What are the evidence for no god?

[JesusHChrist]

You don't find Comfort's Kiwi accent annoying?

I find the man incredibly annoying and vile with or without an accent.

[Esquilax]

I am not sure how to put this to get my idea across so please do not take any offense to it.  Evolution has been said to have scientific evidence behind it.  Now some creationists have also used science to show the earth much younger than what is originally thought.  I can't find it right off the bat.  But anyway, since science is science, both Creationists and Evolutionists use science to back their claims, who is right?

Science isn't just a label that you put on ideas, science is a method that demonstrably leads to accurate results if done correctly and taking into account all the variables. It's not a question of "creationists and evolutionists both use science," but one of whether they are adhering to the scientific method. One particular tenet of that method is to strive to remove bias from your work in every possible way you can, and I can say concretely that creationists fail this right off the bat because every last "creation science" group trumpeting some young earth experiment has a statement of faith right there in their group charter demanding obeisance to christian ideas before scientific conclusions. No scientist or group studying evolution has that.

If you want to find out who is right then you must examine the methodology and conclusions behind the reports, instead of just throwing up your hands and saying "they both use science!" For example, there are no experimental findings that lead to creationist conclusions, and for that matter no experiments being done to test creationist ideas: what actually happens is that creationists take the work of other people, stretch it to fit their presupposed conclusion, and then trumpet it as "totally science!" All you get out of "creation science" is a series of arguments from ignorance and bending over backward to preserve christianity.

Meanwhile, the science on evolution presents a mountain of experimental and observational data, including lengthy explanations of why it all works the way it does, and that is all that needs to be said. No stretching required. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution needs to be true for foundational principles of modern medicine, biology and archaeology to work, among others. The fact that medicines predicated on the premise that diseases evolve work as intended, that biology predicated on the premise that mutations occur within populations and can be monitored or manipulated works as intended, and that archaeology predicated on the premise that fossils can be located based on predictions of where they'd fall in the evolutionary timeline works as intended, demonstrates that evolution is, indeed, factual. Case closed.

[Simon Moon]

I am not sure how to put this to get my idea across so please do not take any offense to it.  Evolution has been said to have scientific evidence behind it.  Now some creationists have also used science to show the earth much younger than what is originally thought.  I can't find it right off the bat.  But anyway, since science is science, both Creationists and Evolutionists use science to back their claims, who is right?

Like someone else said on this site that science has nothing to do with atheism, but it does help.

Sorry to break this to you, but there is literally zero science supporting a young Earth.

You've been lied to, or have chosen to remain ignorant.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, and an Evangelical Christian, has stated that he DNA evidence alone is enough to prove common ancestry between humans and our ape like ancestors.

[Ravenshire]

There seems to be a huge misconception among some theists that either the theory of evolution is true, or else creationism is true and God exists.

Not the case at all. If the theory of evolution was proven to be wrong, we would then have an absence of an efficient model for a time. Scientists would either reform hypotheses based on the current ones to try and take into account the new information, or (drastic and unlikely) form entirely new hypotheses from scratch. They would then test and retest these, until a new stable and reliable model was agreed upon.

What they would not do is say, "Oh well, we can't explain it with science at the moment, so it was done by magic, by a god." That's just absolutely ridiculous, it's no explanation at all. It's giving up on reality and telling stories instead.

I doubt there's a single atheist on this site who would automatically believe in God (let alone worship it also) just because a scientific theory was proved to be wrong. God is irrelevant, because it's not even a hypothesis. It's a fairy tale, until such time as it can be defined and made testable.

Since you brought up evolution and creationism, I will ask a question.  There are some theists who actually believe both is true.  The creation in the Bible does not say on the scientific end of how God did create the universe, humans, etc.  No one knows how long the days were in the beginning.  Time may have existed, but I was not there personally just like anyone else in existence today.  What is your take on the theists who combine both?

Unless you take Genesis as allegorical, the length of the day is quite clearly spelled out.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Esquilax speaketh the truth.

It's the scientific method that is important, not the data or conclusions (aka 'the science bit')

The scientific method is used to investigate falsifiable questions. Asking whether there is a god that we cannot measure is not falsifiable. There is nothing that you can do to definitively say for sure that a god does not exist. Therefore it is not a scientific question. On the other hand coming up with a hypothesis that all swans are white is falsifiable. You just need to find one swan that isn't white to disprove the hypothesis.

The experiments and results need to be reproducible. So when writing a paper you need to explain exactly what you did, how and why. Then other people can try to reproduce those results to check that it works. Or if you come up with a claim that people are sceptical about, they can then analyse why your findings might be wrong.

Science is self correcting. An individual scientist would benefit if they are the one to come up with a better explanation of how things happen. So when someone says that the establishment is against them, they do not understand the scientific method. Everyone in the entire scientific community is trying to overturn science and be the one that comes up with a better solution or explanation. And because of this scientists will only state what they are absolutely sure that they can get away with based on the available evidence because they know they leave themselves open to attack if they speculate any more than that.

Science builds upon itself. Your work needs to reference the literature and show how it is relevant to all the other science that has gone on before it. This means that any scientist can look back through the literature and see how they have arrived at the conclusions that we have. They can look and test any underlying assumptions that may have led us down the wrong path.

Science needs to be communicated. You may have done the best science possible but if no one knows about it then it's worthless. This is because each experiment is yet another step on a ladder that goes forever upwards.

A paper needs to be peer reviewed before it is published. Normally this is done blind so people do not know whose work they are reviewing before deciding whether to accept the paper or not. The reviewers need not agree with the conclusion, but if there is no way that they can fault the method and the conclusion does not say anything more than the evidence then the paper will be accepted. And then when it is accepted the paper needs to be presented so other scientists can evaluate the work and look for any faults with it. A crowd of scientists will work far more effectively than a single scientist when looking at all the possible alternative explanations or trying to spot a fault.

This means that the scientific method is agnostic. It can be used for anything but because it is self correcting and collaborative, ultimately it not only leads to a better understand of how the world works, it is reliable enough to use in practise to create the modern world.

Creationists write papers that look like science, but they do not use the scientific method to actually produce science. This is because their work is not falsifiable, reproducible, collaborative or properly peer reviewed. Instead they try to subvert the method. A link was posted earlier in this thread where they actually admit to this

http://atheistforums.org/thread-37491-po...pid1088129

[Cyberman]

Is this a UK thing to treat single group nouns as plurals?

Thankfully not. If it was, you would have permission to shoot me.

[Whateverist]

Is this a UK thing to treat single group nouns as plurals?

Are there any evidence?
Are there any news?

In Murica, we use "is" for both of these.

Yeah, but in Murica you also import creationists from other parts of the world, too.

You're welcome. 

Give us your poor in ideas and understanding, your retching masses.  We're the country of the rejects, by the rejects and for the rejects.  Got a countryman who ain't quite right?  He'll fit in just fine over here.

[robvalue]

There seems to be a huge misconception among some theists that either the theory of evolution is true, or else creationism is true and God exists.

Not the case at all. If the theory of evolution was proven to be wrong, we would then have an absence of an efficient model for a time. Scientists would either reform hypotheses based on the current ones to try and take into account the new information, or (drastic and unlikely) form entirely new hypotheses from scratch. They would then test and retest these, until a new stable and reliable model was agreed upon.

What they would not do is say, "Oh well, we can't explain it with science at the moment, so it was done by magic, by a god." That's just absolutely ridiculous, it's no explanation at all. It's giving up on reality and telling stories instead.

I doubt there's a single atheist on this site who would automatically believe in God (let alone worship it also) just because a scientific theory was proved to be wrong. God is irrelevant, because it's not even a hypothesis. It's a fairy tale, until such time as it can be defined and made testable.

Since you brought up evolution and creationism, I will ask a question.  There are some theists who actually believe both is true.  The creation in the Bible does not say on the scientific end of how God did create the universe, humans, etc.  No one knows how long the days were in the beginning.  Time may have existed, but I was not there personally just like anyone else in existence today.  What is your take on the theists who combine both?

It's bending the narrative to fit facts that can't be buried any longer. I'd rather a theist was educated and living in reality while twisting the story to their satisfaction than trying to pretend the bible is literally true and denying reality. So I don't know how they manage the cognitive dissidence personally, but clearly it can be done. What people say they believe and what they actually believe are two different things anyway.

[The Valkyrie]

You don't find Comfort's Kiwi accent annoying?

I find the man incredibly annoying and vile with or without an accent.

Yup.  He's definitely one of the slimiest individuals I've encountered.  And that's saying something.  (And includes the Muslim protestors at the Global Atheist Conference in Melbourne).

[The Valkyrie]

Yeah, but in Murica you also import creationists from other parts of the world, too.

You're welcome. 

Give us your poor in ideas and understanding, your retching masses.  We're the country of the rejects, by the rejects and for the rejects.  Got a countryman who ain't quite right?  He'll fit in just fine over here.

You want the Aussie PM?