(October 17, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Evie Wrote: Most of us wouldn't consider a deist god impossible Jenny.

No, not impossible, just unnecessary

Indeed.

(October 17, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(October 17, 2015 at 9:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i am only saying that some atheists absolutely are convinced that God does not exist i have come across people who are sure that God does not exist . i dont know what percentage of atheists have this view of certainty but i have met some people who do not all thats why i said it would be interesting to find out how common this is . im not saying all atheists have completely closed the door to any possibility of God some have some have not .

That's fine; but are you now satisfied that "God does not exist" is not the core atheist position?

yes it does seems to be more about waiting for the proof ,which is having God begin communication, and not so much knowing that God definately doesnt exist .

Yeah well haven't heard anything from him yet lol.

Btw since you're a deist Jenny, do you actually believe that god is male? Or do you just call god a he? Do you have reason to think that god is male?

I'm glad to see you are getting our point of view now Jenny

Yeah Jenny's pretty cool

(October 17, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Evie Wrote: Most of us wouldn't consider a deist god impossible Jenny.

lol so what ive just been arguing against myself all this time ??    

(October 17, 2015 at 10:33 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes it does seems to be more about waiting for the proof ,which is having God begin communication, and not so much knowing that God definately doesnt exist .

Don't confuse proof with evidence. Here's something I picked up several years ago from (I think) the Atheist Experience blog which will be useful:

Quote:The thing is, outside of math, "prove" just means "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, with sufficient evidence". The problem doesn't tend to be that no evidence is provided, but rather that the evidence provided does not even remotely meet the standards of science.

If someone came to you and said, "The evidence for Zeus is that lightning happens, and lightning comes from Zeus, therefore Zeus exists.", would you find that compelling evidence? That's about the level of "evidence" that we're given, typically. It's been our observation that all theistic claims to evidence include at least one logical fallacy. They can't seem to escape it.

The first step is to realize that some evidence is better at helping to converge on the correct answer than others.

1) Objective evidence. We need data drawn from reality, not from someone's mind. Objective evidence is demonstrably much more reliable that subjective.

2) Exclusitivity. If a piece of evidence implicates 10,000,000 possibilities equally... it's not that useful. If it implicates 2 possibilities equally, it's much better quality. Additional evidence that demonstrates that it was cause A over cause B, that helps narrow down the exclusion.

3) Logical connection. A Snickers bar resting in middle of a desert doesn't logically implicate a tornado. A path of destruction through a field/forest, with trees knocked over and a twirling pattern on the ground, does.

4) Repeatibility. If we only get one example of the evidence, it may just be a fluke. Bigger sample sets are better.

5) Presentability. One can simply claim to have irrefutable evidence, but if no one can access or review it, it's useless.

6) Falsifiability. It's possible to construct an argument that appears to be true, but can never be disproven, even if it really is false. Prayer for instance, follows this model. No matter the outcome, a theist will simply claim that it was supposed to come out that way, and thus, proves prayer works. Thus, unfalsifiable claims tend to be useless.


If you managed to uphold all those standards, you've then generated one pieces of evidence. Like a jigsaw puzzle, you need to assemble lots of individual pieces before you can reasonably accurately discern what the picture is. Pointing at one piece that appears grey and furry, and declaring that the image is that of a cat is premature.

So it'd take mounds of non-conflicting, validated, confirmed, peer reviewed evidence that consistently builds a model before you remotely have anything resembling a demonstrated claim.

(October 17, 2015 at 10:40 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 17, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Evie Wrote: Most of us wouldn't consider a deist god impossible Jenny.

lol so what ive just been arguing against myself all this time ??    

Haha! Pretty much

It's not at all rare for theists to have a preconception about atheism that is wrong, the difference is that you've listened to us and adjusted. There are some people who have been on this forum since I signed up and still don't (or won't) understand the position.

Of course everyone is different, and some atheists will hold extreme views; but they are the minority in my experience.

(October 17, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Evie Wrote: Yeah well haven't heard anything from him yet lol.

Btw since you're a deist Jenny, do you actually believe that god is male? Or do you just call god a he? Do you have reason to think that god is male?

no i dont think God is male or female im not crazy about using the word He but im not sure what a better pronoun would be .