What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

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. Lack of belief in things for which there are no evidence, like Gods and elves, requires no evidence. Given the evidence for evolution, everyone without a superstition based mental block who is aware of that evidence would be an "evolutionist". 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.

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.

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. It really does become quite sad, doesn't it?

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.

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

Same thing, when you think about it.

So how does an atheist actively intellectually consider the several billion different Gods of several billion different theists? Because there's no evidence for any Gods, theists are not like people looking at a mountain from different perspectives, they are looking at an apparent nothing from different perspectives, and this inevitably leads to as many views of Gods as there are theists. Gods, you say, correctly. Plural. An absence of belief does not equal the belief in a possibly infinite amount of absences. I don't see how anyone can have the latter. (As for the analogy, having opinions on an observed reality, human governance or politics, is very different from having opinions on an apparent nothing).This thread concerns Ray's God. As with all Gods, someone with an absence of belief doesn't actively disbelieve in it, baby like, because we don't, at first, know what Ray believes in.If the God is defined in some way, then belief in absence could kick in.So, a non-theist cannot actively believe in the absence of Ray's God without knowing anything about it. Then, if Ray tells us something, like his God created the earth 6300 years ago, we can make decisions.You're a self-described agnostic, and I'm a self-described atheist, but we might well come to the same conclusions there, because evidence comes into play.For me, really, being an atheist just means that there isn't a bluegenes God. If there were an Omnivorous God, I couldn't actively intellectually disbelieve in it when in the "baby" position of knowing nothing about it, but could if you described it.Generally speaking, the more specific the description, the easier to disbelieve.Ray is the only person in the world who believes in his God, in my view, and that goes for all other theists. Edited by bluegenes, : wrong word corrected

Only for Pantheists.

Sounds more like positive evidence for heaven on earth than positive evidence for atheism. Mouth watering!

What, exactly, is non-scientific evidence? When lots of children were brought up in animist cultures, there were lots of adult animists. When lots of children were brought up in polytheistic cultures, there were lots of adult polytheists. Most of the world's children are now brought up in monotheistic cultures (counting Hinduism as monotheism) and the result is, as you say, a large body of monotheists.None of this says anything about any truth in animism, polytheism or monotheism, but it does show that our species is damn good at inventing religions, and in blindly believing in the inventions of others."Free thinkers" recommend that people think for themselves, rather than following their parents and/or the predominant beliefs in the society around them. Which gives them the same status as the Abrahamic God just before Abraham invented it. Something they have in common with all other proposed supernatural entities, then, isn't it?

There being something is just evidence that there's something. Consciousness, morals and the experience of beauty can be examined scientifically, although they're all complicated. Having morals isn't surprising. They're behaviour standards that are advantageous in a social species. There are other animals that will look after each other. What thought processes made you pick out Christianity from the pile of religions and philosophies you could have chosen, and how old were you when you did this, may I ask?What made you think that St. Paul was in touch with God, and Mohamed wasn't? Why don't you believe in reincarnation? You wouldn't have to believe that there is nothing more than the material to make an educated guess that Abraham's God was an invention. As humans are always inventing Gods, pick any one at random and the chances are it's an invention. So different? A God who might want a human sacrifice? A God who would want people tortured to death for working on his Sabbath? A jealous God who wants the wholesale slaughter of people (and their children) if they turn to worshipping other Gods? A God who would wipe out all but one family of a species he created in a flood for being evil, without saving the blameless children?Have you ever actually read the book you believe to be holy?Well, the pagan Gods were probably a bit kinder and gentler, it's true.

Evolutionary psychology, for example. If individuals of our species were much more selfish than they are, societies would have been dysfunctional, and our species extinct.If you saw someone else's child drowning, you'd probably go to some level of risk, and certainly discomfort, to save it. We might rationalize that kind of behaviour as part of our moral code on one level, but it's also advantageous to our species to be like this, especially if you've already had your own children. The kid you rescue is more important to the genes, and the future of the species. It is to the advantage of our species and our genes to be like that. We are a cooperative, sociable animal. We don't need the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to be that way. To empathize with other humans, even other animals, mammals particularly, is natural to us. A species that produces "good Samaritan" characters certainly has an advantage from it. I think it's worth mentioning that the twentieth century myth of the Aryan tribe being special was invented by people who were Aryans.The Hebrews certainly had myths, as Lewis says, and the myth of the Hebrew tribe being special (the chosen people) was invented by Hebrews.I'm sure we can find many other examples from other tribes.I think this phenomenon is called "racism" these days.

All the posts on this thread are "rhetoric" by some definitions of the word. It's worth mentioning that you don't require positive evidence for your lack of belief in all the Gods ever invented, except for one.Others lacking belief in your God doesn't require blind Faith. We cannot know exactly what it is you believe in, because we cannot see inside your head. Not at all. I lack faith in the billions of Gods that exist in other peoples minds, and I know of no evidence for them. Evolution is only evidence against proposed creator Gods who are supposed to have created a universe in which no evolution takes place. It is not evidence against proposed Gods who created a universe in which evolution does take place. Obviously. Wrong. Evolution is evidence for evolution, and against the Genesis type creationism. It does not disprove all Gods, but is evidence against some of them. You need to learn that your delusions aren't objective truths. Why should I care if Christians look fools? Many are. According to bluegenes, for those who can read English, Atheism and disbelief in elves operate on lack of faith, not blind faith.What is this mysterious positive evidence for your God that you keep mentioning? Voices in your head?You ask why all Atheist are evolutionists, then you quote my answer.bluegenes:

quote:

---

Given the evidence for evolution, everyone without a superstition based mental block who is aware of that evidence would be an "evolutionist".

---

It's all very simple, Ray. Thinking people will believe in something if there's evidence for it, and only then. Belief is active.Believing people believe in whatever they feel like believing, regardless of evidence. That's why we have so many religions and Gods.

According to the bluegenes theory that each and every theist believes in his or her own God, then of course they must decide what that God does or doesn't do, including the question of whether it answers prayers, and if so, under what circumstances.Theists are creators of Gods, not the other way around.Then, some of them have the nerve to ask atheists for positive evidence for lack of belief in the figments of their imagination.Incidentally, I do have strong evidence for the above mentioned theory, although no absolute proof, of course.

Are all members of animist tribes evolutionists? If so, they're much more advanced in their thinking than you are. Hardly a compliment to them, I suppose.Perhaps some people don't believe in your God not because of an evidence question so much as because they don't like the idea of stoning other people to death. Do you often stone people to death? Or have you been lax in following the word of your God?