Happy Atheist Forum

I heard an interesting argument and I want some opinion on it.  It went something like:

QuoteGod is not physical.  The atheist will accept only physical evidence of the existence of God.  There is no physical evidence for the existence of God because God is not physical.  Atheism supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

Well?

This goes back to the belief that the person making the claim doesn't have to back it up.

Its not the atheist's job to "prove" God exists and if the believer cannot show any type of evidence that suffers the burden of proof then the believer will need to keep looking for better evidence.

A counter argument:

If there is something isn't physical and it leaves no physically detectable evidence doesn't that make it imaginary?
or
You could turn the argument around to question why the believer only believes in ONE particular description of GOD as opposed to the rest.

So the argument:

QuoteGod is not physical. The atheist will accept only physical evidence of the existence of God. There is no physical evidence for the existence of God because God is not physical. Atheism supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

or

QuoteOsiris is not physical. The Christian will accept only physical evidence of the existence of Osiris. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Osiris because Osiris is not physical. Christianity supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

or

QuoteMy invisible friend is not physical. My mom will accept only physical evidence of the existence of my invisible friend. There is no physical evidence for the existence of my invisible friend because it is not physical. My mom's disbelief in my invisible friend's guilt in the breaking of a window supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

..while still making just as much logical sense as before.  

Unfortunately the burden of proof in these arguments are the responsibility of the person who believes, not the person who doesn't believe.

Well you could go on many different things.There are atheists like myself that could care less if there is a God or not.A sky god has never shown any care for anything going on in the world.Children starve,people are homeless,to many claim to know what their personal god wants.And so many have died for use of force on others who don't people in their personal god.I don't see why ones person belief is up for discussion so often.We are all born atheist,and are taught to believe in a god.Theists should remember that for what they believe there are millions who don't.I could say to a Christian what if your personal god is not there but Allah.Will you give up all that you think?What if Allah is not there but a Christian god?We are all lucky to just have a few years on earth and some waste so much time caring about what others do in their own homes.The god of the bible is selfish,uncaring,lazy well I could go on.All religion does it hurt people,damn them to hell,for so many small things.

According to the Bible, God created man in his own image. Furthermore he showed his physical presence to loads of people whether it was sitting on a cloud,  sneaking up on Adam and Eve or killing thousands of people. Those theists who claim that God isn't physical therefore don't believe in their own Bible. So, if theists already  believe that the "Word of God" is not true then it is a clear sign we don't have to take the stuff written in the Bible seriously either. Making God(s) more abstract, invisible and incomprehensible is just a theist way of fighting atheists with BS arguments. By doing that they alienate themselves from their own believes.

Quote from: "Tom62"According to the Bible, God created man in his own image. Furthermore he showed his physical presence to loads of people whether it was sitting on a cloud,  sneaking up on Adam and Eve or killing thousands of people. Those theists who claim that God isn't physical therefore don't believe in their own Bible. So, if theists already  believe that the "Word of God" is not true then it is a clear sign we don't have to take the stuff written in the Bible seriously either. Making God(s) more abstract, invisible and incomprehensible is just a theist way of fighting atheists with BS arguments. By doing that they alienate themselves from their own believes.

You would think to that if God was true then everyone would believe in the same God.Would god really need someone to write a book for him.Or books that totally disagree on him,his views,Jesus and how the world and man came into being.Would god really need people to donate to keep his churches open,or money for holy wars.Unless that god is a sadist and enjoys harming those who are supposed to worship him.

The premise is wrong. Atheists will accept physical or non-physical evidence of God.
[/thread]

Quote from: "Loffler"The premise is wrong. Atheists will accept physical or non-physical evidence of God.
[/thread]

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages28.fotki.com%2Fv1032%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Foh_snap-vi.gif&hash=9a1448d5e819d223250fc379a8cd2ae93bed2aeb)

 

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"

QuoteGod is not physical.  The atheist will accept only physical evidence of the existence of God.  There is no physical evidence for the existence of God because God is not physical.  Atheism supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

To add to what others have said, if it hasn't already been pointed out, the statement I placed in bold is not true.  I, and other atheists I have met, would be willing to accept a solid philosophical argument for god as sufficient proof.  So, even if the above were a strong reason to not be an atheist due to a lack of physical proof; it would not invalidate atheism.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"I heard an interesting argument and I want some opinion on it. It went something like:

QuoteGod is not physical. The atheist will accept only physical evidence of the existence of God. There is no physical evidence for the existence of God because God is not physical. Atheism supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

Well?

I would only accept as evidence what I can observe in some tangible, REAL way. Evidence, to be evidence, must be observable to everyone. If the supposed 'spiritual' evidence is from some invisible source, it can be twisted for any madman's purpose. I'm sorry, but accounts of divine revelation, no matter who claims them, cannot be accepted as evidence.

Atheism isn't BS, unless you consider common sense to be BS. Atheism is just accepting reality for reality in my opinion.

But if there were some proof that there is a God wouldn't you want to understand why things are the way they are?I have heard a theist say before that our life on earth is hell and that we have to live thru hell to get to heaven.Atleast that could be a reason.But then the question would be what have we done so wrong in being born that is so sinful we must suffer?If I heard the voice of God I would check into a hospital.But if there were proof if God were to show himself/herself/itself to everyone then I would not deny,just question.

Quote from: "afreethinker30"But if there were some proof that there is a God wouldn't you want to understand why things are the way they are?I have heard a theist say before that our life on earth is hell and that we have to live thru hell to get to heaven.Atleast that could be a reason.But then the question would be what have we done so wrong in being born that is so sinful we must suffer?If I heard the voice of God I would check into a hospital.But if there were proof if God were to show himself/herself/itself to everyone then I would not deny,just question.

That's one thing about atheists that most religiousy types don't understand: were we presented with repeatable, empirical, hard evidence that a god exists, we'd be all over it and happy to believe! We're not just a bunch of uppity Vancome ladies, sticking our fingers in our ears whenever we're presented with something we don't like, you know?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages40.fotki.com%2Fv1263%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fvancome-vi.jpg&hash=8c14d086596ad36955b20b1c3de58dfc303d5505)

That argument is interesting.  Usually I hear that kind of circular logic used by theists.  They try to prove that the bible is the word of god by using scripture from itself, to prove itself.

I've never heard anyone claim that atheists use circular logic though.
But I would be very interested to hear "non physical evidence".  I don't think I've ever encountered any, I've seen weak attempts such as
"such a beautiful world couldn't just create itself."

Believe it or not people think this is evidence, and I've even talked to someone who claimed to have actual "knowledge" of the existence of god because of how he feels.  So please, I am interested to see what "non-physical evidence" is, and if it is not total crap then I'm sure everyone (yes even atheists) will give it some thought.

I wil accept non-physical evidence if it does indeed prove the existence of god(s). What I will not accept is the common "evidence" presented by the religious, like "something can not come from nothing" or "look at how complex life is" - that's not evidence! Those are just statements and the first of them needs to be proven - it's not an axiom, not in modern science. And it rests heavily upon the definition of "nothing", the second does not in any way prove the existence of god(s).

What the hell is non-physical evidence?

What is non-physical?

Or rather, what does it mean to not be physical?

Quote from: "Martian"What the hell is non-physical evidence?

What is non-physical?

Or rather, what does it mean to not be physical?

It can, for instance, be anecdotal evidence, which is usually poor quality, like this:

Quote from: "wiki"Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion from which it does not follow, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

Another type of non-physical evidence is witness observations. Although in case of religion, the witness would have to be un-biased towards that religion to be at least somewhat credible. If an African tribesman, for instance, who never heard of Jesus, saw him and knew that it was Jesus, that would be a way better evidence than if a Southern US republican house wife saw the same thing.

There is also indirect evidence, like with super-small elements: we can't see them, but from our measurements we can say that something is there.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"What the hell is non-physical evidence?

What is non-physical?

Or rather, what does it mean to not be physical?

It can, for instance, be anecdotal evidence, which is usually poor quality...

Anecdotes and witness testimonies are physical. They are information stored in the arrangement of matter, be it your brain, book, hard drive, or the patterns of air compression (eg sound). It is all physical.

For me "non-physical evidence" is inconceivable, an oxymoron. I've tried to find a way for it to work, but it just doesn't work out. Unless of course "non-physical evidence" does not refer to evidence not being physical.  

Quote from: "Martian"Anecdotes and witness testimonies are physical. They are information stored in the arrangement of matter, be it your brain, book, hard drive, or the patterns of air compression (eg sound). It is all physical.

Yes, but if I told you there was a dollar in my back pocket yesterday, would my testimony be trustworthy? In this country, we don't use Dollars, so my statement would be a lie. Thus, if me testifying to having had the dollar is evidence, it is made up and incorrect.

So where exactly is the fact that I have had a dollar physically stored again?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"Anecdotes and witness testimonies are physical. They are information stored in the arrangement of matter, be it your brain, book, hard drive, or the patterns of air compression (eg sound). It is all physical.

Yes, but if I told you there was a dollar in my back pocket yesterday, would my testimony be trustworthy? In this country, we don't use Dollars, so my statement would be a lie. Thus, if me testifying to having had the dollar is evidence, it is made up and incorrect.

Evidence =/= proof. A man can have a smoking gun in his hand and still not be the killer. He could have been defending the victim from another person who was the killer. Nevertheless, him holding the gun within shooting range of a recently killed person is still strong evidence that he is the killer of that person.

For the dollar hypothetical:
The evidence that the dollar was in your pocket yesterday is in your testimony.
Your testimony of having a dollar in your pocket  is evidence that you had a memory of having a dollar in your pocket yesterday.
Your memory of having a dollar in your pocket is evidence that you had a dollar in your pocket yesterday.

The likelihood of you telling the truth is dependent on your motives, so it may be hard to determine the probability of such evidence. A testimony may be weak evidence, but it's still evidence.

Quote from: "Asmodean"So where exactly is the fact that I have had a dollar physically stored again?

1. Remember, such a fact is unknown. We are only using evidence to increase the probability of a possibility that it's true over other possibilities.
2. The evidence that the dollar is physically stored in your pocket is in your testimony, which is physical.

Even if you think that testimonies do not count as evidence, it does not detract from the fact that all evidence is physical and that "non-physical evidence" is an impossibility.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"I heard an interesting argument and I want some opinion on it.  It went something like:

QuoteGod is not physical.  The atheist will accept only physical evidence of the existence of God.  There is no physical evidence for the existence of God because God is not physical.  Atheism supports itself in this manner while being total BS in reality.

Well?

It's a ridiculous argument ... this supposed god does things, if it does things it causes effects, if it causes effects it leaves a trail of evidence, if it leaves evidence that can be examined and to date utterly no validatable evidence has been uncovered in support of supposed god. The argument is one of someone who has no logical reason to believe what they believe.

Kyu