If you wanted to convince a believer that there is no God what evidence would you use to convince them
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I don't think you could, if someone truly believes in something, nothing shall sway them.
However, If there is a willingness to listen to learn and to use their critical thinking faculties, I would propose the following points:
- The laws of nature are never suspended, so super natural phenomena i.e. immaculate conception, resurrection as purported in the bible are impossible. This is also relevant to the Quaran, No winged horses and they cannot fly.
- We know how life evolved, how the world and solar system formed and so on. No 'magic' was required.
- Nothing within science, physics or the natural order of the universe provide evidences to theistic claims.
Furthermore, I would offer a hypothetical scenario.
Offer all theists a chance to stay in a vacuum chamber, they could pray before hand to be spared/saved.
How many would partake? How many of those who did would survive?
Personally I wouldn't even want to try to convince a believer that there is no god.
If I actually managed to strip away your beliefs right now, I would feel a dreadful responsibility for you and your well being and frankly I am not looking for that sort of responsibility.
I honestly don't care what you believe in. I do not go to theist sites, or churches, or bible meetings and tell people the things they believe in aren't real.
I defend my atheism against the claims of theists who come to AR (and against my older brother's fundamentalist brethren when they seek to convert me). I recognise the difference between faith and scientific knowledge and it bewilders me that people of faith use distorted perceptions of science and knowledge to bolster their claims.
I contend that if you really have undeniable faith, you have no need for knowledge to defend it; but I deplore those who use pseudo science, pseudo history or personally contrived definitions, to garner false authority, in the public domain, for their beliefs.
Past experience has proven to me that believers (ie those without doubt about their faith) are never open to any evidence that challenges their faith and any such attempt is a waste of time.
Ok how would you defend your atheism
Why should I need to defend something I did not choose?
Hey there, Ask. Nice of you to join us. Make yourself at home.
In regards to your OP, my experience is that there really isn't anything much at all you can do or say to convince a true theist their respective god does not exist. If he/she strongly believes in his/her god and is totally immersed into the religion of choice, then the harder you try to convince them usually just makes them dig in even deeper. Pretty much a futile effort, at best. However, if you have somebody approach you on their own accord and they are asking questions because they are having doubts, then that is another story. And for that particular situation, I personally just encourage them to ask questions and allow me to give them my honest answers. And if there is something I don't know, then I would refer them to the resource necessary to answer the question. At that point, it is totally up to that individual to make his/her own decisions about what to believe or not believe. Totally not my business to MAKE them or FORCE them to believe one way or the other. I have no desires nor intentions of trying to force my views or (non)beliefs on others. But if somebody asks me, I will give them my honest answer/opinion. It is then up to them what they do with it.
And as far as "defending my atheism".... Well, honestly, there is nothing for me to defend, as far as I am concerned. If somebody asks me whether or not I believe in their particular god, I will give them my answer as being, "No." Whether they like it or not, or believe it or not, or agree with it or not is THEIR problem, not mine. I couldn't care less if they like it, or believe it, or agree with it, or not. I am quite confident, comfortable, and happy with what I believe. And if that happens to make some theist individual uncomfortable, then perhaps that theist should be the one questioning his/her own faith..... *shrugging shoulders*...
1. If there is a god how come there are so many "one true gods"?
2. Show me a single equation in science with a "god did it term"
The best reason to lack belief in the existence of gods is the fact that gods cannot be shown to have any meaningful effect on reality.
Because not once has any explanation of any event ever been proven to be magic or supernatural. EVER.
rmfr
One could disprove a particular god, but that god would have to be carefully defined, and its properties delineated with care. The effects of that god in the world today would need to be identified. If in all of that, we could identify a necessary attribute or effect that the god entailed, and it could be shown that the attribute or effect, (or plural), were illogical or incoherent, then the god would be disproved.
To be an atheist, all one needs to hold, is the mental condition in which the atheist in question remains unconvinced that there is any good reason to accept any of the gods presented to him or her. This condition is not necessarily one of the denial that any gods exist, merely that no gods so far, have convinced the atheist that they actually exist.
Most theists, it would seem, hold the same position for any of the other gods which they might be presented with as potentially true gods, excepting of course the one that they actually do accept is real and exists.
Mu.
Is there actual scientific evidence against the bible
The Noahacian Flood Myth NEVER happened.
The Exodus NEVER happened.
There is absolutely no evidence for either.
rmfr
@ Arakish
Not forgetting that there is absolutely NO contemporary evidence for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels.
I think that is the full set?
Yeah. I was just giving you the honors since you are more knowledgeable in that area. Mine was into the flood and exodus myths. There are other areas I have researched in all my travels, but those were my two main foci.
rmfr
Not only is there zero evidence for a worldwide flood in the last 20,000 years, but there is TONS of compelling evidence there never was a worldwide flood. Even if every possible source of water/liquid were to leave their land locked areas and melt/travel into the ocean, we would not see even see anywhere close to 1000 feet higher sea levels. Meaning yes coastal flooding and low lying areas could possibly flood, (goodbye florida!) but more than 50+ percent of all land would still be well above sea level. The god would essentially have to create incomprehensible amounts of "new" water and then make it all disappear again. Especially enough new water to cover all the highest peaks like everest. That amount of water would also destabilize the earths orbit around the sun, plus countless other world breaking issues. All in an effort to wipe out all of the human race except one family? (And somehow not have other humans also build small boats/floating rafts for themselves?) Would be far easier for god to release some sort of super bug that wiped out all humans and inoculated 1 family.
There is just so many things so horribly wrong with the global flood story it is comical, the santa claus story makes much more logical sense then worldwide flood idea, and yet most all of us except children tricked, can easily deduce how ridiculous the concept of "Santa Claus is."
Even my highly religious family members will admit the noah flood story is just that, a story not real, never happened, may be loosely based on flooding of a river/area near where the religion was first founded.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
YOU ARE CONFUSED: There is no evidence for "No God." It is not possible to falsify an non-falsifiable proposition. It is easy to falsify a Christian version of God if the Christian is open enough to share their version of god with you. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD. No god claim has withstood the test of critical inquiry or time. Proving that an invisible, non corporal, omniscient, all loving, just and merciful, floating beyond time and space yet interacting with humans on a personal level God does not exist is just as inane as trying to prove it does exist. If you want to believe in fantasy, no one can stop you.
Trying to get the atheists to disprove any delusional version of a god (they are all delusional) while easy to do once the God is defined, is "SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF." If you assert that there is a god, you are the one that has to prove it.
SO - Returning to the OP. What god are you talking about? Which Christian Religion are you referring to? You clearly define your god and why you believe in it and we can move on from there.
The scientific method does not make any claims about the bible. It provides testable explanations of how the physical universe operates following simple natural laws of physics and chemistry through observation, prediction, experimentation and confirmation. No theory ever ends with the statement "...and therefore god does not exist."
The bible however, is full of stories about things that defy the natural order, just as it happens, as described by science, ie the resurrection of the dead, miracles generally, global flooding, walking on water, turning water into wine, curing leprosy with sacrificial rituals, producing striped domestic cattle from single colour parents by placing striped poles at their water troughs, the earth ceasing to revolve or orbit the sun. That's because the bible is a book of fable and myth, a comfort for our irrational and fearful natures. It is full of warnings against believing anything not found in the bible or disbelieving anything that is.
It is the bible that makes claims against rational observation and measurement (ie natural philosophy as it was known or as we call it today, science)
The scientific method was not created to disprove any god. It was encouraged by thorough intellectual christians to prove the power and glory of their god's power by examining how and why nature worked, but instead it was found that no entity remotely like a god was necessary. So initially science was rejected by theists but, it was found that science was undeniably right and that it worked. And theists have been trying ever since, to gain from its greater authority by distorting its purpose and findings.
The same but opposite question should be asked to an atheist.
?
"If you wanted to convince an atheist that there is a God what evidence would you use to convince them"?
Ask21771,
"If you wanted to convince a believer that there is no God what evidence would you use to convince them"
No God of any kind has ever done anything godly on this planet since the first con man made him up to gain power and status over his superstitious buddies. It is the perfect way to get rich without working.
Everything that has happened and will happen has already happened to countless other people. There is no God of any kind involved in what happens on this world.
Robert A. Heinlein said it best: Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled brat.
rmfr
It would be a pointless endeavour...
People who believe should consider the other figures who require magic or super natural garbage for their narrative to be true.
Santa - Bollocks
Easter Bunny - Bollocks
Tooth Fairy - Bollocks
David Lo Pan - Bollocks
God - The absolute mother load of unrelenting bollocks.
@ Random
Succinct and pungent as always mate. Love your work! Happy Mithras!
The most compelling "evidence" would probably be that the universe is self-contained and thus doesn't need the invoking of a god hypothesis. If god truly was the "necessary existing item", certainly the necessity of his existence could be inferred from physical evidence of the universe. Instead, the universe seems to not concern itself with the existence of the "necessary existing item". The fact that the universe cares not for god is pretty remarkable in its own right, but even beyond this it could be pointed out that we don't see god ever interacting with the universe, for all of these billions of years, which kind of leads one to doubt as to why exactly he'd even create it in the first place.
To borrow a theist analogy: have you ever seen or heard of a watchmaker who never touched, never inspected, never modified the watch he made? Me neither. If you make something, you are bound to interact with it.
Spectre of Marxism: "To borrow a theist analogy: have you ever seen or heard of a watchmaker who never touched, never inspected, never modified the watch he made? Me neither. If you make something, you are bound to interact with it."
And to add (hope you don't SoM), if you interact with anything, you shall leave evidence of that interaction.
rmfr
I'm looking for evidence against the bible please give me some
Which part?
It is dangerous to go from the assumption that something is true rather than false.
Ask21771, you wrote, “I'm looking for evidence against the bible please give me some”
I’d suggest you read it. You’ll find a plethora of evidence for yourself by doing so.
A glaring issue is that the bible requires the suspension of the laws of physics and nature, neither of which happen.
If you care to research it, you will find that the Qu'ran is the latest plagiarized book of lies. It was largely plagiarized from the Jewish Torah. Why do you think Muhammad snuck off to that cave after stealing a copy of it? The Bible, including both testaments, is nothing more than a collection of plagiarized and rewritten myths and legends, some thousands of years older than both. One good example is the Noahacian Flood Myth. It was written in circa 450 BCE and plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh. This Epic was written circa 1600 BCE and plagiarized from the Epic of Atra-Hasis. This Epic was written circa 1700 BCE and plagiarized from the Epic of Ziusudra. This Epic was written circa 1900 BCE and was plagiarized from the Genesis of Eridu which was written circa 2000 BCE.
Many use the argument of flood myths around the world in every culture. Think on this. In the ancient times, virtually every human culture, society, tribe, etc. founded their locations near a river. What is one thing rivers shall always do unless controlled through either a dam or irrigation systems? Thus, any catastrophic flood event is going to be remembered and passed down by the "Chinese Whispers" method. Did I tell you the story of the fish that was THIS! big that got away?
rmfr
Read it, that's all you need to do.
It contains more bollocks than one of those Japanese commuter trains where people are stuffed in like some sadistic game of Tetris for a grinning warlord sitting on a throne of human skulls in Tokyo.
Pages