|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CFO writes: What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism? Or do you guys operate on blind faith? Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods or a God. It requires no faith. You were born an atheist. Lack of belief in things for which there is no evidence requires no faith.
If evolution is the positive evidence for Atheism, then Christian evolutionists are the biggest fools on Earth. Lack of belief in things for which there are no evidence, like Gods and elves, requires no evidence.
If evolution is not positive evidence for Atheism how rational is it to ignore the fact that all of you are evolutionists? Given the evidence for evolution, everyone without a superstition based mental block who is aware of that evidence would be an "evolutionist".
Of course we know (my bold) that all of you are evolutionists because evolution supports your worldview. But you cannot admit publicly without embarrassing so called Christian evolutionists. Ray, you need to learn the difference between the word "know" and the word "believe". Atheism is much older than the theory of evolution. It's older than theism, as well, because lack of belief in Gods would have to predate the first Gods ever invented. A God could easily create a universe in which evolution happens. It's easy to be a theist and an evolutionist. Biological evolution doesn't disprove that there's a God. Your problem is that it disproves Ray's God. How sad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Ray, can you give an example of positive evidence that there's no invisible demon under your bed? Or do you realize that logically there can be no such evidence?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Omnivorous writes: No, I was a Christian child before I was an atheist, then later (and now) an agnostic due to my own quixotic notions of intellectual honesty. You were an atheist baby before you were a Christian child. (I agree with Ray, which could be regarded as evidence that miracles do happen). Agnostics, excepting those who use the term to describe a half belief in the God of their cultural background (doubting theists), are atheists, and most atheists are agnostics. Atheism is not a claim to know that there are no Gods. We share your notions of intellectual honesty. The only atheists who aren't agnostics would be those who claim to know there are no Gods. I've yet to meet one, and I think they might be a product of fertile theist imaginations. Atheists and true agnostics lack belief in any Gods in the same way that most others lack belief in fairies. It is belief in any supernatural proposition for which there is no evidence which is active, not disbelief. Agnostic was a term coined by the atheist Huxley to emphasise the point that we cannot know whether or not there are Gods. It's the standard atheist argument for belief in Gods being irrational. I like the term "non-theist" because of constant confusion as to what atheist and agnostic mean. By some dictionary definitions, I'm an atheist, by others I'm not. You can tell when a theist has written the definition. It will be something like "a belief in the non-existence of God", rather than "lack of belief in God". Theists need to be able to say "my faith is as good as yours". Both Christianity and Islam (particularly) have made the claim that belief in their respective Gods is innate. Muslims describe converts as reverting to Islam, not converting. This is outrageous! That's why I claim that babies are atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I would say most Atheists don't not believe in god; instead we believe in a naturalistic universe that just happens to leave no place for god.
The positive evidence for a naturalistic universe is the widespread success of naturalistic explanation and the total failure of supernatural explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Jon writes: We did have a topic very similar to this not too long ago..... As for my opinion on this: The atheists will never be able to show you positive evidence for no-God. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Instead, they will use sophistry to convince you of such malarkey and impossibilities - i.e., they will begin arguing like Biblical Fundamentalist. It really does become quite sad. Here's an example of sad sophistry from that thread, Jon. Someone tries to use mathematics inappropriately to prove that a God who created this earth flat cannot be disproved.
Jon writes: bluegenes writes: On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant. This God cannot be disproven either. An absense of a flat Earth is not the same as no-(flatEarth). If we consider (flatEarth) to be positive-[yes]-evidence of yes-God, then in relation to (flatEarth) and God, if we consider the opposite proposal of no-God, then in regards to (flatEarth) the comparable evidence for no-God would be negative-[no]-evidence. An absence of (flatEarth), or negative-[yes]-evidence is not the same thing. Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth). But what is this? Can it exist? Well, can -5 exist outside of the concept? No; negatives do not exist in nature. It is the same with other forms of evidence, -(flatEarth), as it is for numbers; that it cannot exist in nature. So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable. Jon It really does become quite sad, doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I guess one road we could go down would be...
You: What is your positive evidence for being an atheist? Me: You mean what is my positive evidence for not believing in a Christian, or indeed Abrahamic god? You: Yes. [I'd imagine this is what you'd say, but could be wrong] Me: Same as yours for not believing in Odin - you haven't seen any evidence that Odin exists, so you don't. You: Ah, but I have positive evidence of my beliefs - Jesus lives etc.. (perhaps what you think?) Me: But that's what everyone says. That's what people who believe in any god would say. They've been touched by Vishnu, or whatever. I guess what this comes down to what you'd call admissable evidence. If a warm squishy feeling inside is evidence of one god's existence to some people, and another god to some others, then maybe its not really very compelling evidence of anything at all. You: Oh, I see. Gosh, never thought about it that way. Maybe there isn't such a thing as a Christian God after all. Maybe there aren't any gods. Oh, and I like the term Abrahamic too, that's great. (probably putting words in your mouth).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Tusko writes: You: Oh, I see. Gosh, never thought about it that way. Maybe there isn't such a thing as a Christian God after all. Maybe there aren't any gods. Oh, and I like the term Abrahamic too, that's great. (probably putting words in your mouth) Probably putting words in his mouth? Tusko, do you know who you're talking to? I think that the probability of Ray saying something like that is probably about the same as the probability of his very particular God actually existing. Less than negligible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
That was my little joke - if it appeared any other way I have failed, failed I tell ye!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're asking for the positive evidence for the nonexistence of something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you operate on blind faith ... No, of course not, don't be silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Dr.A writes: I think what he means is the idea that there was eternally existing matter in some form without need of a Creator. You're asking for the positive evidence for the nonexistence of something? Why does eternally existing matter make more sense than an uncaused first cause? (One of the usual explanations for God)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
That was my little joke.. No, you didn't fail, I thought you were joking, and I laughed, but I wasn't quite sure if you knew exactly who Ray is (rather than just one of a genre). He's special, and he's my favourite EvC creationist. ABE: And I just liked the word "probably". Edited by bluegenes, : afterthought
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2478 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Phat writes: Why does eternally existing matter make more sense than an uncaused first cause? (One of the usual explanations for God) Same thing, when you think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Raelians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: But why does an atheist have to think there was an "enternally existing matter"? many take the view of "I have no idea and I'm not sure it matters".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024