The 10th man

 

Okay, but I don't believe God exists.  If I am tasked with proving or disproving his existence, I'm going to be biased.

If you take me up in a spacecraft, so I can see the landmass that people claim exists, that people refer to as "Australia," and we then descend onto that landmass -never losing sight of it- and then locate people who are trustworthy who will attest that they are in "Australia" AND there must be kangaroos.  We might need a polygraph, though....  

That would be a good start.  But it could be faked.

That is the biggest bunch of bs I have ever read.

and now ill wait for somebody to tell me "i guess you have never read the bible then?'

 

Which part, specifically?

"We know that over 50% of the bible has been deleted through different processes of elimination where rich men simply voted out the bitts they didn't like."

Looks like we have to go back further and come to some working definition of what counts as "proof", what do we mean when we say something is "true", and what does it take to persuade one of that fact.

I have no Australian friends. I was merely going by the usual Western/Arabic convention of God, which says that you cannot trap God in a net of thoughts like a fish. It would be a different story if we were discussing Eastern concepts of Godhood.

So, I'll go with the definition that Australia is a human inhabited continent in the southern hemisphere of earth (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Australia/@-26.4390743,133.281323,4z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x2b2bfd076787c5df:0x538267a1955b1352).  Most of the continent is arid in nature with the more temperate zones near the coats. This continent contains peculiar wildlife that are endemic (as seen here), a distinctive race of human beings.  This continent contains a country, also known as Australia.
How can we figure out if Australia actually exists?
First of all we can examine the evidence:



1) Historical and scientific documentation about all of the properties I describe (including books, maps, videos, photographs.)



2) Contemporary documentation, including photographs and videography demonstrating the accuracy of the historical and scientific documentation of the properties I describe (this include satellite imagery that anyone in the world can download and view.)



3) Eyewitnesses that are personally known to me who have been there and have returned with similar documentation (including photographs of themselves there) who corroborate its existence.
Secondly, if still are not convinced we can Physically go to Australia (or so its claimed). We can by two plane tickets and we can arrange a flight, just like I've arranged flights to other countries in the world to go there.  Hell, we can leave tonight.  Really, the only thing that is stopping us is time and money. Flights to Australia will be observable and repeatable, so much so, that I can provide you with an estimate of how long it will take from the time you go to the airport until when you will land in Australia.  We can make up a time table for you to investigate very specific geographical features, landmarks, climatic conditions, or wildlife viewing (which will be more variable.)
Now what about god?



How is god defined?
What evidence do we have for the existence of god?
From what I have seen:



1) Multiple, contradicting, mutually exclusive, occasionally manipulated, often historically inaccurate religious texts.



2) Unsupported assertions that events without a known cause are caused by gods.
Things that are touted as evidence but are not verifiable or useful:



1) Philosophical and hypothetical arguments.



2) Unverifiable personal feelings
If I'm not convinced by these things, what steps can I take right now, to reliably and repeatably demonstrate the existence of god and verify the existence of a god? What exact time frame can be given for me to expect these results? What tests can I do to verify the various properties associated with god? How long will such tests take?
 

You seem awfully biased.

Your Australia proof is all stuff that other people wrote or stuff your friends said.

By all means, if people want to add to my list, please, be my guest.





The whole point is:





Just because I've never seen a god, nor have I been to Australia, does not mean I have equal reason to doubt their existence.



I can easily be convinced by the evidence of one and not be convinced by the evidence of the other all while not directly measuring either.
 

That's because you were raised to believe in Australia.  I bet they even taught you about it in school.

I was also raised to believe in god.



As an adult, I was able to realize that one should not believe in things for which there was insufficient evidence. Therefore I continued to believe in the existence of Australia and stopped believing in god.



 

I would believe in god if there was evidence to support that one existed.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is one of my main reasons for disbelieving. With all of the horrable things happening to innocent people i cant sit by and believe tere is a god while i watch children die, and thousands of innocents be murdered without some kin of intervention. If god truly loves is all, there would be no suffering like this.

Do you believe in any ancient civilizations, for which the only proof we have of their existence is just man-written history?

Do you believe in quarks or the "god particle"?

Do you believe the Theory of Relativity?

Other things that I was raised to believe in that, after examining the evidence, stopped believing in:



1) Ghosts.

2) Lake Monsters.

3) Sea serpents.

4) Bigfoot.

5) Chupacabas.

6) Non-avian dinosaurs living in equatorial jungles and islands.

7) Dowsing.

8) Extra-terrestrial piloted UFO's.

9) Alien abductions.

10) Mothman.

11) The Jersy Devil.





Truly I tell you it is not a matter of foundational bias that I disbelieve in all of these things.  In fact, it was quite the opposite. I looked hard to confirm these beliefs. However, insufficient evidence could be found, so a continued belief in their veracity was no longer rationally justified.



The exact same thing happened with god. It literally was no different.

You were raised to believe in all of those things?  I find you hard to believe.

Were all of your friends, whom you rely upon for the Australia proof, ALSO raised to believe these things?  

So now, realizing the idiocy of the Australia analogy, you move the goalposts.
.
I could take the time to lay out the facts that we have in relations to ancient civilizations, or subatomic particles, or relativity, and what 'beliefs' I have about them (aka, what specific claims I think can be made with a fair degree of confidence).
But I won't, as you've demonstrated you are looking for a gotcha, and no matter what I say you'll just move the goalposts even father.
Succinctly I will say this: The amount of evidence required to a accept something as "true" depends on two things.



1) How fantastic the claims are (aka, how unlikely is what you are claiming given the facts that we already know). Said another way: "the more earth shattering the claim, the more earth shattering the evidence needed to accept it.



2) With what degree of confidence one claims to have of its existence. Knowing with certainty something is true is completely different than believing something is likely true given the evidence.  Falsely trying to conflate qualified confidence in predictive models of reality with claims of absolute knowledge of something that cannot be independently confirmed nor used to make testable predictions is absurd.





ETA::Screw it: What do I "believe" about particle physics and the theory of relativity?  Well, I "believe" that they are predictive models of apparent reality that allow us to make testable and repeatable predictions.  No one can say if either theory is 100% correct, but damn, they do seem to work pretty well for what we need them for.  The same could have been said of Newtonian phsyics...at least right up until the point where people figured out that it was inaccurate to describe certain phenomenon.  Even so, most of your life revolves around objects that were designed using the "disproven" Newtonian physics.
 

That is fine, don't believe what I'm telling you. People lie all the time on the internet.  If you honestly think I am lying on this matter, then there is no reason for you to continue this discussion with me.



I laid out many independence sources of evidence of Australia, eyewitness testimony being only. Your unwillingness or inability to pay attention to the conversation and respond to it without resulting to mischaracterizing what I said betrays the fact that you are either working hard to save your failed argument, or honestly don't get it.  Either way, there is little reason to continue the discussion.



 

So you just throw out the notion that God incarnate (Jesus) ever went through severe suffering? Have you read about his death? Did God have to suffer as a human.

And generally Christians believe death is not the end, so they may believe somebody who had the wrong end of injustice will be ultimately compensated for that.

Atheism appears to give an intellectual solution to the problem of suffering, but it removes all hope of justice.

At the very least the crucifixion of Jesus shows that God has not remained distant from suffering and has actually become a part of it. MInd you this is a simplistic solution to the problem.

No, Christianity does that.  By Jesus "washing away the sins of the world" he eliminates justice altogether.



Sacrifice (aka, scapegoating) is the opposite of justice.



 

Neither of those statements are true

Were you ACTUALLY raised to believe in all of those things?  

You didn't actually say.  

I have no idea what that sentence even means.


I've never mischaracterized anything you've said.  


What reason was there to begin with?  

This thread asks atheists to prove God doesn't exist.  The discussion should have ended right there.

"I'm going to use my infinite power to make myself sacrifice myself to myself so you don't have to sacrifice yourself for falling victim to the design characteristics I, myself, put in you.



Aren't I merciful?"



 

Not at all.  I'm just asking if you believe in things for which there is insufficient evidence.  Or more to the point: what amount of evidence is enough for you to believe in something?How "fantastic" a claim is, is based upon one's history.  If you grew up being bombarded with claims of ghosts existing or sea monsters, you might have a very high tolerance for "fantastic claims"

So if a soldier sacrifices himself to save his squad, by diving on a hand-grenade...

...that's the opposite of justice?

And where does the scapegoating come in?

What are you falling victim to?

 

 

No. Altruism has nothing to do with justice and it totally irrelevant here.  The squad isn't being punished for their sins, or crimes, the soldier sacrificing himself isn't trying to allow them to "pay" for their bad behavior.



If an innocent man lets himself be tortured so a rapist and murder can go free if he "accepts" the innocent man dying for his crimes is the opposite of justice.





 

So you don't believe Jesus died for humanity's sins, and that people will be punished based on their actions and not their beliefs?



Interesting, that is totally different than the typical view of Christianity.



 

You think that the absence of only one word is the problem with that incoherent sentence?YOU cited them as proof.  If they aren't needed as proof, I don't know why you cited them.I don't believe in god. I wouldn't believe in him if all of my friends met him, took pictures of him, or if you were to cite a mountain of books and other sources.  There's no point in trying to convince me.

You still haven't provided any proof that Australia exists.  You've merely insisted that such proof exists.

I was not relating his sacrifice to justice. I was relating his sacrifice to suffering

So in your "reality" you were actually raised to believe in:

1) Ghosts.
2) Lake Monsters.
3) Sea serpents.
4) Bigfoot.
5) Chupacabas.
6) Non-avian dinosaurs living in equatorial jungles and islands.
7) Dowsing.
8) Extra-terrestrial piloted UFO's.
9) Alien abductions.
10) Mothman.
11) The Jersy Devil.


That's the truth?  That's reality?



When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence.

This is actually 100% true. Perceived color is a result only of refracted light, which contains all the colors in the universe in its pure "white" form. The molecular arrangement of an object absorbs some parts of the color spectrum and reflects back other parts.

That is why a Florida orange looks "orange" instead of its natural color, which is a very dark brownish gray.

Want proof? Take an orange into a dark room at night, like at bedtime. No cheating with nightlights or streetlamps. Wait a few hours for your night vision to kick in. Then look at the orange.

Color is not intrinsic to an object. Molecules are. Color is intrinsic to wavelengths of light, whether natural or artificial.

This is a simplistic GD-rated explanation of light and color.

Also, have you ever flipped open the back of a 35mm film camera and looked through the lens? Notice that the image you see is upside down?

Your eyes work the same way. They see everything upside down, but your brain flips it right side up.


None of this proves the existance of a God but I, an atheist, often wonder how a universe so complex and so wonderful came to be.

Tasty apple is tasty.



 

 

Yes, in my life I was brought up to believe that those things were real. I'm not even sure what your point is with this.



 

But you said atheism removes hope of justice.
Just realize many religions do this as well, especially religions that aren't based on justice but forgiveness or rewarding simple belief or obedience.





Sorry if i jumped in and attacked you unfairly.
 

Its all good. Its good to see the different views on this subject

Really?

I just find it very hard to believe that you were raised to believe that such things are true.   I am directly questioning your truthfulness.

For example, the Chupacabra.  The Chupacabra myth first came into existence in Puerto Rico in 1995.  Are you claiming that you were "raised to believe" that Chupacabra actually existed?  How old are you?  Unless you're a 20 year old Puerto Rican... I think you're lying.

No response... My suspicions were correct.

Only read the first 4 pages of this gem so far.... but serious question here:

If most atheists here don't believe in God due to a lack of demonstrable evidence - how is it that a lot you still manage to believe in ghosts though?

Seems quite hypocritical

Who believes in ghosts?

A lack of intellectual consistency, like most people.



 

Yes.



 

I'm a child of the 80's.





I saw a show about it in the mid 90's.  I distinctly recall talking about it in 6th grade with one of my friends.





My father, of course, definitely believed in it after seeing the show and would talk about it occasionally.





Did I mention I went to school with a bunch of Puerto-Ricans?





Feel free to question my credibility on entirely believable points all you want. Doesn't matter to me.





Any other trollish things you'd like to talk about? Or are you done throwing around silly, ineffective arguments?





 

Actually if you read threads on various supernatural stuff and pay attention to who believes in what the pattern is pretty clear.

Some people will believe anything, and others require evidence.