering and pain that necessitated this euthanasia, that not even almighty god could fix?

When you have lots of dogs and lots of those are sick. Do you kill all dogs out of compassion? Do you agree that is was a good reason for an almighty god to kill all the innocent people too?

Mosquitos......comparing humans to mosquitos. Your religion has poisoned your mind to the point that you have given up your humanity completely. Congratulations. You are bending over backwards to find excuses no tonly for genocide but for omnicide. I can only hope that you never will focus your "christian compassion" on me personally.

[Kimdal]

Seriously however, did you really compared killing of mosquitoes to genocide? You're that desperate or that dumb?   

Could you just answer my question, please? I would really like to understand you and what being able to build civilizations has to do with the answer.

I suggest you assume I'm that dumb and just explain as I was that dumb.

Oh, you may have missed that English is not my native language. I mentioned that in my opening post. So, please excuse me for misusing genocide.

[Szuchow]

Let's take a juicy genocide you (not me) asked for: Flood when God wanted to destroy all mankind. The good reason was, according to the Bible, that people were causing so much pain and suffering to each other.

Space Hitler you worship must be pretty dumb if he could not manage to find solution other than killing nearly everything.

If you have a pet, say a dog, you want to help her if she gets sick. But if she suffers badly and you can't help her, you rather let she sleep eternally that keep her in pains.

Similar thing. All people were causing too much pain to each other.

Similarity of these situation is only in your deluded mind. Euthanizing pet that can't be helped and can only expect further suffering is humane thing to do, murdering nearly everything for behavior you find abhorrent when you're supposedly omnipotent is something expected from monsters.

Must be hard to admit that god you worship is proto-nazi but sometimes truth should be faced.

[Kimdal]

You have evidence for a mythical Jesus, but dont believe. You have no evidence for god, but do believe. Do you see the problem?

I see the problem in the way you put it. But you misunderstood me. For start, I have more evidende for non-mythical Jesus than mythical Jesus, after reading books from both camps.

[SYZ]

Man has virtually caused "genocides" of mosquitoes in fight against malaria. I think we have good reason for these "genocides". What is in the atheistic view that human genocides are never justifiable, but mosquito genocides are justifiable, at least sometimes? I'm not trying to offend you, just understand your reasoning.

To be more specific in my question, I think that atheists consider man just as an animal, so why are we more worthy animals than mosquitoes?

Um... I really think you've lost the plot here mate.  I also  think the word you were looking for was insecticide, not genocide.

And I hate to tell you this, but there are still 53 trillion mozzies left in our world.  No insecticide possible LOL.

[Szuchow]

Could you just answer my question, please? I would really like to understand you and what being able to build civilizations has to do with the answer.

I suggest you assume I'm that dumb and just explain as I was that dumb.

I don't need to assume that you're dumb. Comparing mosquitoes to humans shows this perfectly. But honestly I think that you're just trolling as no one can be as stupid as you and yet be capable of writing.

Oh, you may have missed that English is not my native language. I mentioned that in my opening post. So, please excuse me for misusing genocide.

If you don't know what word x mean then perhaps consider not using it? You're risking looking like a clown otherwise.

[Kimdal]

Anyway, I think that reluctance to believe that Jesus indeeded existed is a good example of atheistic bias. Do we have better evidence for Gaius Julius Caesar? Why do many atheists have no problem in believing that Caesar lived, but they don't want to admit that Jesus was historical person?

Because we have much more and way better evidence for the existence of Caesar.

This is big news to me. Maybe I'm just ignorant, so could you please share a link in your sources which claim that we have better evidence for Caesar.

[SYZ]

This is big news to me. Maybe I'm just ignorant, so could you please share a link in your sources which claim that we have better evidence for Caesar.

Re Caesar... please see my comment http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid137317

[Alan V]

I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Genocides kill people indiscriminately rather than justly, so I don't think that's the word you want to use in this context.  If God was guilty of genocides, as the Bible would have us believe, then he would not be worthy of worship.  A perfectly good God wouldn't be worthy of belief either.  An evil God would be much more likely, given the problem in question.

[Szuchow]

I would say the God had also good reasons for genocides, but because of atheistic bias not everybody see the good reasons of God.

Genocides kill people indiscriminately rather than justly, so I don't think that's the word you want to use in this context.  If God was guilty of genocides, as the Bible would have us believe, then he would not be worthy of worship.  A perfectly good God wouldn't be worthy of belief either.  An evil God would be much more likely, given the problem in question.

I'm afraid that he used words he wanted to use. Misspeaking when it comes to such subject is as probable as genuine mistake of a guy from joke below:

"Well, I was having dinner with my wife, and I meant to say, 'Please pass the salt', but what came out was, 'You miserable bitch you ruined my life'.

He I wager meant what he said and dog is my witness I can't even begin to imagine depths of inhumanity (or humanity) that one must fell into to think in that way. Perhaps it have something to do with flood being myth but defending imagined genocide is still beyond abhorrent.