Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

I can't speak for Hurf, but I believe he's saying that until he sees evidence for god, there's no reason to say it can actually exist. Although, he does confuse me as to how he can say for certain there is no god :confused:

Exactly. Which is why I am so keen to find out how he can highlight the importance of evidence but hold his own view without any.

Is there any positive evidence for the atheist position?
 
Exactly. Which is why I am so keen to find out how he can highlight the importance of evidence but hold his own view without any.

Is there any positive evidence for the atheist position?

Atheists' view is that there is as much chance of god as unicorns or any other random myth and give it as much credit as them.

Would you randomly believe in unicorns without any evidence?

Why does religion and a belief in a god need more evidence then unicorns to debunk?
 
Atheists view is that there is as much chance of god as unicorns or any other random myth and give it as much credit as them.

Would you randomly believe in unicorns without any evidence?

Why does religion and a belief in a god need more evidence then unicorns to debunk it?

My question isn't about likelihood, probability or possibility. I'm only asking is there any positive supporting evidence for the non-existence of God?
 
Atheists' view is that there is as much chance of god as unicorns or any other random myth and give it as much credit as them.

Would you randomly believe in unicorns without any evidence?

Why does religion and a belief in a god need more evidence then unicorns to debunk?

This is stupid. Unicorns are simply an horse with an horn, so how can one compare them to God? God has been believed in by virtually all cultures.
 
So are you saying there is absolutely no positive evidence for the atheistic viewpoint?

What I'm saying is that Unicorns are every bit as entitled to a religion as 'god' and there is as much supporting evidence.

In fact I have just now decided that the spider sitting in the corner of my room is the latest messiah and it is in fact every bit as entitled to a religion and years of worship as Jesus Christ.

What supporting evidence is needed to not believe in something? This makes no sense to me, why would you need supporting evidence to not believe in something?
 
For those who say "there is no God", then yes you do have to bring evidence to the table. You are making a statement. If you don't think there is a God, then it should be "I don't believe there is a God". Then you are not making a statement.

Looks like a statement to me. I don't believe there is a God. Do I have to bring evidence to the table that I don't believe in God?

The backfoot should lay on disbelief. Is there any evidence for God? No, then for now he doesn't exist. If you think he does exist bring forward some evidence for us to examine and we will consider and update our standing.

You can't be agnostic about everything as the list is endless. The only reason agnosticism about God is even entertained is because of the sheer number of people that believe in it. Essentially we're using the evidence that because some people do believe in it that we perhaps shouldn't rest our backfoot on disbelief. This is fundamentally wrong.

God has been believed in by virtually all cultures

As my point above, you've confirmed my opinion of your standpoint. A widely held belief is not a reason to use it as demi-evidence. As many people have or do believe in super-natural beings. Should the scientific viewpoint of those to be half-way in-between or should we continue to disbelieve them until evidence is brought forward.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that Unicorns are every bit as entitled to a religion as 'god' and there is as much supporting evidence.

In fact I have just now decided that the spider sitting in the corner of my room is the latest messiah and it is in fact every bit as entitled to a religion and years of worship as Jesus Christ.

What supporting evidence is needed to not believe in something? This makes no sense to me, why would you need supporting evidence to not believe in something?

I'm not interested in spiders or unicorns. I want to know is there any supporting evidence for the viewpoint that God does not exist? It only needs to be yes/no.

The backfoot should lay on disbelief. Is there any evidence for God? No, then for now he doesn't exist. If you think he does exist bring forward some evidence for us to examine and we will consider and update our standing.

So your logic can be summarised as follows? Is this correct?

"If there is no supporting evidence for something, then it certainly does not exist".
 
Last edited:
I'm not interested in spiders or unicorns. I want to know is there any supporting evidence for the viewpoint that God does not exist? It only needs to be yes/no.

So your logic can be summarised as follows? Is this correct?

"If there is no supporting evidence for something, then it certainly does not exist".

This quote from Bertrand Russell seems apt to better explain the viewpoint you seem to struggle to understand:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
 
So your logic can be summarised as follows? Is this correct?

"If there is no supporting evidence for something, then it certainly does not exist".

In so much as to list and debate everything that may or may not exist is bonkers then yes. We don't believe in the turtle on the moon although I think if there were millions of people that believed in a turtle on the moon then I imagine we would have similar threads about it.

