Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

[URGENT] Solid Evidence, Believe?

Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 12:35:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.
So you went into a debate without a case to prove your point. Smart thinking there.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:07:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:35:16 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.
So you went into a debate without a case to prove your point. Smart thinking there.

It'd be better to collect additional evidence than without.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:08:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.

Do you know God exists or just believe God exists?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:16:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:08:28 AM, Jedd wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.

Do you know God exists or just believe God exists?

I know it as well as I know there is air I am breathing.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:18:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:16:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:08:28 AM, Jedd wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.

Do you know God exists or just believe God exists?

I know it as well as I know there is air I am breathing.

Ok, evidence is good. Visit the debate if you may.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:32:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.

"hate speech" against God.

Some good ole blasphemy laws will take care of that.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:40:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?
Jedd, I think that the onus is on the proponent of any proposition is to stipulate the observable evidence under which the proposition should be considered verified or falsified. If you cannot do that, then the proposition is invalid, and there's no need to consider it at all.

I could easily believe in a wondrous being if there were evidence of a being performing wonders. I could believe that it had interacted with humans in the past if it had specific, confirmable detail that could only be known from such interaction (for example, the location of significant but as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites.)

But does that evidence make such a being worthy of worship and submission? If not, what evidence would do so?

I cannot myself think of any, but that's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I believe the onus is on the proponents to explain not only why one should believe in wondrous beings for which there's no evidence, but also why one should respect peoples' claims to know them, and why submitting one's morality and obedience to theological claims about them is a moral and decent act.

And without worship and obedience, how can they be gods? Why not call them powerful aliens?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:44:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:32:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:02:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

You won't get any Atheist to admit that the whole "lack of belief" ect.. are just the semantic escape route they take when confronted to support the hate speech they shout about God.

"hate speech" against God.

Some good ole blasphemy laws will take care of that.

I have no problem with hate speech. Take the good with the bad.

My contention was about the semantic tactics Atheist use to bolster a position of smoke built on nothing but doubt with ignorance, sold to the public as conclusive with arrogance.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:52:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

Sounds like you've constructed a win win.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:32:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:52:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

Sounds like you've constructed a win win.

Nah, thing now is I need evidence that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief that there is no God. If you could confirm that, it'd be greatly appreciated!
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:35:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'd like to know why all atheists are grouped into the same mindset. For Christians it's the same thing. What I'm saying is that as a Christian, even if some miraculous event happened, that appeared to be God, I'd question it as being genuine. A possibility could be that man found the technology, to mimic God thru the use of a hologram or other technology that could be used to exploit people's beliefs.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:42:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 2:32:09 AM, Jedd wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:52:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

Sounds like you've constructed a win win.

Nah, thing now is I need evidence that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief that there is no God. If you could confirm that, it'd be greatly appreciated!

The evidence is the dictionary.

Beyond that I don't think it's appropriate to be providing arguments for a debate in progress. If you didn't have a case then why accept the challenge?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:57:48 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

Look. I think it is a bit unfair to ask for this while there is a debate going. I also think pointing to users on this site as proof of anything is... not very solid.

Now. I will toss you a bone. Sure. If there were proof of a god, I would capitulate. There is any number of ways a god could proof itself, I am sure. What one bit? I don't know. The God would have a way to make it clear, and I can say that none of what religion rests on is very convincing to me.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 2:57:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

Look. I think it is a bit unfair to ask for this while there is a debate going. I also think pointing to users on this site as proof of anything is... not very solid.

Now. I will toss you a bone. Sure. If there were proof of a god, I would capitulate. There is any number of ways a god could proof itself, I am sure. What one bit? I don't know. The God would have a way to make it clear, and I can say that none of what religion rests on is very convincing to me.

Ok... Thanks anyway!
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:16:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:40:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?
Jedd, I think that the onus is on the proponent of any proposition is to stipulate the observable evidence under which the proposition should be considered verified or falsified. If you cannot do that, then the proposition is invalid, and there's no need to consider it at all.

I could easily believe in a wondrous being if there were evidence of a being performing wonders. I could believe that it had interacted with humans in the past if it had specific, confirmable detail that could only be known from such interaction (for example, the location of significant but as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites.)

But does that evidence make such a being worthy of worship and submission? If not, what evidence would do so?

I cannot myself think of any, but that's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I believe the onus is on the proponents to explain not only why one should believe in wondrous beings for which there's no evidence, but also why one should respect peoples' claims to know them, and why submitting one's morality and obedience to theological claims about them is a moral and decent act.

And without worship and obedience, how can they be gods? Why not call them powerful aliens?
Why would a god necessarily require worship and obedience?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:23:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:16:55 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:40:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?
Jedd, I think that the onus is on the proponent of any proposition is to stipulate the observable evidence under which the proposition should be considered verified or falsified. If you cannot do that, then the proposition is invalid, and there's no need to consider it at all.

I could easily believe in a wondrous being if there were evidence of a being performing wonders. I could believe that it had interacted with humans in the past if it had specific, confirmable detail that could only be known from such interaction (for example, the location of significant but as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites.)

But does that evidence make such a being worthy of worship and submission? If not, what evidence would do so?

I cannot myself think of any, but that's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I believe the onus is on the proponents to explain not only why one should believe in wondrous beings for which there's no evidence, but also why one should respect peoples' claims to know them, and why submitting one's morality and obedience to theological claims about them is a moral and decent act.

And without worship and obedience, how can they be gods? Why not call them powerful aliens?
Why would a god necessarily require worship and obedience?

What is the difference between an elephant that is a god, and an elephant that is not?

What about a mountain that is a god, and one that is not?

How about a mythological character that is a god, and one that is not?
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:31:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:23:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 3:16:55 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:40:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?
Jedd, I think that the onus is on the proponent of any proposition is to stipulate the observable evidence under which the proposition should be considered verified or falsified. If you cannot do that, then the proposition is invalid, and there's no need to consider it at all.

I could easily believe in a wondrous being if there were evidence of a being performing wonders. I could believe that it had interacted with humans in the past if it had specific, confirmable detail that could only be known from such interaction (for example, the location of significant but as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites.)

But does that evidence make such a being worthy of worship and submission? If not, what evidence would do so?

I cannot myself think of any, but that's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I believe the onus is on the proponents to explain not only why one should believe in wondrous beings for which there's no evidence, but also why one should respect peoples' claims to know them, and why submitting one's morality and obedience to theological claims about them is a moral and decent act.

And without worship and obedience, how can they be gods? Why not call them powerful aliens?
Why would a god necessarily require worship and obedience?

What is the difference between an elephant that is a god, and an elephant that is not?

What about a mountain that is a god, and one that is not?

How about a mythological character that is a god, and one that is not?
The difference is an ability to create a universe and life to populate it. Maybe just the universe. You are putting your own characteristics on god that it may not have.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:33:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

I readily accept whatever evidence pops up. I go wherever the evidence lies. To do otherwise is dishonest, hence my worldview.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:44:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:31:27 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/16/2016 3:23:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 3:16:55 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:40:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?
Jedd, I think that the onus is on the proponent of any proposition is to stipulate the observable evidence under which the proposition should be considered verified or falsified. If you cannot do that, then the proposition is invalid, and there's no need to consider it at all.

I could easily believe in a wondrous being if there were evidence of a being performing wonders. I could believe that it had interacted with humans in the past if it had specific, confirmable detail that could only be known from such interaction (for example, the location of significant but as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites.)

But does that evidence make such a being worthy of worship and submission? If not, what evidence would do so?

I cannot myself think of any, but that's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I believe the onus is on the proponents to explain not only why one should believe in wondrous beings for which there's no evidence, but also why one should respect peoples' claims to know them, and why submitting one's morality and obedience to theological claims about them is a moral and decent act.

And without worship and obedience, how can they be gods? Why not call them powerful aliens?
Why would a god necessarily require worship and obedience?

What is the difference between an elephant that is a god, and an elephant that is not?

What about a mountain that is a god, and one that is not?

How about a mythological character that is a god, and one that is not?
The difference is an ability to create a universe and life to populate it.
Since gods are a human-created concept, Jane, to understand them we must study how humans use them in their mythmaking.

While a few particular gods are held to have created the universe, most gods in human myth are not held to have done so, and moreover, it also does not follow that everything that might create a universe should be described as a god.

To be a god, a mythical being has to fit the characteristics of a god. Especially, god-myths tend to tell stories about characters that respond to worship and propitiation, or who are exemplars of some virtue or ideal and are thus worthy of reverence in themselves, or both.

As a counter-example for consideration, suppose our universe originated as a failed simulation on some struggling child's educational computer. Would you call the computer a god?

Thus, I hold that determining the origin of the universe (could we even discover it) is neither necessary nor sufficient to determine the existence of gods.
Jedd
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 11:09:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
To everyone saying I accepted the debate without a case:

I already have a case. Atheism is already defined as the lack of belief for a God. https://atheists.org... It's not that I came to create a post to save my arse, I came to collect additional testimonies from atheists themselves. But anyway, I've already collected evidence that disproves my opponent's claim that theists do not "know" God exists, but believe so by Mhykiel, saying he knows God in an earlier post. Fruitful nonetheless.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:37:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 12:23:27 AM, Jedd wrote:
I am in a debate titled "Atheism is a lie," suggesting atheism is a disbelief in Gods rather than a lack of belief. So, I'm collecting evidence for this claim that if there was solid evidence of a God, that would fill the "lack" and there would be no atheists. (Disbelief would mean someone ignores the evidence and disbelieves something nonetheless).

http://www.debate.org...

So, if there was solid evidence for a God, by that I mean in a very unlikely event that God flew down to Earth and declared Himself or something, atheists, would you believe?

If the comments below suggest that atheists will believe, that would mean atheists have a lack of belief that can be filled given evidence.
If the comments below suggest that atheists will not believe nonetheless, that would mean atheism is a genuine disbelief, pretty much disbelieving in God like how theists believe there is a God.

If a god provided evidence of its existence or human discovery showed it existed I would believe in it. As currently no god has provided evidence of its existence, science shows no evidence of any God's and all religions I have looked into are easily disproved I am an atheist.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:50:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Of course I'd believe if presented with overwhelming evidence. This isn't complicated. Define your god, produce a being that fits the definition or evidence that is solely indicative of the existence of the thing you've defined, and I'll agree/accept/believe. Until that happens, I have no reason to believe.