User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
God is not something you need to prove

God is not simply something you need to prove to someone. How can you possibly prove God to someone who doesn't want to except it's true. In their mind and heart they chose to turn away from religion, therefore cannot experience the true faith and knowing that God is real. No persuasion can alter their already fixed beliefs.


All the atheists I know are open to new evidence concerning god. We have yet to see any compelling evidence. The emperor has no clothes (or body, for that matter).

Furthermore, in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis", Victor Stenger enumerates several dozen situations where we would expect there to be evidence of something like the Christian god, but there is none. The lack of evidence in these particular situations gives me great confidence that there is no god--especially the one that Christians believe.

We view faith as nothing more than gullibility. It's anything but a virtue. As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Many of us view religious belief as a mechanism to create atrocities.

I have yet to hear an "argument" for god that didn't involve deception, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation. There is no good reason to believe in a god, but people do so because they think they're going to get a perpetual orgasm in heaven. In your posting, you used psychological projection, which is a kind of deception. I think it's actually the believers who are closed minded to reason and evidence.

Sarah said, "God is not simply something you need to prove to someone. How can you possibly prove God to someone who doesn't want to except it's true."

That is the reason (they don't accept something is true without proof) you need to prove it's true.

Sarah said, "In their mind and heart they chose to turn away from religion, therefore cannot experience the true faith and knowing that God is real. No persuasion can alter their already fixed beliefs."

The way you used the heart implies that the human heart is used in making a decision. The idea that the heart and other organs are involved with our thinking process comes from the Scriptures. Historians agree that for thousands of years the heart, rather than the brain, was recognized as the most important organ in the body. In view of this and other facts it's hard to believe that a superior being inspired the Bible

Throughout most of human history people didn't locate their thoughts and emotions within the brain. When preparing the dead for their journey to the afterlife the ancient Egyptians didn't keep the brains. They carefully preserved all of the other organs when mummifying but discarded the brain. The heart and all the other organs were embalmed and buried with the Pharaohs but the brain was thrown away. They threw away the brain because they didn't know the brain was needed or that it was the most important organ in the human body. They just looked at it and said what is this gray gook and threw it out. God didn't ever tell them what it was for. The Bible mentions a number of key human organs, such as the heart, blood, bowels, liver, and kidneys, but never mentions the most important organ of all, the brain.

"God is not simply something you need to prove to someone. How can you possibly prove God to someone who doesn't want to except it's true. In their mind and heart they chose to turn away from religion, therefore cannot experience the true faith and knowing that God is real. No persuasion can alter their already fixed beliefs."

There's a saying: Arguments are supposed to persuade reasonable people, proofs are supposed to persuade even unreasonable people.

We atheists aren't asking for proofs. We're just asking for good arguments for theism, a good argument being a deductively valid or inductively strong syllogism with true or plausible premises.

Whilst some people might not accept good arguments for a position they don't want to believe, many atheists are honest seekers of the truth, just as much as theists are.

If the experience people have of God is evidence for the existence of God, I would welcome you to give an argument for God on the basis of religious experience, and we'll see if it's sound.

"God is not simply something you need to prove to someone."

Sarah's topics "God is not simply something you need to prove" (you) meaning Christians do not have to prove god because it's not simple; people should just believe, or does that mean because it wouldn't be simple to explain god?

I Think Sarah thinks people should believe without any proof because that's what would work. Unfortunately, for Sarah atheists do look for proof and that is why they don't believe. Atheists need proof to believe; and that's obvious.

It's not like nobody has ever looked at the evidence; many objective scholars have investigated this subject and found that the evidence does not support the (alleged) authenticity of the material. The Bible is not a historical document; it is a medley of fables and contradictory irrelevant laws and customs, past down from one ancient culture to another. The Bible is not convincing proof, and there are archeologists and scholars who are examining ancient ruins all the time. They have uncovered enough for anyone to know that the Bible is not the truth.