It's not that God 'certainly does not exist', it's that his discussion should not happen under some sort of scientific disguise. There is no evidence for God and so there should be no discussion about it until new evidence is brought forward. Don't suddenly start saying that he may or may not exist though, because we have no proof he may exist therefore cancelling that out from the 'he may/may not' argument you're left with he doesn't exist to our knowledge so lets move on.
 
Looks like a statement to me. I don't believe there is a God. Do I have to bring evidence to the table that I don't believe in God?

The backfoot should lay on disbelief. Is there any evidence for God? No, then for now he doesn't exist. If you think he does exist bring forward some evidence for us to examine and we will consider and update our standing.

You can't be agnostic about everything as the list is endless. The only reason agnosticism about God is even entertained is because of the sheer number of people that believe in it. Essentially we're using the evidence that because some people do believe in it that we perhaps shouldn't rest our backfoot on disbelief. This is fundamentally wrong.



As my point above, you've confirmed my opinion of your standpoint. A widely held belief is not a reason to use it as demi-evidence. As many people have or do believe in super-natural beings. Should the scientific viewpoint of those to be half-way in-between or should we continue to disbelieve them until evidence is brought forward.


There is a difference between "THERE IS NO GOD" to "I don't believe God exists." One is a personal belief, whilst the other is making a statement for which the person saying it believes it is true for everyone.
 
This quote from Bertrand Russell seems apt to better explain the viewpoint you seem to struggle to understand:

I have heard the teapot mentioned hundreds of times. This still doesn't answer by question.

I am only asking is there any positive evidence supporting the atheistic viewpoint?

I am not interested in talking about positive evidence for the existence of God right now.

In so much as to list and debate everything that may or may not exist is bonkers then yes. We don't believe in the turtle on the moon although I think if there were millions of people that believed in a turtle on the moon then I imagine we would have similar threads about it.

It's not that God 'certainly does not exist', it's that his discussion should not happen under some sort of scientific disguise. There is no evidence for God and so there should be no discussion about it until new evidence is brought forward. Don't suddenly start saying that he may or may not exist though, because we have no proof he may exist therefore cancelling that out from the 'he may/may not' argument you're left with he doesn't exist to our knowledge so lets move on.

I have a big problem with your logic. You are effectively saying that if there is no evidence against the murderer, then he certainly didn't commit the crime. Of course the murderer can still be guilty despite the lack of supporting evidence. As the old saying goes "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

I think the Christian viewpoint does attempt to bring supporting evidence to the table. You may reject the premises of the arguments/evidence but I'm not sure you can say no evidence exists.
 
Last edited:
In so much as to list and debate everything that may or may not exist is bonkers then yes. We don't believe in the turtle on the moon although I think if there were millions of people that believed in a turtle on the moon then I imagine we would have similar threads about it.

It's not that God 'certainly does not exist', it's that his discussion should not happen under some sort of scientific disguise. There is no evidence for God and so there should be no discussion about it until new evidence is brought forward. Don't suddenly start saying that he may or may not exist though because we have no proof he may exist therefore cancelling that out from the 'he may/may not' argument you're left with he doesn't exist to our knowledge so lets move on.

How can Science find a deity who exists outside of space and time? I'm no pantheist, mate.
 
I have heard the teapot mentioned hundreds of times. This still doesn't answer by question.

I am only asking is there any positive evidence supporting the atheistic viewpoint?

I am not interested in talking about positive evidence for the existence of God right now.

The atheistic standpoint is that there is as much chance of being a god as anything else unproven. Why would you need evidence to support that?
 
How can Science find a deity who exists outside of space and time? I'm no pantheist, mate.

Well then you're going to have to explain to me what purpose there is to even believe in something that exists outside of space and time. Isn't that just having hope in life and humanity which is just called hope, not God?
 
How can Science find a deity who exists outside of space and time? I'm no pantheist, mate.
If the deity intervenes in human affairs, then it can. God opens itself up to the scientific methods if it chooses to affect our world, as there would, by definition, by evidence of its involvement.

If you're simply a deist, then I would agree that your belief couldn't be challenged by science at the moment. Though, that's not to say that it will be that way forever. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom