Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

Just out of curiosity, what would evidence for the non-existence of (all) God(s) look like?Isn't complete lack of evidence for God a good reason not to believe?

I guess we would have to ask what evidence, or lack thereof, does that constitute? I see much evidence, but at the same time, I understand why the natural man would not see such evidence. Its almost like something being so obvious that we overlook it; something be so simple that it rattles our mind that something so complex could in the same vein, be so simple and logical.So, I guess I have to ask the question: What evidence are looking for?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

I said I couldn't prove God and I can't. The problem lies not with Gods lack of objectivity but in your inability to observe the evidence in such a way so as to conclude what everyone who can concludes. Take this for example: This is not a proof. Feeling the sun on you face doesn't prove a sunset anymore than hearing crickets proves a sunset. What the blind man might be able to achieve is a theory about the sunset. He would have to express total faith too in the people who are telling him about it. A sunset is not an objective reality to a blind man for one reason and one reason only: he cannot observe it - he can only infer it. Quite a different thing. Next you'll be telling me that ToE is an objective reality as opposed to an inferred realityThe definitions of objectivity include such words as "external reality" "facts" "object" "verifiable". You can't falsify an objective things like a sunset due to it being directly observable. You could shine an infra-red heater on the face of a blind man, fiddle with his braille watch and play a recording of crickets chirruping and so provide a sunset in the middle of cloudy afternoon for him. Thus are false sunsets generated as are false gods.The problem lies with your lack of ability to observe PY. Not Gods objective reality

Then.. you will abandon your belief in Jesus, and follow Vishnu Brahma and Shiva then.Because, if you are wrong about Jesus, then, Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva will be very very angry at you.Or, Yhwy will punish you for being an idolterer.Or if Islam is right... well.. we must not forget that.The whole 'pascal's wager' concept is logically flawed.

How can you 'reject' something that does not exist?

There are a number of reasons I know that believers have given up their belief in god/gods. The major one was the inconsistancy of what various people say God is/demands. The next one is the lack of objective evidence that there is any god/gods/goddesses. Still others have rejected god/gods because of the hypocrasy/bigotry of the churches they grew up in.

Hold on Mike. I thought you prided yourself in your skills in logic. You should know you can't just take a statement, invert part of it and expect to end up with a correct new statement. There are rules to be observed. What you did is something like taking the statement "There isn't any mammal that breathes underwater" and turning it into "There's isn't any mammal that doesn't breathe underwater", expecting the second statement to be as true as the first one.And there's another problem with your statement: although there may or may not be verifiable evidence of the existence of something, logically, there cannot be any verifiable evidence of the non-existence of something. So the fact that there is no evidence of the non-existence of God doesn't say anything meaningful about whether or not God exists. The lack of evidence could only ever mean anything if there could possibly be such evidence.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"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.

You are being very persistent with that crackpot logic of yours. There is no difference between direct evidence or indirect evidence. They are both evidences, which is the point. But there is no evidence for your god, direct or indirect alike. If your analogy is to make any sense at all, you will have to be able to explain how come blind people consistently come to realize that they are really blind (I never met one that didn`t), but on the other hand there are billions of people on Earth that do not share your belief in a Christian god. Your analogy holds no water. Get over it.Edited by fallacycop, : spelling

So that`s what your faith means to you? An insurance plan just in case there turns out to be a god after all? That is astonishing!! What if there turns out to be a god that happens to care about intellectual integrity? I think you`d be in hot water, no doubt.

No thats what it means to you. Your basic understanding of the gospel is so shockingly low fc it is little wonder that all you can do it pick at the crumbs that fall to the ground. Had you even elemental knowledge the you would have seen the link in the quip.What does an insurance policy do in essence? It pays up for that which you wouldn't be able to afford to pay yourself. Your going to die one day. Have you got cover for that eventuality or are you planning on paying the price of your sin yourself. Intellectual integrity? You're a fallacycop who attempts to plant the evidence on any suspect you can find in order to rack up arrests.Go and get familiar with what that about which you atttempt to speak on. Me, I tend to keep out of science threads for the simple reason I am not conversant enough with science to spot the flaws where they may arise. When I do, I get messages like this one to you.Case dismissed...

Crackpot. Well lets have a look see shall we? There is a difference. Direct evidence of a sunset needs no interpretation. There it is in alls its objective reality. Indirect? Now that takes some interpretation. One cannot mistake a sunset observed - but one can mistake the combined effect of an infra red heater and incorrect timepiece and crickets chirruping. Is the problem no evidence or inability to observe the evidence. And how would you know exactly? Faith in what people are telling them - there is no objective evidence available to a person to let them know they are blind. It always encouraging when the points raised against a position are as weak as this last one. "Billions of people" - as if that meant a thing.

There is a bit of a pile on going on here so I cannot dwell with you too long PD. Suffice to say that it would take a bible study to point out that the terms and conditions of the policy are clearly stated (if one can read) and that this policy doesn't cost you a cent

It always comes down to this eventually - the needy desperate pleading or the vague threats, or sometimes a mix of the two.Like me I guess FC doesn't play to pay for his sins because - well he'd be dead and his corpse will be rotting in the ground (leaving aside the fact that Sin is a christian construct and nothing at all to do with the rest of us).As someone else has mentioned - Pascal's wager is an very weak card to play, if we want to follow your insurance policy analogue (which is pretty weak to start with - being based as it is on Pascal's wager) - we have no evidence it pays out, we have no evidence that it's better than any of the other 2000 insurance policies on the marketplace, the terms and conditions make little or no sense and don't add up. The only thing we have to go on is the person selling it telling us that we will be sorry if we don't have it - really sorry. But the problem is that the other 2000 salesmen have just the same sales technique. Oh having said that - your insurance example turns up on the Wikipedia page for Pascal's wager - fancy that!

quote:

---

In modern times, this criticism is often leveled against evangelistic Christianity, especially those who try to incite fear by portraying such events as the Rapture in popular media. Such a belief is sometimes called "Hell insurance" (or "Heaven insurance"), and is considered heretical by many mainstream Christian denominations.

---

Pascal's wager - WikipediaIf you get bored of trying to scare people into the christian god, you might want to turn to Cthulhu, he has a similar "scheme"

quote:

---

It follows logic thusly:

​

1. Cthulhu, if he exists, exists somewhere inaccessible to human beings, so we cannot be certain of his existence or nonexistence.
2. If Cthulhu exists, he will give a quick and less painful death to those who have worshipped him and expressed their belief through self-flagellation and ritual sacrifice.
3. If Cthulhu exists, he will condemn those who have not worshipped him to eternal torture and unimaginable pain.

​

* You may worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu exists, in which case you suffer only finite pain and a quick death.
* You may worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
* You may not worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing.
* You may not worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu exists, in which case you suffer infinite pain and eternal torture.

---

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu#Cthulhu.27s_Wager Well maybe it doesn't cost but if you are wrong - it could cost us eternal torment at the hands of Allah or Cthulhu or Galactus.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : All hail Cthulhu.Edited by CK, : Title.Edited by CK, : Added quote from Iano.Edited by CK, : Spelling and making clear quotes are from Iano

quote:

---

There is a difference. Direct evidence of a sunset needs no interpretation.

---

Yes, it does.If 1000 people observe the same sunset and describe it independently, do you think they will each use exactly and precisely the same words, notice the same things in exactly the same way?No, each of them will interpret their experience.

quote:

---

There it is in alls its objective reality.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Indirect? Now that takes some interpretation. One cannot mistake a sunset observed

---

Sure you can.

I didn't say someones account of a sunset was objective (any more than my account of God is). But the sunset is objective. It can be observed by those able to observe. Something doesn't have to be described in order for it to be objective Schraf - unless you figure different. Mistake it for what?