What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

The OP is wanting positive evidence of atheism. I think what he is basically saying is that atheists smuggle in agnostic concepts only to call it atheism.Atheism has to have some positive evidence of God's non-existence in order to justify itself, whereas agnosticism simply needs to have the question of God's existence or non-existence questioned.But can there be such a thing as "positive" evidence for something in the negative? More simply, as Jar noted, can you give positive evidence for the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy?If the answer is no, then how can one be an atheist with horns? Isn't that just a version of agnosticism, but calling it something else?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

But the premise doesn't follow, nor would it be coherent to occupy both positions, since both positions are the sum of their parts. To assert atheism is to positively affirm that there is no God, as a-theos in the Greek, literally means "no gods."The conundrum about this is that in order to make positive declarations about a negate assumes omnipotence.Then to state that one can espouse agnostic sentiments simultaneously is only begging the question. One stance asserts that there is no God, while the other stance declares that no one could know either way with any sort of veracity.Surely this makes perfect sense since agnosticism and atheism are two different meanings. Why the distinguishing terms if they are really just analogous or compatible? It needn't be coupled with anything though, I'm sure you would agree. Agnosticism is simply declaring that one has yet to have come to a decision or it means that a decision can never really be made in the first place.You can't be an agnostic theist or an atheist agnostic in my estimation. You can be an agnostic leaning in either direction more favorably than the other, but I don't see how anyone could occupy both at the same time.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Yes, I do. But I hardly see the relevance in the current topic. There is no "knowledge" that one could acquire to prove the non-existence of God. Its every bit as much about belief as it is for the theist at the end of the day.Sure, there are logical arguments on both sides that attempt to corroborate the general claim. But at the end of the day, it really does boil down to faith-- on both sides. I see the underlying principles of the universe to contain clues about God. In that way, it supports and helps drive my beliefs. But its still a belief.Atheism is a belief, only it asserts itself as though it could answer the question about the existence of God in absolute terms. It cannot do that. That will never happen for obvious reasons. Agnosticism seems to be the better of options.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Yes, for logical things. If someone said that there was an elephant in the adjacent room, and I entered that room, I would logically expect to see an elephant. However, if someone said to me, there is a flea in that room, I probably wouldn't expect to see that flea in the room.Why?Because I have to account for the nature of the thing. You can't just very well say, that you expect to see wind. If you don't see wind, is it not real? Or are you giving it a false body? I show you tree branches swaying wildly, and you say, I didn't see any wind. All I saw were tree branches swaying. Therefore, there's no such thing as wind, only branches that sway!One must obviously take in to account the nature of something before making assumptions based on blanket conditions. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

One must obviously take in to account the nature of something before making assumptions based on blanket conditions.

---

I'm sure you thought that was incredibly profound, except that you're making my argument for me. We wouldn't expect to see God, in the same way you wouldn't see the flea, or the wind, or gravity.Saying that you've never seen a miracle, and therefore don't believe in miracles, follows the premise. I certainly don't condemn you for it. However, atheists in general are under the assumption of do as I say, not as I do.For instance, I say that I've experienced God. Obviously that is difficult, if not impossible, for me to prove to you. You might scoff at my faith. But suppose I was color blind. Because I'm color blind, I can't distinguish between red and green-- it all looks the same to me.Now you go on to tell me all about the color green, and point to an object that is green. I say to you, "What are you crazy? That's red? Dear God, how deluded are you!?"Now, you know damn well the color green exists. Unfortunately for me, I don't. Does me not believing in it negate the color green? Certainly not.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Well, that's the big question. Does anything come in to existence without causation? If not, does it have to be God? If not, does it have to be something beyond matter, space, and time? Wasn't the analogy obvious? Some people can have experiences completely devoid of outside corroboration. Just because someone else does not have something, doesn't mean that that thing does not exist just because others are unaware of it. Yes, that sounds amazingly easy to prove. So quick and easy. I, as the colorblind man, could just as easily assume that your machine is a garbage-in, garbage-out machine that metes out the functions of your desire.But really, I could give many more examples. We could use that analogy for the deaf, blind, people with synesthesia, etc. Well, I think perhaps an easy definition of a miracle is something that defies the laws of physics. Obviously, we are bound by principles and laws that keep things consistent. I fall off a 100-story building, I go splat. If I lived unharmed, there is no earthly explanation for why I should have lived, or even supposing I lived, that I should have broken every bone in my body. People might be inclined to call that a miracle simply because they have no way of rationally explaining it.Just such a thing has happened on a few occasions. Some parachutists, after their main and reserve chutes fail to deploy, have fallen over 2 miles. Imagine falling for 2 miles at 150 mph. How does one not only live from that, but also walk away unscathed?Does it mean it was a miracle by God? Are there multiple unknown variables at work that, if combined, would logically explain why they live? I don't know. I wasn't there.In any case, the point of miracles is that they are exceedingly rare. You wouldn't expect to see a miracle. That's precisely the very reason why it is so special. As CS Lewis once said:

Well, yes, but that seems rather obvious, otherwise you would not still be an atheist if you had. True. But at the same time, millions of people claim that God exists. That doesn't seem to sway you, nor should I expect that it would. I don't see a consensus as necessary only because it limits God. And while I believe that God manifests Himself to people in different ways, there are some things that never change about His personhood. When someone prays to Allah, Shiva, or whomever else, do I believe that they are actually speaking with God? No. When I pray to God, do they think I'm actually speaking to Allah, Shiva, or whomever else? Probably not.I am all the more convinced that God is a paradox and an enigma. I can't ever quite get full confirmation about His existence, just as any doubter can't get full confirmation of His non-existence. But isn't that the point?Isn't the point to go from complete autonomy from God in pride, to coming to the end of yourself and finally submitting to pick up your cross everyday and follow Him?In my own walk I've found that my relationship with Him is like any human relationship; but particularly like a marriage. If you don't invest time in the relationship it will weaken. If you don't devote yourself in sacrificial ways, you will never grow. You will plateau and eventually you will fall away. The relationship will dissolve, and what was once a very clear voice will all but stop.When you can no longer hear the voice of God is the surest way to know that you've stepped outside of His perfect will and in to His permissive will.I am perpetually haunted by a caveat I once heard.If you fail in your devotional life, you will fail everywhere.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

I just see this as a discussion about how we view life and the reasons for it. Actually, the fact that we have a curiosity about these things at all is an indication that there is a god.

---

GDR is asking why do we have such conceptions about God with more prevalence than other abstract ideas? He's saying, if people are generally fixated on God, even people that claim not to believe in God, isn't that evidence that something of that order exists?Why does the notion of God illicit such strong, negative emotions in many atheists, but warm, comfortable notions in the believer? The fact that such a concept is on the mind is something to consider, is what I think GDR is saying here. I happen to appreciate his reasoning here. That doesn't explain why God is a common theme among humans, whether pro or con. I think it is a completely unneeded leap to conclude that based on our cognitive abilities, that it should explain why the concept of God not only exists en masse, but prevailed through the millennia. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

GDR is asking why do we have such conceptions about God with more prevalence than other abstract ideas?

---

No real evidence? What do we endlessly talk about more than anything else? We talk about God, whether it be good or bad, all the time. All the time. As a fellow Christian, I'm sure you can appreciate that. That's one explanation. Fear and ignorance could also explain why He is viewed negatively too. Probably so. Because without it, its just another faith-belief-- something most atheists are uncomfortable dealing with. "Faith" is like nails on a chalkboard to them. So for them to prospect that they have the same kind of faith about God, only in reverse, is not exactly a comforting thought.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Yes, it certainly is. Or at the very least, it should be. While I would agree that one can be, such as yourself, a theistic evolutionist, Dawkins is at least right that the underlying implication concerning evolution is atheism.Think about it. If there is no need for God to accomplish evolution, then why not take a step further to say that there is God?, Dawkins might argue.Dawkins, though, is not unique in this aspect. Darwin himself in some of his letters expressed similar beliefs. But Dawkins is different in that he has an unmistakable agenda that is less than virtuous. Dawkins despises the notion of God.As much as he complains about the dangers of faith infiltrating science he is, hypocritcally, one of its worst offenders, as his version of science is precariously intertwined with a deep philosophy of science.Dawkins is very much a philosopher; more so than he is a scientist. His primary interest is in philosophy, despite what he says. We have quite a few of them here at EvC who would argue that their place is with science, when really their deepest interest is in bolstering a philosophy of science.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

No. Pretty good? Perhaps it shouldn't in your mind, but it in fact does do this. According to a straw poll I read awhile back (and can't for the life of me find again) alleges that in the early 80's that 40% of evolutionists have claimed to be theistic evolutionists. By 2000 that number had dwindled down to 9%. Is it a coincidence? Is it an anomaly? I'm not so sure that it is.At the heart of it, there are two different kinds of atheism-- theoretical and practical. Theoretical atheism claims there is no a God, and practical atheism, which, in actuality is far more agnostic, does not actually deny that God exists but rather that God does not do anything that would substantiate his existence.In practical atheism, God is simply ruled out a priori. If God is omitted from the details of biological evolution, then there is no reason to assume God. Sure, you still have a First Cause problem, all of which I argue for, but we can in no wise say that Dawkins doesn't have a point. I'm much more interested in the fact that he is being so candid about the whole thing. Its refreshing being that there has been a systematic suppression of all things God in the philosophy of science. No one can say it meaningfully because it would have to presuppose so much. But if nature isn't guided by God, they argue, and that there are naturalistic explanations for why nature is what it is, then where in their does God fit in? And why, if we were to go by the Biblical account, does God languish with the minor details of life if humans are supposed to be the central figure?At some point you are going to have to split your allegiance one way or the other it seems to me. Sure, he has some naturalistic answer for anything-- albeit poor ones, especially for deep metaphysical questions.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

It looks interesting. I will consider ordering a copy. Thanks for the recommendation. Can it, and still make sense? If evolution is an unguided process, yet God had in mind humans all along, then either evolution is not an unguided process but rather a guided one, or there was no evolution in the manner described by evolutionary biologists. If those answers are unsatisfactory, I suppose the only one left is, there is no God. Yes, I certainly agree. I don't know about NT Wright, but from what I gather from Lewis, he seemed indifferent about the whole thing. He didn't seem to care whether God used evolution or special creation.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

If God purposed anything, then He controls the direction. We would be the ship, but He would be the rudder, no? If evolution is a totally unguided process, then how does someone like GDR reconcile that? It seems to me that he won't be able to occupy both positions. He has to get rid of one in order for the other to be true.And then he has to consider what God has meant in the Scriptures. Why the elaboration if none of it is actually true? If Genesis is not an actual account of natural history, then how does one decide what parts of the Bible are true about God, and what parts are not?Again, this question is useless to you because you are an unbeliever. You will simply say that you believe in none of it. But how does GDR reconcile the disparities?And really, I don't leave this all for him to chew on. All theologians have to give thought to these things. I'm just curious to see how he will navigate through these waters. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Only if you also created the marble and the smooth sloping hill, I suppose, which arguably, God could have done. The atheist argument, which I am currently using against GDR, is that if God has omnipresence then he also forces us towards predestination. Now, I don't believe that, but I am curious to see how he would answer given his theological stance and his natural one. I don't see how that follows, given the rest of the universe, where everything moves towards disorder. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

That's true. Well, I agree with Lithodid that starting at the lowest level is important. If you don't, then Goddidit is the easy answer that emasculates science. Incidentally, if a naturalist did this, it would be the same as saying evolution did it as the catch-all answer which actually answers nothing at all. I fully agree. And this is the point I am making to GDR, who is a theistic evolutionist. Sure, one can be a theistic evolutionist. However, by the very nature of the theory, evolution is not exactly neutral on the point of God since it relies on unguided processes to propagate itself. They wouldn't, least of all his students. The assumption is, "I won't flat out tell that there is no God, I'll just make it so that you are left with nothing else to deduce since I have decided to rule God out a priori." Is he being malicious about it? I don't know. I won't make that judgment. But that certainly seems to be the implication. Settle down... As an admin I can't allow for it. There are ways of showing your disdain without the use of expletives or goading tactics. Exactly. While I agree, this is where I personally fault creationism. With creationists, they have to conform science to the text in order to validate their belief in God. That isn't science. That is leading the evidence to a point, rather than starting at a point and letting the evidence lead you.This is why I opt of Intelligent Design. The teleological argument is too strong deny, yet it does not presuppose anything other than intelligence. That certainly is not inclusive or exclusive to God. ID in my opinion is the most neutral of either creationism or the ToE, IMO.

quote:

---

This is the world of all real scientists, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. A Christian who is also an evolutionary biologist will look at a phenomena, examine evidence, and search for naturalistic explanations. Even if they believe that ultimately the phenomena is the result of supernatural agencies.

---

I agree with this. Because while I believe that everything traces back to God ultimately, meaning any physical law exists only because God set it in motion, one still looks for the immediate physical explanation. If it wasn't that way, any scientific question would end with: Because God said so. That's no answer at all. It doesn't have to as a pre-requisite, nor do I believe that it should. My issue the systematic aversion towards anything that might even hint at God. God should not simply be assumed in science. Science should remain neutral on the idea, unless there are greater questions that would necessitate it.For instance: The sexual organs. One only has two options from which to choose. Either penis and vagina sort of haphazardly came together, each with intricate detail, conforming well to one another in harmony through unguided processes, or there is clear evidence of teleology at work.Neither automatically supposes the other. And none of them assume God, per say, but rather intent. And intent is indicative of a mind, and a mind is indicative of an intelligence. Yes, I agree. But I also agree that the assumption does not have to be made for you, rather, you come to that conclusion yourself. Yes, I agree. It makes a concerted effort to give the appearance of unbias, but the underlying principle is not neutral. It leans heavily in the direction of atheism. Well, because some Christians see it as a non-essential since the Bible is not a science textbook-- its a theological text. But you do make a point. The question is why is science the only discipline where people question the (non)existence of God? Why not math? Why not linguistics? Why do these disciplines seem to be neutral where science is suspect of bias, either pro or con towards a Designer or Nature?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

But that's what evolution is, otherwise its design. Even if God started the ball rolling with evolution and didn't control where it went, then that is indicative of an unguided process. If He does control evolution, then He is directly responsible for horrific mutations. That means He wouldn't simply allow such things, like He would with Special Creation, but that He made it so.Seems like quite the conundrum really.I'm also sorry, but I have to close the thread. We've reached our 300 limit. But feel free to write a sequel thread if you (or anyone else) would like to see this continue.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake