Slythe: The reason they cannot show you the evidence is because it simply doesn’t exist. It is a faith issue. They believe because they have faith. Period.
Now, some will admit this and some will not.
Also, I would submit that different people have different ideas of what “evidence” means.
Ferinstance: To many theists, aunt Sally’s cancer going into remission after prayer is evidence for God. The “miracle of birth” is evidence for god. Their life improving after turning to god for help is evidence for god. And so on.
However, to me, those things are evidence for pretty much every unprovable cause equally. I.e, I could postulate that my cat is controlling everything that happens in the universe. She heard the prayer to the (nonexistant) Christian god, and decided to help out since aunt Sally had always been nice to cats.
If I already believed that my cat really was in complete control of the universe (I and have some inkling that she might be), this event might strenghten my belief, if I wasn’t looking at the matter critically. Which is one explanation for why god only shows up for people who grant religion an exception from critical thinking. But lacking such a belief, I’d just say “balderdash”, because it doesn’t lend any more support to my cat ruling the universe than it does to the Christian god, or any other unfalsifyable claim you can dream up.
This is one of the most common areas where theists and I can never agree. We reach this point of “XYZ pointing to god”, and I say, “it doesn’t require a god, and it’s evidence for all supernatural causes equally”, and then we just can’t progress any further because our world views are too different.
peas on earth
You’re cat doesn’t control the universe!
It’s a symposium of cats (cat’s being equal to each other but superior to all others) that get together and determine the course of life on earth. Just on earth. Venus has those elephants, you know…
If you thought Jews For Jesus was unintentually funny, check out the web-site http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/ !!!
Not a joke site!
You can’t prove she doesn’t.
–
peas on earth
I have blind faith that my cat controls the universe, and my cat can be touched, seen, felt, and(on bad days) smelled.
Can your god do better?
Well, maybe before you say that agnostism is meaningless, you should learn what it means… Agnostism simply means that one is neither affiliated nor believes in a definite religion.One can be agnostic and believe in some form of “Godmanship”, which is not to be defined by any existing religion.To be agnostic IS NOT to believe and not believe at the same time…
I’d like to see this evidence. It seems to me that just about all the evidence disproving the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus could apply equally well to God (e.g. defies physical laws, never seen with your own eyes, many imposters, etc.)
meara said:
Try this:
I specifically know that certain people have done the deeds that are attributed to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (buying and wrapping presents and signing as “From: Santa”; making up baskets of choclates and hiding them; etc.). I can therefore say, “Santa Claus is not true because my mother puts the presents out and signs her name as Santa.”
I do not know of anyone who has done some of the deeds attributed to God (creation of the Universe). I cannot say, “God is not true because science has explained why the Big Bang happened, or what existed beforehand, etc.”
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
weegsist, I do not believe you are correct. Agnosticism is neither belief nor disbelief in god, but simple doubt and/or apathy regarding his, her, or its existence, as has been abundantly stated above. It is, contrary to what you state, all about god. What you describe is called “Deism”.
An infinite number of rednecks in an infinite number of pickup trucks shooting an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce all the world’s great works of literature in Braille.
Tell the Buddhists - they neither afirm NOR deny the existence of God. Technically, they see no evidence, but are open to it if it comes to light - or down to earth.
Might I suggest that you take your own advice and “learn what it means” before telling others they are wrong?
Thomas Huxley coined the term in 1869. He said: “When I reached an intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist … I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. They [believers] were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis,’ – had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.”
At a party in 1869, Huxley clarified the term: “one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and so far as can be judged unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.”
Furthermore, he wrote about it: “Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”