When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Cyberman]

What's really sad is some of this evidence might actually be valid, might actually be evidence of whatever is beling claimed; but all the snide insults, derision and threats that go along with it just makes me think someone's trying to con me on an empty hand. The more insults flying around, the more I see a naked emperor instead of all the fine linens I'm told I should be seeing.

I can't help picturing Stephen Hawking standing in front of the Royal Institution - ok, bad example - trying to sell a new groundbreaking discovery, then getting pissy and stamping his foot - well you know what I mean - hurling out insults and threats just because his audience doesn't believe him without question. If our friend thinks that's what credibility looks like, there are more problems going on than just unconvincing evidence.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

What's really sad is some of this evidence might actually be valid, might actually be evidence of whatever is beling claimed; but all the snide insults, derision and threats that go along with it just makes me think someone's trying to con me on an empty hand. The more insults flying around, the more I see a naked emperor instead of all the fine linens I'm told I should be seeing.

I can't help picturing Stephen Hawking standing in front of the Royal Institution - ok, bad example - trying to sell a new groundbreaking discovery, then getting pissy and stamping his foot - well you know what I mean - hurling out insults and threats just because his audience doesn't believe him without question. If our friend thinks that's what credibility looks like, there are more problems going on than just unconvincing evidence.

As "God's children", they really play out that part as the product of an absentee father.

[Cephus]

One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence. 

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

That is the ONLY reason to be an atheist.  Nobody is saying there is no evidence, they are saying they haven't seen any.  If they see some, then they should follow the evidence and alter their beliefs.

Or didn't you think of that?

[Cephus]

Here we go again.

"Here we go again, with your facts and evidence and reasons! Won't leave us alone with our blind faith!"

When was any of this supposed facts and evidence ever presented again?  I can't seem to find it.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence. 

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

That is the ONLY reason to be an atheist.  Nobody is saying there is no evidence, they are saying they haven't seen any.  If they see some, then they should follow the evidence and alter their beliefs.

Or didn't you think of that?

I haven't seen any evidence for any gods, but I can also say there really isn't any when a god idea is presented with no empirical evidence, and this itself is poo-pooed in favor of "faith". Telling us to "have faith" and "open our eyes" (how's that for irony?) is throwing in the towel on the empirical evidence contest without even landing a tap. Then they continue to insist they have mountains of evidence, when that's only what they wrongly refer to their ridiculous and circular arguments as. Hey, when billions of people have been looking for real evidence over thousands of years, and those who would be most interested in finding this can't do better than ratchet up the insults a little more, then I think it's safe enough to say there is no evidence at all.

Anyway, empirical evidence and supernatural things are logically incompatible.

Then again, it's understandably impossible to explain this to people like the OP.

[Cyberman]

I'll put it this way (as the carpet-layer said to Mae West).

I will consider any and all evidence, and assess it for validity. My standards for what I accept as credible evidence aren't all that high; they are the same as I apply to just about anything else, which I assume is basically SOP for all rational apes with hyperactive thyroids and a penchant for junk food. Even rocks manage to meet my standards.

However, when the evidence consists of mined quotes, strawmen, PRATT arguments and outright lies, I think I'm entitled to suspect that perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence may not actually do what it says on the tin.

[Cyberman]

Sorry; only just noticed this.

How long should I wait for these links? I'm new around here.

About three posts after you asked.... someone did say that the exact words "no evidence".  They clarified this a few posts later (perhaps because he read our discussion) and changed it to no credible evidence.  You later changed your tune from insufficient evidence to imply there was not "the slightest atom of credible evidence to be found."

Ah, so I implied that, did I? I detect a rat, from the way that you chose not to give a direct quote of my saying it.

What is the difference between no evidence and no credible evidence?   In the link to the Stanford encyclopedia which someone referenced, it defines evidence as that which justifies belief.   Do you think that non-credible evidence is justification for belief?

If evidence isn't credible, why would it? Are you in the habit of believing six impossible things before breakfast based on nothing more than non-credible evidence, purely for convenience's sake? Your head must be spinning constantly.

I do think that it is understandable that if it is commonly said that there is "no evidence" that one may understand it to mean exactly that.   And it may be somewhat rash to claim a straw man.

Then demonstrate that it is commonly said and prove me wrong.

However; I stand corrected and now understand that you (and do you speak for all or most atheists in your strawman claim?)  do think there is that which justifies belief in God (even if insufficient for committed belief).

I can only speak for myself, though I would be surprised if there was a consensus opinion that disagrees with me. I don't know where "committed belief" came from, I think I hear goalposts shifting, but put it in a courtroom setting - if the evidence truly is compelling actually to evidence that which is claimed, then I would agree that belief is, or can be, justified. Now all you have to do is pony up some evidence so we can dissect it.

[Delicate]

I like that she brought the list of arguments, as if they were new, and as if our unwillingness to go through and re-refute old arguments would mean we possess a lack of capacity to do so. Further, it is the machine-gun tactic, like the "Gish Gallop"; you fire a giant list of things at your opponent, too much to readily digest in a forum of this sort, then declare victory when the opponent shows an unwillingness to try to swallow your drivel in a single bite, writing the necessary dissertation to show why it is bunk (or else plagiarize arguments against them that have long since been made).

Most of the errors in the arguments were, however, pointed out as question-begging, defining your God into existence by assuming certain characteristics must be true without basis to do so.

Others are mere "wowie" arguments, such as the complexity and natural numbers arguments.

"A circle's diameter is always related to its diameter by a fixed number... therefore God."

"The universe formed as it did because these forces interact at a given strength... therefore God."

"Gosh, this or that thingey is just too complex for me to grasp how it works/exists...therefore God."

You might as well say, "Blue and yellow together look like purple to our eyes... therefore God." (How else would we have tulips, I guess?)

I mean, for fuck's sake, the first argument literally boils down to "Some things exist whether we think of them or not, therefore God thinks of them to make them exist." Fuckin' really!?!

As if a rock cares if my eyes/brain ever notice what frequencies of light are absorbed or reflected from its surface, to make it "grey" colored. (And as if it's okay to presuppose that a thing must be thought of by a living intellect before it can be considered true even in the abstract, as we imagine this particular rock that no one has encountered on the surface of the moon, say, but can say for the sake of argument that it is both unnoticed and yet would be truly grey if so. And as if it's okay to suppose that this rock can only be grey in the mind of God, in order for it truly to be grey. It just spins greyly on through the universe, not noticing its lack of notice, being just a damned rock that is emitting frequencies that would be seen as truly grey if ever it was looked upon by human eyes.)

Having seen such a terrible argument, I was loath to do more than scan the rest of it, and I saw nothing that looked much better... I couldn't hit Page Down without seeing a presupposition or false conclusion. I certainly hope that's not the best your apologists can do, lady.

I just stopped randomly to try one of them... and I get the "argument from colors and flavors" and "the argument from love", both things that are reasonably well-understood from a biological point of view, and don't even constitute arguments for God at all, except in the laziest, most intellectually-devoid sense of the term: "I don't know how this works biologically, and I guess no one else does either...so, must be God".

And you have the audacity to insult us over our intelligence? That drivel wouldn't pass a freshman philosophy course. Even I can see ways to clean up some of those arguments, and they still would fail the "provides actual evidence of God" test.

Go home, Christian Apologetics, you're drunk.

What a fantastic set of delusions! You're a reminder, with every post, that people with wild imaginations and poor comprehension can call atheism a home. Or a cardboard box, as it is.

Atheists with their eyes closed claim they see no evidence. Moment you provide it, suddenly there's too much evidence! You're machine-gunning them! Talk about dishonest goalpost shifting.

When faced with evidence, two dodos (Cato and Stimbo) tried to poison the well, not realizing it was a fallacy. So they failed to respond to the evidence.

Now it's time for your missteps.

Most of the errors in the arguments were, however, pointed out as question-begging, defining your God into existence by assuming certain characteristics must be true without basis to do so.

Your fallacy: Argument by assertion

Others are mere "wowie" arguments, such as the complexity and natural numbers arguments.

What the hell are "wowie" arguments and what's supposed to be wrong with them? Is this supposed to be a meaningful objection? Well it isn't.

I mean, for fuck's sake, the first argument literally boils down to "Some things exist whether we think of them or not, therefore God thinks of them to make them exist." Fuckin' really!?!

False. You've failed to comprehend the argument. The argument isn't just talking about some things, it talks about propositions specifically, and the widely held idea (held by many atheist philosophers) is that propositions depend on minds. 

You are an idiot. Really. 

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. How can I take an idiot like you seriously after you don't even know how to read?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

False. You've failed to comprehend the argument. The argument isn't just talking about some things, it talks about propositions specifically, and the widely held idea (held by many atheist philosophers) is that propositions depend on minds. 

You are an idiot. Really. 

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. How can I take an idiot like you seriously after you don't even know how to read?

I made an 800 on the critical reading portion of the SAT and a 35 (out of 36) on the reading portion of the ACT when I was 17, so I'm fairly certain that it was not a failure of reading comprehension on my part. The arguments there are, simply, bad. I'm sorry you think those are good arguments; I would acknowledge them if they were, but truly, they're not-- those are comedy fodder to any philosophy professor on the planet, as Dr. Fuzzy already noted. Hurling insults my way doesn't change that.

But please, tell me more about how I'm stupid.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What's really sad is some of this evidence might actually be valid, might actually be evidence of whatever is beling claimed; but all the snide insults, derision and threats that go along with it just makes me think someone's trying to con me on an empty hand. The more insults flying around, the more I see a naked emperor instead of all the fine linens I'm told I should be seeing.

I can't help picturing Stephen Hawking standing in front of the Royal Institution - ok, bad example - trying to sell a new groundbreaking discovery, then getting pissy and stamping his foot - well you know what I mean - hurling out insults and threats just because his audience doesn't believe him without question. If our friend thinks that's what credibility looks like, there are more problems going on than just unconvincing evidence.

Childish behavior usually indicates childish thinking.