What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

I answered you in two different posts. You didn't respond to either of them. Short version:
  • God could simply remove my doubt. This would probably be the strongest evidence.
  • Any evidence that doesn't require me to assume he exists in the first place for it to be evidence.
  • The bar for evidence wouldn't be set so high if God had been routinely making appearances all over the world since the beginning of creation. As it stands, he only did his miracles in a small section of the world over a relatively small period of time, and then just... stopped. So, of course I'm going to be skeptical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

Sure we're dodging. 'Cos you ask such difficult questions Rolleyes On the basis of what evidence would *you* believe in a non-interventionist creator, intelli-boy ? You can answer the question just as well as those you are directing it at.

If your non-interventionist creator is truly undetectable then there's no way I'm gonna waste my time believing in him. He can go play with the non-interventionist unicorns and faeries.

In any case I did answer your original question, here:
(30-01-2014 02:04 PM)morondog Wrote:  What evidence would I require to believe in a non-interventionist creator ? Like say for example I'd made a bunch of self-aware robots and left them to their own devices, how would the little buggers manage to figure out that they had been made as opposed to forming without intelligent intervention ?

Well, it's a difficult one. But we've also got to consider, ourselves, the alternate hypothesis that we were *not* made by some intelligent being. And the evidence for that hypothesis is too strong to ignore. Our clear relationship with all life around us, the fossil record showing human evolution... you could say 'but what if God was driving evolution ?' but now your God is hiding in the gaps - hiding where scientific knowledge is not quite enough to banish him. What worth is a God like that ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!
I find it lovely how you continuously and repeatedly fail to respond to posts that challenge your own position, yet have the guts to accuse us of dodging your questions when they have evidently already been answered. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
31-01-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

I wasn't dodging this at all. I failed to see a reason to answer it. What's the point of believing in someone who doesn't care about us and will never reveal himself to us? The whole reason people believe in higher powers is because they want a divine afterlife. It's like asking me if I believe in Mark Zuckerberg because he invented FaceBook. Ok, he made it, now what? What proof could there be if he refuses to give it up? Stupid question.

The other reason I ignored your question is because you are playing an infantile version of Moving the Goal Posts. I gave you the best answer to your question, and then you changed the question again and again, like my 4-year-old granddaughter who asks "Why?" repeatedly regardless of my answer. "Why do you watch this show?" Because I like it. "Why?" Because the people are funny. "Why?"

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WillHopp's post
31-01-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 03:43 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 10:07 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Quite possibly the stupidest thing ever uttered on Teh Interwebz.

You are dishonest, but this is of no surprise to me.

I said this:

Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief.

No difference. Your dishonesty is clear and well-known around here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 06:48 PM)sporehux Wrote:  This does come up a bit with disingenuous theists.
"An Atheists can't tell me what proof they require", therefore they are choosing to reject god.

You could be vague and say "any proof" would be acceptable or specific and say heal an amputee, but the theist will just nod their head and continue their delusional agenda as if you had said " no proof will ever be accepted, there is not god and never will be".

I'll quote my self because, I told you so:

special delivery to the OP
[Image: image_8412.jpg]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sporehux's post
31-01-2014, 11:06 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 12:11 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys (ie. What evidence would an atheist require to believe in the existence of a non-interventionist creator (or alternatively, a creator who didn't want to spoon-feed the world the answer to the question of his existence)?). I guess it is easier to bash my beliefs than to think about the rational basis for your own. Nice attempted dodge!

My reply was on page 9. Maybe you missed it because there have been many replies

(28-01-2014 09:21 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A single drop of evidence is all I need.
Similar to a drop of my blood at a crime scene. It's real. It's tangible. Tests can be performed using it. It contains information about me.
It can be used to identify me and place me at a location within a certain time frame.

Show me evidence of the creature in question, a hair sample from sasquatch, the tooth of a yeti, the mental thought waves of an incorporeal disembodied mind.

If you show me a well manicured lawn as evidence that an invisible, intangible lawnmower exists, I'm going to laugh at you.

Show me your god as a real and tangible thing in this universe. That is all the evidence I need.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2014 02:28 AM by Brownshirt.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 05:44 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 04:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I would propose that existence is the best evidence you can obtain for the possibility of a creator.

And i would precisely propose that the existence is the best evidence AGAINST a creator with seemingly chaotic and random universe we have i think its safe to conclude that there is no sentient alien being who popped everything into existence.[\quote]

So if there was a creator there would be no existence? That counters the concept of a creator entirely. Roger Penrose proposed that the finely tuned constants required for life to be possible in the universe was 1 in 10^10^123 so that's entirely the opposite of chaotic and random. Your claim of chaotic and random would be based on what, quantum indeterminacy? This is based on the observer, namely us. In fact all of these are. Your statements are indicative of what you believe, and are based on subjective claims and of therefore no value.


Quote:atheism shows a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.
"Atheism" is nothing but a lack of belief if you don't believe in God or Gods you're an "A"theist.
Atheism perhaps, some atheists show a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.

Quote:Unless you assert the potentially false premise of naturalism
pfft HA HA FALSE ?? Wtf do you mean by "potentially false" premise ? natural world is the ONLY world we can observe and interact with thus it is the ONLY logical premise you can ever have.[/quote]

Naturalism is the claim that only the natural world exists. If you claim it's not potentially false, what evidence do you hold to justify this? Given the claim of naturalism, this should be so much easier to prove.

Quote:logic does nothing of the sort.
Lack of evidence = No God.[/quote]
So anything which there is no evidence for, does not exist is untrue? That's quite a claim.

Quote:And Occam's Razor cuts off the idea of God altogether as it makes too many baseless assumptions.
Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief.

[Image: 57962f1170c215044a100ee51d95f77d.jpg]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 02:46 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 07:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 03:56 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Yes, I should pretend that the riddle of existence is about to be answered. What exactly are you doing in aid of keeping the doors open (AKA constant cognitive questioning) and why is this of any benefit to anyone?

I would love to hear why you think I have no position. I criticise other people's positions as I disagree, if this makes you sad or angry, life is always going to a struggle for you.

What is of "benefit" to someone (Utilitarianism) is irrelevant. You don't get to make up shit because you find it useful or convenient.

What do you think I'm making up? Making generic and unfounded statements seem to be something you and tourette's enjoy. We have nothing to fully explain or even suggest existence, the acceptance of this fact is 'beneficial'. Your apparent scepticism towards this fact is peculiar, and your portrayal of my position as convenient implies your's is inconvenient, so it must be correct due to your brave admission? Get off my dick. We have nothing, you're sceptical of what specific evidence exactly? I have no reason to think that we have evidence, nor will obtain any as we have none, yet this convenient? What is inconvenient, thinking we have evidence, but being sceptical of it? Your perspective is warped and not useful at all.

Do you think a perspective which questions everything but itself is useful? You choose it, for the pretense of objectivity. It's bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: