News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Please present positive evidence for atheism

Started by angelosergipe, April 13, 2011, 04:18:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

angelosergipe

Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

Whitney

Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

Recusant

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.
It's good to see you here again, angelosergipe.  

For me, atheism is the null hypothesis, religion (or theism of any variety) is the alternative hypothesis. Since there has been no evidence which I consider at all convincing (and certainly no proof) for the alternative hypothesis, I'm content to endorse the null hypothesis. Considering your posting history here, I think that most likely you take the opposite stance. The thing is, I don't have any stake in convincing you to change your mind.  As long as religion is willing to live and let live by not trying to impose its views on the rest of us, I have no problem with it or its practitioners.  

As for explaining our existence, I think that science is making remarkable headway on that front; describing the universe we inhabit, and how we as a species most likely arose on this planet. So far, there has been no unequivocal evidence of a deity of any sort discovered by the explorations of science.  Those who have made assertions to the contrary have almost all turned out to be pushing an agenda, rather than following evidence impartially.

I'm not going to ask you to witness for your faith, but neither am I going to attempt to justify my lack of faith to you.  I guess all this comes down to is a long winded way of stating, "What she said."  :P
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Sophus

Prayers have no effect, and God didn't create us, rather we evolved without a plan. This does not disprove a Deistic God but it does disprove the Abrahamic God.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

MariaEvri

why is it up to me to prove that something you claim is not true?
do you think it's up to you to prove that bigfoot isn't real?
God made me an atheist, who are you to question his wisdom!
www.poseidonsimons.com

angelosergipe

Quote from: "Whitney"Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god

 after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment.  In other words, a position is taken.  This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness.  To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.  This is agnosticism, not atheism.  It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered.  This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this.  Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think?  Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility?  Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity?  Would you request evidence for it?  Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl?  Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.  Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it.  We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical.  It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection.  It is our nature to do this.  We don't do nothing with information.

angelosergipe

Quote from: "Sophus"Prayers have no effect.

How do you KNOW ?

I have received a LOT of prayers responded....... :)

fester30

Quote from: "angelosergipe"
Quote from: "Sophus"Prayers have no effect.

How do you KNOW ?

I have received a LOT of prayers responded....... :)

Faith of a mustard seed can move mountains.
Ask and ye shall receive.
My grandparents are as faithful a pair as any on the earth.  They have prayed for years over my little brother that God heal his Celiac Sprue (gluten intolerance disorder).  He still has Celiac Sprue.  Can't eat bread.  No healing.  Too many of my own prayers when I was Christian... I asked and did not receive.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment. In other words, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness. To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this. Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think? Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility? Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity? Would you request evidence for it? Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl? Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it. Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it. We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is our nature to do this. We don't do nothing with information.

Somehow I think I've seen this argument.  As far as I'm concerned, the "lack of belief" defense is certainly more logical and defensible considering the preponderance of evidence than belief in the supernatural.  I agree with previous posters.  It's not my job to prove to you that gods do not exist.  The burden of belief and faith is on you.  I don't care if you choose to believe in gods.  I just care if my right to the knowledge of non-existence is infringed upon.

Ulver

I won't say that I don't have to explain my lack of belief, because even though atheists do not have the burden of proof regarding the existence of a creator, by definition alone, those of faith tend to see that as a victory somehow...and I am reminded of this:


I think the most impressive "evidence for atheism" is the fact atheists can present something like Recusant has stated above (great post, and I agree). The only "proof" for god I have ever heard has been "We are here, aren't we??? You atheists think we came from nothing??? How arrogant! There has to be a God!" and more archaically (and this example I will not apply to the more  enlightened religious "The Bible/Koran/etc says the Lord/whatever else is alive today!!!!!!!!". These are lifeless, stale arguments that cannot be falsified, prove nothing whatsoever, and while answering the world's questions in one fell swoop, fail to actually answer anything.

Taking the stance of the null hypothesis allows for living, breathing, falsifiable observations that can change, and are not rigid. Science can tell us very concrete things about how life operates, and we should believe them if they have enough evidence, but science always keeps one eye open, so to speak, for evidence against. Suspending judgment about the creation of the universe as we know it is careful and in my opinion more exciting than asserting I know the answer without any sound evidence.

Whitney

Quote from: "angelosergipe"
Quote from: "Whitney"Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god

 after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment.  In other words, a position is taken.  This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness.  To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.  This is agnosticism, not atheism.  It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered.  This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this.  Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think?  Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility?  Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity?  Would you request evidence for it?  Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl?  Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.  Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it.  We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical.  It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection.  It is our nature to do this.  We don't do nothing with information.


Please read the forum rules.  If you aren't using your own words they must be displayed in quotations, a random link isn't sufficient.  Also, if you aren't going to address the membership in your own words then I am going to assume you don't respect us enough to actually participate; which is uncivil.  Please reconsider how you are approaching your attempts to save us, so far not good.  This is a friendly rules reminder; further reminders will be warnings.

If you post in your own words I will respond in detail...for now I'll just say that your response fails as I can consider any random idea you come up with to be absurd up until the point you prove that it is not.

Davin

Positve evidence for atheism: People not believing in a god or gods is my positive evidence for atheism.

Citing Matt Slick is a terrible idea. If you want to have a rational discussion, take everything you've learned from Matt Slick and use it as an example of what not to do.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Stevil

Quote from: "Davin"Positve evidence for atheism: People not believing in a god or gods is my positive evidence for atheism.

Much along these lines. My evidence is me. I have no belief in any gods therefore I am evidence and actually proof that at least one person is an Atheist therfore Atheism exists.

Twentythree

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Ulver

Quote from: "Twentythree"I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

 :pop:

angelosergipe

Quote from: "Twentythree"
Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Well, since we, theists are frequently asked to provide evidence for our faith, i think the same has to be asked to atheists as well. So do you have any evidence to present, that makes a good case for atheism ?