God or No God - that is the question (for atheists)

Well, 'goodness' would not be making 10's of thousands of people die in a natural disaster. for one.

The paradox of good/evil and an 'all good benevolent' god is irrelavent.Frankly, the default position about the existance of something is in the negative until some objective evidence can be found.There is zero objective evidence of any sort of deity what so ever. You got people with feelings (who disagree on details). Not very objective.The fact that 'good' and 'evil' are so subjective shows there is no 'objective good'. That rules out the 'god that is the source of all that is good'..

quote:

---

Before man had objective evidence about air he was quite happy to breath it in. Something can exist all right whether evidence has been found or not. Evidence found just means evidence was looked for and found. So, how have you (assuming your an athiest) looked for evidence taking into account the thesis in post 1

---

Strawman arguement. The act of breathing is an objective act. Gosh, even the most earliest part of the bible use the act of breathing for 'soul'.

quote:

---

See thesis in post 1. How objective is your case against if you haven't looked in the right place. Assuming one can look in right place. Thesis says nothing about finding God except if he reveal himself. That he hasn't revealed himself to you or maybe doesn't reveal himself to anyone does not mean he doesn't exist.

---

strawman arguement. We have objective evidence for air and breathing. What objective evidence do you have for any deity? We also are a lot more sophisticaed that the primative people when it comes to designing
a way to detect things, and to disprove them. Let's see you demonstrate an objective way to detect god. We have so MUCH more sophisticated equipment and techniques now.. surely if it so obvious as you claim, you can do that.

Rahvin has it right. That is a very standard atheistic attitude.

What is wrong with saying 'Insuffienct evidence'. I mean, the whole first cause thing is just philosophical B.S. .. because we don't even KNOW if that makes sense. The use of a 'first cause' to try to 'prove god' is just making a special pleding for god.Ok.. lets throw the fact we can't really know out the window, and assume that there is indeed a 'first cause'. Why do you think that this first cause is a supernatural, intelligent being that is intensely interested in mankind,and created the universe for the sake of man? Or even takining mankind out of the equation, why do you thihk this first cause by requirement is an intelligent , self directed entity? That just doesn't make sense.

Funny thing... 'born again' is a mistranslation.. The literal meaning of that phrase is 'born from above'.Gosh, the movements that have been created over a mistranslation.

I don't think you nailed that properly. Crucifiction was a type of hanging.. it just wasn't by the neck until dead. It was hanging on a
piece of wood until you died of exposure.

There are even more.There is believing in god, but thinking God only set the universe in motion, and then laid back and did nothing. Or, yu can think that God is the universe...

Yes, the purpose of science is to find a reason, but there is not reason we can't say "We do not currently have enough information to make an assumption", and "This is the next step to get information". That is what we are doing now.There is also 'This is what we speculate might have happened. Let's see if we can figure out how to test our assumptions' and then test them.