Atheist evidence

[Sir Gareth]

So many times on here atheists tell us that there is no real evidence for the bible (which is completly untrue, as the bible can be proven if people would only listen)

But, what proof does anyone have for atheism? I do not mean evidence like 'well Christianity sounds too outlandish, so I refuse to beleive it!'

I mean real evidence, something that can be tested-such as the biblical evidence.

[nebula]

Bottom line:

They need to see in order to believe.

[Guest]

....But, what proof does anyone have for atheism?

The Bible Gives Proof!

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Psalms 53:1

Yes Virginia, There Are Atheists!

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Jeremiah 17:9

And It Is A Matter Of The Heart Not The Head!

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Revelation 3:20

While Some Just Play Devil's Advocate Knowing In Their Hearts That God Is And That He Is A Rewarder Of The Faithful

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Hebrews 11:6

Some Will Turn On Their Creator And Redeemer And Mock HIM And HIS Holy Words To Their Eternal Damnation And To The Sorrow Of The Ones Who Love

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

Hebrews 3:12

Love, Joe

[Sir Gareth]

I'm not debating the fact that their are atheists, or that the bible speaks of those who do not believe, I am just asking on what facts do they base their non belief?

I am not saying they must believe, just asking why not.

[Lesta]

It is not the atheists job to disprove god since we claim he doesn't exist.

It is the theist who claims the existance of something, therefor up to them to prove he does exhist.

Please don't take this example as an attack. It is not my intention.

If I were to say to you, "Unicorns are real"

Would it be your job to prove me wrong? Or wouldn't it be more logical for me to provide proof that unicorns do exist?

Extreem claims require extreem evidence.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Lesta

[nebula]

It is not the atheists job to disprove god since we claim he doesn't exist.

It is the theist who claims the existance of something, therefor up to them to prove he does exhist.

Mankind has believed in some form of deity, dieties, or higher power since as far back as we have records of human activity - maybe even farther.

It is only the few who rejected the idea, concept, or belief in such.

It is the atheist who goes against the mainstream of humanity.

So why is it our job to do the proving and not the other way around?

It is like the Moon-hoax theorists claiming the pictures and videos of man on the Moon are Hollywood productions and not the real thing demanding that we show the evidence that they were real instead of them proving it was faked.

[Lesta]

It is the atheist who goes against the mainstream of humanity.

Just because it is mainstream does not make it correct.

Everyone used to believe that the earth was flat too. That was mainstream as well.

Higher numbers of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Lesta

[Sir Gareth]

Your right, high numbers of people believing something is not a basis for truth.

A belief that many share with great amounts of evidence for it.

If you could present as much historical texts detailing first person encounters with unicorns, as much arecheological evidence for unicorns or showed me as many people who were changed by encounters with unicorns as there is for Christianity than I would have to beleive in unicorns.

There is no other religion or beleif system in the world (including atheism and evolution) with as much hisoric and archeological evidence as Christianity has. Further, no one has any spiritual encounters with the risen Darwin as people do with the Risen Christ.

[nebula]

It is the atheist who goes against the mainstream of humanity.

Just because it is mainstream does not make it correct.

Everyone used to believe that the earth was flat too. That was mainstream as well.

Higher numbers of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Bad example.

The Greek mathmaticians and astronomers figured out the Earth was round way back in ancient times.

Eratosthenes (c. 276 - c. 195 BC) actually calculated the circumferance of the Earth close to accuracy. (Columbus wasn't arguing for a round Earth, but a smaller Earth, relying on someone else's calculations, who was obviously wrong.)

But as for your point, it is still the job of the scientist to prove the new theory, not the mainstream to prove the old one.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not the atheists job to disprove god since we claim he doesn't exist.

It is the theist who claims the existance of something, therefor up to them to prove he does exhist.

The existence of God cannot be "proven."

I am not as loose and free with the word "proof" as a lot of people are. People tend to paint themselves into a corner.

If I were to say to you, "Unicorns are real"

Would it be your job to prove me wrong? Or wouldn't it be more logical for me to provide proof that unicorns do exist?

Extreem claims require extreem evidence.

Your example is really not true to the reality that faces you as an atheist.

The Christian's claim that God exists is based on the written record of the Bible. I have said this before on other threads and it bears repeating here: The claims of the Bible are grounded historical and geographical fact. All of its converging lines of evidence are found in a setting of real places, times and people.

The supernatural events of the Bible are attested to by eyewitnesses, people whom history indeed attests to have existed. The Bible's accuracy where historical and geopraphic evidence has so far been vindicated in the face of critics time after time. For Christians, it gives us a platform to make a case for its accuracy where supernatural events are attested to have occurred.

For example, the disciples of Jesus, after Jesus' resurrection faced persecution and pain of death for their testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were not dying for a belief, but for their eyewitness testimony that Jesus was alive. They had seen Him, talked to Him, eaten with Him, touched Him, and witnessed His ascension into heaven.

They were not dying for a religion or belief, but for their testimony that Jesus' resurrection was a fact.

It bears pointing out that their testimony did not leave any room for ambiguity. Either they were telling the truth, or they were lying, and no one suffers persecution, torture and death for their own lie, when all they have to do is admit it was not true and disappear into the sunset never to be heard from again.

So in reality it falls to you to demonstrate that credibility of the testimony of the disciples, the prophets and others in the Bible has no basis in accuracy and cannot and should not be trusted.

You don't have to disprove God's existence or any such silliness. Simply demonstrate the untrustworthiness of the claims of the eyewitnesses in the Bible.