News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Please present positive evidence for atheism

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Stevil

Quote from: "Extropian"But would you feel equally justified in asking the Hard Atheist for proof that Quetzalcoatl doen't exist?
If one states that they believe Quetzalcoatl does not exist (Even a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist, which would infer that they believe that Quetzalcoatl does not exist) then it is not unreasonable for someone else to ask for proof. One could then respond, "It's a belief, it has nothing to do with proof or evidence"
That would be an honest answer.

Quote from: "Extropian"Respectfully, I suggest you give some thought to your answer for the next question might ask you to justify why one god is more credible than the other.
I have no belief in any gods. How could I possibly rank credibility of that which I have no belief?

Quote from: "Extropian"May I point out also that only EVIDENCE is being asked for in support of atheism.
There's not a lot of difference in my opinion with regards to evidence or proof.
Some people could call anything evidence as long as someone is using it to substantiate the case that they are arguing.
If it doesn't substantiate then I would down grade it from evidence to merely unrelated.

Tank

Evidence for atheism hmmmm.

The multitude of consistently adapting and contradictory institutionalised superstitions. Should there be such a thing as a God I would expect that all theists would worship the same one. The fact that they don't is, for me, adequate evidence that there is no real God(s).
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Wilson

Proof for or against the existence of God (by any common definition) is impossible.  We can't rule out the possibility that an intelligent entity created the universe or multiverse.  All we can say is that many of us who don't accept the teachings of any organized religion have honestly looked at the evidence and have concluded that 1) it's very unlikely, and 2) it's even more unlikely that such a God would put any premium on whether or not one believes in Him.  Nothing in the world is provable, when you come down to it, unless you start with certain postulates.  It's all a matter of probabilities.  An objective observer would say, in my opinion, that the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is small (but not zero), and that the chances that any one religion has it right are even smaller (very damn close to zero).

dloubet

Positive evidence for the non-existence of gods.

In science, answers tend to converge towards a single theory. This is what happens when people study things that really exist. What's more, the convergence often happens on several unrelated fronts, with multiple lines of inquiry pointing towards a single answer. This is what you get when facts weed out fantasy.

This does not happen when people study gods and other imaginary things. What happens then is that you have a divergence of answers as people are free to make whatever claims they like without the worry that any actual facts might intrude and show them to be wrong. The sheer number of different religions in the world places gods squarely in the Imaginary category.

This observation constitutes positive evidence for the non-existence of gods. Is it a slam-dunk? Of course not, but it satisfies the request.

There, that was easy.

TheJackel

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.

If Atheists exist, then Atheism is true... And the most positive answer I can give you is that Christianity is either the worshiping of a Volcano, or the worshiping of Pantheism.. To put this bluntly, Christians don't even know what it is that they are worshiping. So volcano GOD is laughable, and Pantheism GOD is just stupid "/.. And those are the max extremes you can go on either side of the coin. So lets put this into perspective:

1) Atheists don't worship Volcanoes as GOD's... Yes Volcanoes exist, so in that sense the Christian GOD exists, and there are many of them.. Unless you want to call Moses a liar ;)

2) Atheists don't worship Pantheism.. AKA existence itself and the entire sum total of.. Yes existence exists, but why worship it? That would be like worshiping yourself, or that pile of dog shit you stepped in.

Recusant

Quote from: "TheJackel"...Pantheism GOD is just stupid...

...Atheists don't worship Pantheism.. AKA existence itself and the entire sum total of.. Yes existence exists, but why worship it? That would be like worshiping yourself, or that pile of dog shit you stepped in.

I beg to differ on the first point.  I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism.  If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein. :hi:

Yes, I think that part of pantheism is understanding that you and the universe really aren't two different things, so  you share in the divine nature of the universe.  Whether or not you choose to worship the universe (and yourself as part of it) does not affect whether you're a pantheist. One may also be a pantheist who simply acknowledges the universe as divine.
"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


dgmort19

#36
I think I'd like to add that agnosticism is, itself, an incomplete position. It refers, by its roots, to a lack (a) of knowledge (gnos).

Atheism, on the other hand, is a term that operates on a separate axis (think of the old D&D alignment system, which consists of a dual axis -- law/chaos, and good/evil)

In older editions, a D&D character was not simply "lawful" or "good." They were defined on both axes, because each was a measure of a different type of quality.

Likewise, there are two forms of understanding: knowledge and belief. Therefore, we must ask two questions of a person in order to grasp their position on the matter of God.

1) Do you know whether there is a god of any kind? (My answer is "no," and I am, therefore, agnostic)
2) Do you believe that there exists a god of any kind? (My answer is, again, "no," simply because I have no knowledge of God and will not make assumptions in the absence of knowledge. Lacking belief in God makes me an atheist)

Thus, we find that I am an "agnostic atheist." With this term, I cover the fact that I don't know whether God is real, as well as the fact that I don't assume (believe) that he is real. It entails a reality in which I base my values and judgments on what can be observed or measured. As God cannot be reliably measured or observed, and reality, as I know it, refuses to demonstrate the reality of the claim that God exists, I will not assume he's real, while admitting to the technicality that I do not possess demonstrable knowledge on the matter, mainly because he cannot be disproved.

This is also my stance on unicorns if you were wondering.

EDIT: Looking back, it appears as though Extropian sort of covered this point already. Oh, well. Further reinforcement.

history_geek

On prayer: I'd put it this way: a prayer is kinda like the swig of alcohol that you'd get from a st. bernard in a blizzard. Some of you might remember this paticular myth being tackeled by the (in)famous Mythbusters. Basicly they noticed that the alcohol will exhilerate your blood folw in the outer veins (the ones that go through you hands, legs, etc), while leaving less warm blood to flow inside (for those who didn't know: when your in a cold enverioment, your blood will lessen it's flow in these outer veins, and concentrate on your innards so that they won't freeze). Basicly it's a psychological trick to make you think that you just got warmer and are able to move a little further, even though now the cold can attack your innards and once the effect of the alcohol wears out, your even deeper in the swamp.
With prayer, you achieve this same kind of "warm feeling", but with out the physical effect. It's the same kind of psychological trick to make you feel better and think that you can go on a little longer or "heal", while actually getting little to no actual help.

And as for evidence:
"Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof", as they say. The theist are making a claim of divine being(s) that, for example, have created the world and all in it within a specified amount of time, that can be found from writing theist consider "holy". The athesits simply do not believe or accept these claims. They do not make a counter claim, and try to prove something that by defenition is unprovable as it is a matter of faith, but simply choose not to believe in these divine beings defined by theists.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god."
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace:
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothése - I do not require that hypothesis[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/4eef2cc3548cc9844a491b22ad384546.gif[/i

Extropian

Stevil writes,
Atheist means a person who lacks a belief in God.
This is different to a person who believes that there is no God.

They both fall under the umbrella of Atheism because the person who believes that there is no God also lacks a belief in God.

So a clear definition is Hard Atheism and Weak Atheism.
I feel you would be justified in asking a Hard Atheist for proof in their belief.


OK, let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.   

Kindly indulge my invoking your likely response as I proceed.

We both see POSITIVE ATHEISM as a claim and a positive assertion. My experience in other fora advises that you see this positive claim in the same light as a theist's positive claim that a god exists and therefore it follows that each assertion requires compelling evidence.

But although I am asserting positively I am not asserting gods do not exist. I assert they all exist solely as figments of human imagination encompassed in a realm styled the supernatural. I am asserting that gods do exist but in a realm where science can deal with them.

It follows then, that positive atheism is not exactly the other side of the coin and equal in probability or certainty with theism. But it is an inevitable consequence of all gods being a figment of human imagination that no gods exist elsewhere. It is an inevitable, logical, natural consequence and not one consciously sought after or contrived.

This atheistic cosmic outlook is advantaged twice over theism. [1] It is favoured by Ockham's Razor. [2] It is open to scientific falsification.

I offer my regrets if I have misinterpreted you in any way.

As a trivial aside and with the greatest respect, may I point to an error in the following?...........

(Even a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist, which would infer that they believe that Quetzalcoatl does not exist)
A speaker, a writer or an independent entity IMPLIES something [in this case "a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist"].
An audience or a reader INFERS something from the implication.
At my age, I bear the brand of insufferable pedant with an indifferent stoicism.
Biggles, Prime
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Read more: http://www.brainy

Extropian

Wilson writes,

An objective observer would say, in my opinion, that the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is small (but not zero), and that the chances that any one religion has it right are even smaller (very damn close to zero).

Would you please justify your assertion that one chance is greater than the other?

IOW, I'd like to know why you differentiate them...........why is a supernatural creator more credible than the chance of any particular religion having it right?
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Read more: http://www.brainy

Extropian

#40
Recusant writes,
                     I beg to differ on the first point. I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism. If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein.
                     
                     
                      I beg to differ concerning your categorisation of Albert Einstein.
                           
                     I would attribute to him a kind of romanticised and poetic deism. In many of his quotations he refers to God clearly as a metaphore in that He is described as subtle but not malicious, that He eschews playing dice with the Universe etc. Elsewhere Einstein describes an illimitable superior spirit and uses other similar terms.
                   
                    "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
                             
                    "At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice."  In a letter to Max Born, 1926
                           
                    "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
                             
                    "Each of us visits this Earth involuntarily, and without an invitation. For me, it is enough to wonder at the secrets."
                             
                   "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men."


IMHO, he should be seen as tending to deify that great amount of knowledge that was beyond him, that he barely perceived but knew was there. He dwelt in his later years quite frequently on his perceived frail and feeble mind and how he regretted the limitations he suffered because he felt his mind to be incapable of the Great Task he saw in the future.
                           
His way of thinking so reminds me of the seemingly ingenuous observation of Isaac Newton...............

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855) English mathematician & physicist (1642 - 1727)
                           
..............and Newton was an Arian, a fatal heretical sin in the christian eyes of his day.

Numerous other quotes from Einstein supporting my opinion may be found at;
http://www.quoteworld.org/authors/albert-einstein/1/

Extropian
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Read more: http://www.brainy

Extropian

I note that my most recent posts received a minus on the kudos scale.

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

It seems when asked to argue in support of assertions with evidence and reason, some members flee the topic. Is my questioning so outrageous?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.

Extropian
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Read more: http://www.brainy

hismikeness

Quote from: Extropian on May 05, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.


My genuine guess... it could have been your continued use of the horrid quoting style you continue to use. It's just hard to read, man.

What I know for sure is I did not give you a minus.
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite

Whitney

Quote from: hismikeness on May 05, 2011, 03:31:18 AM
Quote from: Extropian on May 05, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.


My genuine guess... it could have been your continued use of the horrid quoting style you continue to use. It's just hard to read, man.

What I know for sure is I did not give you a minus.

I didn't do it either....I don't even read posts that aren't formatted correctly.

Recusant

#44
Quote from: Extropian on May 02, 2011, 05:56:13 AM
Recusant writes,
                     I beg to differ on the first point. I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism. If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein.
                     
                     
                     I beg to differ concerning your categorisation of Albert Einstein.
                           
. . .

Extropian

So when Einstein was asked the direct question as to whether he "believed in God," and he answered that he believed in the God of Spinoza (who is generally cited as a pantheist, though he did not use that word in his writings) he was equivocating?

By the way, don't look at me.  I'm pretty sure I only used the kudo system to make positive votes, and I certainly didn't down-vote any of your posts.  I'm glad it's now disabled, myself.
"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