Over the centuries there have been countless logical reasons to believe there is a God. No atheist has come up with a coherent reason to believe there is no God. They've come up with reasons, but they fall apart when reflected upon. Most atheists seem to be atheists not because of lack of evidence or for some intellectual reason, it's more of an emotional reason. They seem so skeptical about the evidence and reasons for God that if they were that skeptical about daily tasks, they would hardly be able to function.
Today, the world has pretty much accepted evolution as a fact, and that is not true. It is technically a theory, because there is no hard evidence to prove it as a fact. Atheists support the evolution of science, yes, but it has an eliminating factor, as it tries to defeat and eliminate other "religions" that it believes are invalid theories of how our Earth and human life came to be. We all have our different opinions, but there is no need to eliminate the other. Some may argue that the Crusades are an example of Christians attempting to eliminate members of different religions. This was not ordered by God in any way. This is merely evidence of the sin of man, and how Satan manipulates people to do his bidding. Let us all respect the presence and faiths of religions or beliefs that differ from our own.
In the religious view, particularily Christianity, the evidence of God is related to the existence of the products of his creation.
When you look at any sort of program, you would immediately deduce that the programs are designed by computer programmer. This is the same way with nature. Nature is a program of many programs. My Christian belief is the belief that the program of nature has a programmer, God. The nonreligious belief (note the word “belief”) is that all such happened “by accident” (if you have a euphemism for “accident”, it’ still pretty much the same thing). As a Christian, I hold the belief that the perfect arrangement and coinciding functions of the Universe shows the logic that an intelligent designed it.
Beyond that, there is more. One of the Christian interpretations of God is that God is the metaphysical representation of the authority of principles. Principles include things such as love, lust, appreciation, hate, honor, pride, dishonesty, honesty, loyalty, rebellion, mercy, cruelty, etc. These principles self evidently apply to everyone, and thus, they are existent and have authority over everything. In Christianity, this is an analogy to God: God applies to everyone, and thus, He is existent and has authority over everything. God does not exceed the authority of principles, because he IS the authority of principles (This is why He is much more than a rulebook with a personality). The authority of principles is undeniable so therefore God’s existence is undeniable.
The Holy Scripture was written to give more detail on this.
So in conclusion, there is evidence of creation and God’s authority, but it really depends on your definition of “evidence”. This is why the “atheistic” definition for evidence is highly ironic; admit it, atheists… you say your evidence is mostly infallible, despite the fact that ALL of your evidence is ambiguous. In fact, your own evidence has been used against you in the same way you have presented it. God and atheism are evidently on different planes of context, so I ask you to refrain from tilting the atheist plane so that they intersect.
There are several arguments that have been presented. Yet atheists dismiss them without first successfully refuting them. Regarding the kalam argument, they hide behind the argument of ignorance. Regarding objective morality, they make the false claim that there is no objective morality, when objective morality has clearly been observed all over the world. And morality cannot be explained purely in the sense of evolution. Why would humans with selfish genes have to worry about the Golden Rule? And where would the notion of justice have come from? And then there is fine-tuning which a renowned atheist has acknowledged a strong argument (the strongest), and against which the anthropic principle comes short.
Atheists are clearly hiding from the truth.
We often hear atheists say 'the burden of proof is on religious folk' but this is obviously not the case. There are many proofs for the existence of God and it is up to the atheist to accept them or not. What often happens is that the atheist sets standards for God themselves - such as 'why does God allow evil? If he is really omnipoten he would stop suffering' or 'why hasn't God given us more evidence'. These are only the standards that they imagine God, if he exists would set. These are unrealistic expectations and when God does not fulfill them they use it as evidence against him. This is entirely fallacious, And where most of the suppression of evidence comes from.
I think that there is plenty of evidence available - cosmological evidence, moral arguments, design arguments, fine-tuning arguments and much historical evidence, and to discredit these would be to discredit hundreds of years of philosophy and theology.
This is absolute paranoid nonsense. There simply is no good evidence that any god exists- everything that has been offered in history so far is logical fallacy or personal "feelings", which isn't evidence of anything at all.
To claim that we're somehow "suppressing" evidence is patently absurd and smacks of a persecution complex on the part of believers. Sorry, theists (mostly Christians in this case), but you just plain don't have any good evidence to support your belief system. It's not some sensational plot to discredit your religion, it's not some "devil". It's just people using their brain.
It's also egregiously offensive for theists to continually try to tell us why we do not believe and what we think.
And Testimonies like the Bible or Quran never qualifies as evidence. If they are evidence, then so does Books of harry potter as the evidence for harry potter's existence. Testimonies are not empirical evidence. Atheists don't suppress evidence, we'll be glad to look a evidence if you have any. But if the evidence you are putting forward, is some sort of question like "where the universe came from? Therefore god" I'm afraid you are pushing lack of knowledge as evidence, which isn't evidence to begin with.
Atheists have seen and responded to every classical argument out there. Giving valid reasons to reject the claims. I see no reason to think atheists are somehow suppressing evidence. Atheists have no problem with believing in a deistic God, it wouldn't affect their lives in any major way. There would be no reason to suppress evidence.
The central tenet of atheism is skepticism in the face of the fantastic and the mystical. The religious and the superstitious postulate the existence of that which has no supporting evidence and instead suppresses the evidence accumulated through use of the scientific method of a universe void of a creator or deity. There is nothing for the atheist community to suppress in the first place, theologians fail to provide any substantial evidence that would distinguish their deity as existing in favor of all the other supposed deities assumed to have existed throughout history. Does the Christian suppress evidence of a Nordic pagan deity's existence? Or is there simply no evidence in the first place? Once you understand why you reject the existence of all the other gods, then you will understand why I reject yours.
There is NO suppression of evidence for theism. If a shred of evidence for theism was found, it would be shoved in the faces of atheists immediately. Instead, there is no evidence, but theists may continue to search, or use logic (which they must resort to, if inadequately, due to the lack of evidence). How could one consider that theistic evidence would EVER be suppressed?
Humanism as a philosophy today can be as little as an perspective on life or as much as an entire way of life; the common feature is that it is always focused primarily on human needs and interests. Philosophic Humanism can be distinguished form other forms of humanism precisely by the fact that it constitutes some sort of philosophy, whether minimalist or far-reaching, that helps define how a person lives and how a person interacts with other humans.
Atheism is a belief that things can be explained by science not god. And in fact theist are the ones suppressing the truth like when they arrested anyone who says that the sun is in the center and that the earth is round. So atheist are not suppressing the truth theists are
I believe in God, but I'm not an ignorant person. I can see the contradictions within the Bible. And anyone who tries to explain them away will certainly fumble. The Bible is written by man, and by nature is fallible. This doesn't even take into account the fact that it was written by several men over hundreds of years, translated over several times, and parts taken out and added. Fundamentalists are the ones who try to suppress the evidence of something other than what they believe in.
There's nothing more I have to say here. Historians have both religious and scientific evidence to prove either side of the story. For example, the 10 Egyptian plagues have scientific evidence to prove that certain bacteria can turn the Nile red, a dried Nile River can produce frogs, and that the ritual of feeding firstborns first, if the food was contaminated, can cause the firstborns to die, to name a few.
Let's let get into this argument. Clearly you have your opinion and I have mine.
The problem is the sheer stupidity created by religion and religious people.
If a person gets bad grades in science classes, and that person makes decisions about their knowledge any way, that person is stupid.
Can we unstupid that person? Yes, but it is hard work mostly because stupid people surround themselves with other stupid people for verification