Wrong, we ask for evidence, it just so happens that science is a good way to examine evidence. A theist might claim the earth is only 6000 old, and provide no evidence whatsoever for this claim. An atheist will ask "how old is the earth" and then find evidence indicating it is millions of years old. Whenever science cant explain something that doesnt mean we dont think it exists, because at least there is still evidence of something supporting a claim at the time.

No ty.

You don't understand. Science can only prove the existence of a 'god', not its non-existence. If science does not prove the existence of a god it does not mean that a god does not exist. Aethiests realise that.

So it then comes down to feelings or logic. People who want to believe in a god will do so. That's why there are 'no aetheists in foxholes.' It's a fantasy, but probably a necessary fantasy in humans.

However if you try to look at the logic, nothing makes sense. In a war both sides pray to their god that they win because he is on their side. But one side has to lose. So all those people have been proved wrong. The aetheist would say that both sides are mistaken because there is no god to answer their prayers.

If a god-fearing footballer crosses himself before a match asking god to help him win and another on the opposition, with the same god, does the same thing, that god cannot answer the prayers of both. The only assumption is that there is no god, or that praying to it serves no purpose. In which case there is no point in its existence.

Personally I look at primitive persons who worshipped the sun, wind, fire or thunder as being god-created...things which they knew existed... and that seems pretty logical to me. It seems less logical to worship something the existence of which a person is unsure.

The only stumbling block is the Creation. But if a deity created mass, that doesn't mean that it is a god which can communicate with all the humans on the planet, or that it has any hand in what happens. And it certainly does not mean that everyone has to worship it.

So you are saying the question of "Does god exist" is a scientific question? Because you just said that science can prove god exists. To my understanding the question does god exist is not a scientific one. And is out of the scope of what science can do. If atheists really think science covers everything including god then I'm not sure why they think that.


I'm sorry but there is so much wrong with what you just said about two people praying for opposite things. It seems you are either misinformed or being dishonest with me. I am assuming you are an intelligent person with some understanding of basic logic. You just said that if two people pray for completely opposite things then that means that god either doesn't exist or praying doesn't work. That is kind of a shortsighted thought process don't you think? Is it possible for 2 prayers to be answered that are completely contradictory? Are you asking god to do something that is logically impossible? What makes you so sure that god can do logically impossible things? What makes you so sure god created math? Do you think god can make 2+2=5? Why would you even think that? Why would you ask god to do things that aren't possible? I'm sorry but you can't really ask for something that isn't possible.

As william craig likes to say. It would be like asking god to create a married bachelor. Your logic is because god can't create something that is not possible that means he doesn't exist? Wow great logic i'm sorry but please do your homework.

God does not have to create a rock too heavy for him to lift to prove he exists. A few demonstrations of Jesus coming back to life and walking on water and **** would do just fine.

If there were demonstrations by jesus performing miracles and people still did not believe, why do the same thing over again?

This reminded me of a passage in Joshua before going to war:

If you are asking God to be on your side, you're not thinking about it the right way.

I'm not discounting anything, but I'm also not affording the same level of likelihood to everything and there is not 'supposed' to be a spiritual world, where did you get that idea from? Since you cannot in any way at all demonstrate the existence of your hypothetical 'spirit world' I'll retain what I think is a reasonable and healthy skepticism toward the idea. I wonder why you don't do the same? It seems like the rational thing to do and I'm sure you behave that way with many many beliefs that you don't subscribe to.

If I heard a voice and had no explanation for it, I still wouldn't default to 'god'. I think the fact that you did that says more about what you want to believe than what is and isn't real.

I've also not had the same experiences as many people who've been shown to be victims of their own cognitive biases, it's completely irrelevant that I haven't had your experiences. What is relevant is that we are both subject to those biases and that neither of us can trust what our minds are telling us. I'm fine with that because it doesn't change anything I believe, are you fine with it?


I'm pretty sure this is factually incorrect and there are several sects that are biblical literalists. Jehovah's Witnesses for starters.

No, he literally meant do it 77 times, you are clearly not a true believer if you doubt this, it's the word of Jesus, who are you to challenge it where you blindly accept the veracity of so many other biblical accounts? Ideas and movements can be born so your interpretation of the second example doesn't need to be metaphorical and can't be used to support that your interpretation of the first example must be allegorical, it can be read and followed literally. Since you cherry pick the bible and so far have been unable (or unwilling?) to explain how you do that, I can't really take your position seriously. The bible is the divinely inspired word of your god, is it not?

So where there is strong evidence to suggest that the bible is wrong, you don't believe it, but you continue to believe everything else? How can some parts of it having been so devastatingly debunked not cause you to doubt everything else it contains? How do you shrug off this clear demonstration of biblical fallacy and simply say 'but the rest is true'? Is it? Until it's proven not to be again....

It's a biblical principle. I also would be skeptical if I had not had these experiences, which I can only explain as spiritual. Without these, I would also have no reason to suspect in anything besides what I see, obviously.

I never said I heard a voice, it was just a hypothetical. God was never the default.

You can't say that your experiences are irrelevant, they are completely relevant, that's what this is all about.

That's not an honest interpretation, it makes no sense to not allow biblical authors to use figures of speech. If you want to insist that Christ meant that you literally have to forgive someone 77 times (not 76 or 78) then I question whether or not you're just looking for flaws, it is obviously not literal.

I already explained that I take it to be true except some figures of speech and obvious stories and parables. If there are some things that are meant as parables or allegories which I mistake for real stories, so be it, it doesn't change Christ. The bible can still be inspired and not based on true accounts, there are many Christians who take it entirely metaphorical, and I'm not about to argue with them, even if I don't see it that way.

Because I dont think there ever were any demonstrations and that is why people did not believe. Do it now where we can video tape it and prove it beyond just some guy in a robe saying it happened. I wasnt there to see the moon landing either, that doesnt mean I dont believe it happened.

Lets get a list going of reasons atheists don't believe in god then I will show you all why they are not good reasons to not believe in god. I will come up with a list off the top of my head based off of what I see atheists saying the most. None of them by the way are good reasons yet of course if you want to not believe in god because of them then I have no issue with it. But why cant an atheist just say they don't believe in god for personal reasons and not try to bring up science as a crutch? Science is not incompatible with god. Atheists seem to think you have to choose between science or god but you can't have both or you are committing intellectual suicide, causing some insane cognitive dissonance.

Anyways here is the list off of the top of my head that I find quite unbelievable that atheists think these are actual reasons to think or as some atheists even might say know god does not exist with almost 100% certainty.

Reasons(Rationalizations for their personal disdain for god)
1.Evil and suffering in the world." Violence and natural disasters existing means that god can't exist!!!! End of discussion!!!!" Yet atheists don't seem to even be able to consider that because there is evil in this world does not mean that god created it and does not mean that he is evil because other people with freewill decide to do evil. As far as natural disasters meaning god does not exist let me discuss this further.

Natural disasters are not all evil in fact they strip this invincible shield we have and shifts our focus to what is really important. Other people and not just ourselves. In fact in the bible it says what satan meant for evil god is able to turn into good. There is no reason to think when god created the world that he said oh yeah this is going to be great watch the look on these peoples faces when a hurricane whips through their city! ahahhaha God isnt like some kid playing sim city planting hurricanes and terrible things in this world and getting sick enjoyment out of our suffering. God may allow evil and natural disasters but that doesn't mean he created them. God may have created the universe but that doesn't mean that he created the evil that exists in it. He did however give us free will to do good and unfortunately some choose to do evil.

2.Mommy and Daddy raised me this way. "And Mommy and Daddy are always right and I love mommy and daddy so if I disagree with what they believe then it means I don't really love them. So to stay consistent with what I believe is love for my parents I will stay an atheist and just bring up their next most famous excuse for their atheism."

3.Modern Science. "The bible says the earth is around 6000 years because I for some reason can't seem to understand that not everything in the bible is literal. And modern science says the universe is millions if not billions of years old. So because I don't know how to interpret the bible, I can't believe in god while believing in science so I am an atheist!!!!"

You still, after all this time, have a very strange idea of what atheists think and believe.

1) is closest to a reason that an atheist might not believe in god, but more along the lines of " if god is good, why do bad things happen".

2) is ridiculous. Have you seriously had an atheist say this to you?

3) no, no atheist I know says "I cant believe in god while believing in science, so I am an atheist"

To be fair, I've been accused of #2 on here as well, I think this can apply to anyone's beliefs.

Yes, it may ( will ) be a factor in anyones beliefs, but I dont think anyone puts it in the way that eman has portrayed it. Eman is like the MB of theists. Perhaps they are opposites, like matter and anti matter, if you bring them both together they will anhilate in a flash of light and energy.

The actual question actually is:

Why you feel the need to convince them?

Why you care?

Eman, none of those are the primary reasons atheists dont believe in God, those are all just numerous secondary reasons given on top of the initial reason which is that there is no evidence of a God. That is the primary first and foremost reason atheists are atheists, but just to give ourselves more ammunition we then go on to list the numerous logical fallacies that dont require evidence to disbelieve in God.

They want to convince us so they can control us, tell us that prayer should be mandated in school, discriminate against homosexuals, etc. If they dont have a solid backing then they cant pass the kind of laws to rule the country as they see fit, just like they used to hundreds of years ago (or more recently depending on how sensitive you are to these things).

Perhaps I'm not much of an evangelist but to whatever extent I would want to convince anyone to seek God, it is certainly not because I want to mandate school prayer, discriminate against gays, or etc. Not that it isn't true that far too many people want those things (imo), but even so that is a terribly inadequate description of Christianity, let alone religion more generally.

If I want to convince you of anything it is because I feel like the experience of God is profound in a way that overflows my own borders and demands in some way to be shared, to find a communion with others.

There is a lot of generalizations happening here, and some egocentric thinking as well, like only atheists or theists do such and such.

Javi, you're quick to point out that the reasons listed above are not correct, and then justify your position, yet it has been said in this thread several times that the theist has no good reason to believe, in addition to other questionable reasons for why someone may believe in God, yet you did not object.

The truth is both groups are able to be justified in their position, but perhaps you and others don't agree with this. What bothers me is seeing a person lose objectivity because they feel they must defend their world-view at any cost. Anyone, regardless of their beliefs are able to commit fallacies, it's not group-specific.

My reason is "lack of evidence", where is your God now?

As far as the reasons stated by the imaginary atheists that seem to have taken up residence in your head:

1. The problem of evil is a problem when you are an omnipotent hyper-being that decides to create a universe knowing full well bad things are going to happen. In this scenario, God is indeed ultimately responsible for all the bad things going on. This includes both natural disasters that occur because that's how he set the world up to work and bad things people do because that's how he set them up to work.

2. The 'mummy and daddy said so' is the real (unstated) reason that most people are religious or to put it slightly more broadly, for cultural reasons. I guess it probably cuts both ways.

3. When the bible and facts contradict each other, facts win. Science describes facts more accurately than the bible in particular or religion in general. It's simply a better tool for doing so.

This makes it somewhat difficult but certainly not impossible, to accept reality as it clearly is while also being a Christian. It requires some mental flexibility and acceptance of 'allegory' and 'metaphor' in the bible or some other way of otherwise watering down its authority.

Additionally, some theists make the claim that the world is 6K years old and that the entire scientific community is actively engaged in a conspiracy/the devil's work in order to perpetuate the untruth that the real figure is in the billions. So yeah, you can't believe in science and that type of Christianity without a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

I have a question to any theist; can you even consider the possibility that your religion is wrong, or that there is no god at all? Like are you even willing to entertain the thought? Or is the mere idea just unconscionable to you? I mean as an atheist I've already confessed that I could be wrong and that there really is a God and that I would have some catching up to do to learn about him after all of these years. Can you do the same for science?

Yes. Yes. No. I think you misunderstand the relationship between theism and "science", or else by science you mean something beyond scientific methodology, ie naturalism or the like. It is quite possible to value both science and theism

Yeah, I always concede that I could be wrong, but I think a more genuine question is what I've already mentioned - can you accept that the theist may be justified in his beliefs?

Even though I'm a theist, I can concede that the atheist *may* have a justifiable position, depending on a few factors of course, but I don't simply hand-wave his position as absurd. Perspective is key.

If God would end war right now that would be enough evidence for me that he exists. However, I would still ask him why he did not do this before.