The Bible is not reality. The population (everyone on earth) should just believe god inspired this book to prevent them from going to hell. Most of the Bible is about conquest, which is usually barely acknowledged in Christian gatherings. The predominant theme of the Bible is a theme of violence and overthrowing your enemy neighbors.

Most people know a council of men chose the books of the Bible, but they do not know these writings go back to ancient pagan religions. One of the oldest dates back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of mythology that combines many religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived. Many of the stories in that epic can be found in the book of Genesis.

There were many transliteration and revisions before the final version of the Holy Bible. The books of the Bible (especially the NT) were chosen to support the authority of the Church and political authority, both won through murderous conspiracies. The Roman government instituted a state religion that everyone agreed with to avoid being tortured or murdered. That is why it was a very long time before anyone questioned the authenticity of the Scriptures.

The (one true god religion) became an issue long ago when Christianity was going to conquer the whole world. Most Christians do not know the origins of the selected books called the Bible. They do not know that many of the names used in the Bible for god came from ancient pagan mythology. Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to ancient pagan myths. People who have taken the time to find out the facts concerning religion do not blindly follow. Biblical scholars do know the history of Christianity and some of them don't ignore it, and some have written books exposing the truth. However, most of those Biblical scholars are no longer members of the clergy.

These people will save the whole world with prejudice and tacky behavior, while they preach the forgiveness and compassion of the (three in one) one true pagan savior! "If we must die, let us die sober, and not drunk." Bertrand Russell

None of us ought to just want to believe something; we should want to know. What we believe should be based on real information. People who make known or publicize their views should have the information and knowledge to support their rationale. There is no evidence that supports the existence of any gods; it's all assumption. All religions have a Holy Book and the followers all have personal experiences. Neither (personal experiences) nor (Holy Books) prove the existence of any god. Personal experiences may be enchanting; but it's not proof, and that needs to be pointed out to the teller of these tales. A personal experience may prove something to them but it doesn't mean a thing to anyone else.

All followers of most religions (including Christians) are conditioned to believe on faith alone, and they are instructed to reject the kind of information that would allow them to make a logical decision about the authenticity of their religion. Most Christians do not know that there are many forgeries and contradictions in the Bible, or that it has been revised and rewritten many times over. Some books mentioned in the Bible are not in the Bible. A Book that contained, as many flaws as can be found in the Bible (and all Holy Books) could never be used as the basis for finding facts or information in any other discipline.

For writings to be considered authentic (a historical account) it is required to have documentation and stringent proof. A document is not considered authentic if it is found to have unknown authors and forgeries, that document would be considered fiction. No matter how many of these fables they find with the same or similar exaggerations; one work of fiction cannot be used to support the authenticity of another work of fiction. That does not translate into a non-fiction account. We know folklore was passed down orally and in writing for thousands of years. None of these myths are thought to be literal truths, but many of these myths were slightly altered and renewed and can be found in the Bible and other Holy Books.

I had wondered why followers of various religions did not question the authenticity of their Holy Books when a lot of it is absolutely insane. I decided it must be due to the depth of their indoctrination, but I eventually realized that it was not indoctrination alone; it was also interpretation. The followers could not understand their "Holy Book" without an interpreter. These interpreters make scholarly corrections and edit or revise most of the insanity of the literature. If anyone (who knows and understands the material) ever discusses the Holy Books with the followers they will soon surmise that most of them do not know what is in those Holy Books or. the origin of their religion and the myths.

Not having to prove anything should not keep anyone ignorant of the facts, or from trying to inform the public about the origin of the gods and religion. If this were a tolerant citizenry we might overlook the ignorance, but it's not. Atheists are the most hated group in the most religious countries (some have been executed) because they challenged the old guard.

Keep in mind, we have pseudo-science and now we have pseudo-history, so I'm all for bursting their bubble and giving the religious hucksters some facts. Our future depends on scientific knowledge and information. What we know, and how much we understand about what we know will be the deciding factor in the future, not theology. Atheists don't have to prove anything about myths; they need to prove that they are myths and not truths.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup