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

[Edwardo Piet]

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. 

Oh fuck! You're right! All this time I have been so silly.

Okay, I'm off to the North Pole to search for evidence for Santa, then I'm off to Ireland to look for Leprechauns, and then I'm off to Scotland to search for the Loch Ness monster.

Then I'm gonna go Scuba-Diving to search for Atlantis, then I'm going to to Puerto Rico to search for the Chupacabra and finally I'm off to Nepal to search for Yetis.

Definitely not wasting my life by doing that.

Oh, while I'm at it can you pay for my trip to Mars so I can search for some little green men?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

The Bible mentions unicorns but no one has ever seen any in real life.  But suppose the Bible had mentioned things like airplanes, cars, radios, telephones, televisions, nuclear bombs, microwave ovens.  Sure, people would have been clueless for centuries about what those things are but it would have gone a long way to convince current people that the fairy tale isn't BS.  

The Book of Mormon tried to pull off a scam when old Joe included modern technology in his fictional story that supposed happened 1,800 years before he wrote it.  But if the Bible or the Koran had included such things centuries before they were invented it would have been impressive evidence.  But if Jesus was still wiggling on the cross after 2,000 years I doubt if there would be any skeptics at all.  Too bad Joseph of Arimathea chowed down on the corpse.

[robvalue]

If some people actually have a method of communication with this "God" character like they claim, why does nothing useful or even interesting ever come of it?

If there was a group of people who refused to believe one of my friends was real, despite what I considered to be obvious evidence that he was in fact real, I wouldn't care. Why should I? I'd feel no need to go to forums full of such people and present massive arguments why my friend does in fact exist. If I know they exist, then that would be good enough for me.

[downbeatplumb]

If some people actually have a method of communication with this "God" character like they claim, why does nothing useful or even interesting ever come of it?

If there was a group of people who refused to believe one of my friends was real, despite what I considered to be obvious evidence that he was in fact real, I wouldn't care. Why should I? I'd feel no need to go to forums full of such people and present massive arguments why my friend does in fact exist. If I know they exist, then that would be good enough for me.

Was it Harvey your giant rabbit?

[Anomalocaris]

To OP, Go away and die. No, there will be no afterlife for you.

[robvalue]

"When we die, we don't really die, we start this much better life. So it's all OK, isn't it!"

"What are we waiting for? There's a cliff right there!"

"Err.... it doesn't count if you do it yourself, you have to get someone else to kill you."

"Great! I know some crazy people, let's go."

"Stop trying to test the claim! Just say you believe it while trying as hard as an atheist not to die at all costs!"

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Define God?

[athrock]

Fucking dolt. I already handed you your ass on this in the other thread. I'll repeat the argument anyway.

I've noticed that when people make statements like the one above, what they're really saying is something like, "Well, I already gave this my best shot, and I'm satisfied with what I had to say, so I can't believe you weren't convinced."

Usually, when someone has REALLY had their ass handed to them, they know it. So, maybe your previous argument wasn't as impressive as you seem to think.

Evidence for QM exists regardless of any individual's ignorance. The evidence is made available and is repeatable for any and all to see and participate in if they so choose. The same cannot be said for supposed evidence for god. If there was one shred of evidence it would be made known immediately for all to see. The fact that instead of demonstrating said evidence you choose to say that we are too blind to see suggests you have absolutely nothing.

I think this type of thinking does a tremendous disservice to the atheist community.

First, can you give some examples of evidence for ANY historical event that is repeatable, Cato?

I'll wait.

No?

Because history isn't repeatable, is it?

So, while the theists can argue for any number of events that have occurred in history providing evidence for the existence of god, they aren't repeatable. The argument requires convincing reasons to believe that the event actually occurred and that it does point to god (rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon), but that's not unusual. People argue for their beliefs all the time.

Second, there are other forms of evidence cited by believers which you would also reject simply because it's not empirical evidence. Does that mean that it's not evidence?

Simply repeating "There's no evidence" over and over and over and over...oh, wait...I already used that visual...perpetuates the FALSE idea that there isn't any legitimate evidence for the existence of a higher power, and this is a *VERY BAD THING* because it lulls the captivethinkers into believing that they don't have to WORK to prove theists wrong.

Seriously, there are a lot of folks in this forum who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag, but hey, "There's no evidence" so they go skipping along their merry way.

Taking down theism is going to take a lot more effort than some are obviously making.

There is also no such thing as theistic evidence. You've got nothing but bullshit arguments that setup some type of ignorant quandary in which to insert your notion of god. It's ridiculous, it's not evidence. You cannot define or argue your deity into existence.

You cannot define the term "evidence" to suit your own needs, either.

The word "fact" is defined as a piece of information that is used as evidence.
The word "evidence" is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Therefore, evidence is defined as the piece(s) of information that are used to indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do theists have pieces of information that may prove their beliefs true or value?

That's for each man and woman in the jury to decide.

---

Let's nip one thing in the bud before we get too far off the beaten track. When atheists say we have seen no evidence of this stuff you're selling, what we mean and what we should be saying is we have seen no credible evidence. It's a common misspeaking, I've been guilty of it myself. Lots of things can be given as evidence, but not everything stands up to scrutiny; and whatever remains doesn't actually evidence the thing it's intended to. After all that, you need multiple points of consistent, converging evidence before you can draw a safe conclusion.

Now, this is better. Words mean things and choosing them carefully is important in discussion of this nature.

Now, the word "credible" means "able to be believed, convincing" and "capable of persuading people that something will happen". There's nothing in those definitions about the number or percentage of people that must be affected. Surely, 100% effectiveness is not required, is it?

Hmmm...what does this say about the evidence that theists offer in support of their views? Well, clearly their "evidence" has persuaded or convinced some people that god exists...a lot of people, in fact.  So, by that measure, the evidence for the existence of God IS credible, isn't it?

I guess what I'm driving at is that there is some evidence offered by believers that appears credible. Consequently, atheists need to do more than wish it away if they want to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. 

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen the movie "Twelve Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda?

[Cyberman]

I've seen the one with Tony Hancock and Sid James. Same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess what I'm driving at is that there is some evidence offered by believers that appears credible. Consequently, atheists need to do more than wish it away if they wish to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. 

What a deliciously nebulous statement.  Some evidence, some believers?  Oh, that must settle it then...pesky things like specifics only get in the way.  Success in the marketplace of ideas?  

LOL