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

[Delicate]

That's asserted but not demonstrated.

For all their bravado atheists here never get off the ground with demonstrating the truth of their claims. I'd love to see that change.

Your missed the point.  I don't believe Socrates is immortal.  I gave you an example of an arguement which is invalid because its premese is unsubstantiated.  No reliance can be placed on the conclusion regardless of the logical soundness of any argument that folows there from. In my example the logic is sound, but  the premise is not.  

Similarly,  in your arguments for god you often begin with faulty premise. 

Surely, you can't be as obtuse as you  pretend.  Your are either responding without thinking or trolling. 

As to demonstrating that there is no god, I don't pretend  to do that. It is an undemonstrable claim if God is defined so as to be unfalsafible.  What I can do is repeat that there is no credible evidenice for a god.  Providing credible evidence of god is the theists job, not that of atheists. 

If  you really don't get this, try to disprove the existence of unicorns.  Is the fact you can't proof of unicorns? It is not. The same is true of any god claim.

You still have to explain which premise is faulty and why. You can't just arbitrarily declare the premise faulty because you're an atheist and don't want to accept arguments for God.

You're still missing a defense of your claim.

[Delicate]

It's easy to look at this post as post hoc rationalizing.

But I'm wondering how you became obsessed with theists after joining this forum. There aren't very many here at all.

And what do you claim reality is, whatever it is that theists don't see?

Well the particular idiot that peaked my interest was an Eastern European Orthodox Christian by the name of IFightForJesus a rather ill educated person it seems had heard of christianity but actually knew not a lot about it and its history, you'd be surprised how often this is the case, but I digress, I was introduced to this poster by a friend of mine who was an administrator on this forum a sort of "look at the sort of morons we get here" kind of thing and then I was hooked. You'd also be surprised at the amount of theistic idiots that pass through  they be thin on the ground by gum they're entertaining Waldorf and Statler was a high point in self delusion trying to make the facts fit the bible by postulating that light travelled instantaneously in one direction and other twists of the mind to try and bend an uncooperative reality to fit with his god made world.
Theists tend to see a world made by god, they see a nice vista, god did that, someone gets saved unexpectedly in some way, god did that, but when the opposite happens god never gets the blame now does it, So theists go into the world with god tinted spectacles as a preconceived way of looking at the world. the only way to remove prejudged ideas from how we view anything is to rigorously apply the scientific method. When you do that to all the evidence none of it even hints at the existence of the thing you call god. So non-belief is the only option for any rational intelligent suitably informed person.

Okay. But the scientific method doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even make God's existence less likely.

Strictly speaking, all it does is refute those people who say there is no physical cause to an event other than a direct intervention by God. Such a view of nature has never been taught by Christianity, and the number of believers who take it to be true is not sufficient to indict all Christians. And moreover, refuting it doesn't refute all of Christianity.

So there seems to be a gap in your reasoning here. The scientific method doesn't make one an atheist. 

In fact, one would not be surprised at the lack of direct scientific evidence of God because science is limited to a subset of the operations of the physical world. You won't find evidence of the existence of Henry Ford by studying the engine of a Ford Focus either.

Wouldn't it be idiotic for someone to declare, having studied a Ford, to declare that Henry Ford never existed? That's how atheists reason routinely.

[Angrboda]

I missed the part of this thread where you gave your reasons for rejecting the definition of atheism can you repeat the reasons again?

I won't be able to tell if your reasons cut the mustard or not otherwise.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1150315

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149301

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149299

None of the posts you linked to give any 'reasons' for your skepticism.

[downbeatplumb]

Well the particular idiot that peaked my interest was an Eastern European Orthodox Christian by the name of IFightForJesus a rather ill educated person it seems had heard of christianity but actually knew not a lot about it and its history, you'd be surprised how often this is the case, but I digress, I was introduced to this poster by a friend of mine who was an administrator on this forum a sort of "look at the sort of morons we get here" kind of thing and then I was hooked. You'd also be surprised at the amount of theistic idiots that pass through  they be thin on the ground by gum they're entertaining Waldorf and Statler was a high point in self delusion trying to make the facts fit the bible by postulating that light travelled instantaneously in one direction and other twists of the mind to try and bend an uncooperative reality to fit with his god made world.
Theists tend to see a world made by god, they see a nice vista, god did that, someone gets saved unexpectedly in some way, god did that, but when the opposite happens god never gets the blame now does it, So theists go into the world with god tinted spectacles as a preconceived way of looking at the world. the only way to remove prejudged ideas from how we view anything is to rigorously apply the scientific method. When you do that to all the evidence none of it even hints at the existence of the thing you call god. So non-belief is the only option for any rational intelligent suitably informed person.

Okay. But the scientific method doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even make God's existence less likely.

Strictly speaking, all it does is refute those people who say there is no physical cause to an event other than a direct intervention by God. Such a view of nature has never been taught by Christianity, and the number of believers who take it to be true is not sufficient to indict all Christians. And moreover, refuting it doesn't refute all of Christianity.

So there seems to be a gap in your reasoning here. The scientific method doesn't make one an atheist. 

In fact, one would not be surprised at the lack of direct scientific evidence of God because science is limited to a subset of the operations of the physical world. You won't find evidence of the existence of Henry Ford by studying the engine of a Ford Focus either.

Wouldn't it be idiotic for someone to declare, having studied a Ford, to declare that Henry Ford never existed? That's how atheists reason routinely.

You are right the scientific method did not make me an atheist because I have never for a second believed in a god the whole thing just strikes me, and has always struck me as being very stupid myths that society should have outgrown centuries ago.
The science just shows that I'm right.

[Delicate]

Okay. But the scientific method doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even make God's existence less likely.

Strictly speaking, all it does is refute those people who say there is no physical cause to an event other than a direct intervention by God. Such a view of nature has never been taught by Christianity, and the number of believers who take it to be true is not sufficient to indict all Christians. And moreover, refuting it doesn't refute all of Christianity.

So there seems to be a gap in your reasoning here. The scientific method doesn't make one an atheist. 

In fact, one would not be surprised at the lack of direct scientific evidence of God because science is limited to a subset of the operations of the physical world. You won't find evidence of the existence of Henry Ford by studying the engine of a Ford Focus either.

Wouldn't it be idiotic for someone to declare, having studied a Ford, to declare that Henry Ford never existed? That's how atheists reason routinely.

You are right the scientific method did not make me an atheist because I have never for a second believed in a god the whole thing just strikes me, and has always struck me as being very stupid myths that society should have outgrown centuries ago.
The science just shows that I'm right.

I just pointed out how science fails to disprove the existence of God. Look at what I said refuting that claim again.

[Cyberman]

It's not up to science to disprove the existence of "God". It's up to you to provide the evidence that it does exist.

[downbeatplumb]

You are right the scientific method did not make me an atheist because I have never for a second believed in a god the whole thing just strikes me, and has always struck me as being very stupid myths that society should have outgrown centuries ago.
The science just shows that I'm right.

I just pointed out how science fails to disprove the existence of God. Look at what I said refuting that claim again.

Well you see science rather does and has disproved many of the claims made for god and the universe it supposedly created, the thing is that every time this happens god is shifted into zones just out of reach of science, until it has now been made totally uncheckupable. This is the way of every seller of woo, if it can't be confirmed in the lab or by investigation then it very likely is a con. Your god is like santa, a fictional character that some choose to believe in, nothing more. You seem to think that I should believe in every unproven thing. 
Now here is a thing for you to ponder, I think it very likely that there is life on other planets in the universe, there is life here and the processes are not unique to this planet, but I do not believe that there is life out there because it has not been proven. Do you get the subtly I think that it is probable but is unproven so I do not believe, I think god is exceptionally unlikely and I do not believe because it is unproven.
Why is this an unreasonable stance? I only believe in things that are positively proven, things that have insufficient evidence for them I do not believe and rank according to likelihood, god is very unlikely and is down at the bottom of the possibilities I am struggling to think of anything as unlikely as god to equate it with, that's how unlikely I think it is.

[Delicate]

Plumb, my paragraph starting with "Strictly speaking..." directly addressed the God of the gaps objection your raising.

In fact I even concede it. I think GotG is false. People who make such appeals are wrong.

[Whateverist]

I also know that you can be a christian and believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that I see problems with the theory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am not just going to accept a problematic theory because it is OK for my religion to do so. Also I don't think that design is insulting to the creator. Evolution is insulting to the creator. It paints a nasty picture for the creator. Years of misfits and suffering to bring us into the world is not a loving way to bring about humans. I realize that this does not determine the truth of either theory, but I would not want to worship the creator if He used evolution. However, I don't disagree with the theory on theological grounds, it is on scientific grounds. 

You imply that people who believe in intelligent design are not real scientists. I think that this is the type of treatment that discourages people from questioning the scientific consensus. I'm sure that you realize the importance of differing takes on the evidence in science. Most breakthroughs occur when very few individuals question the current consensus and begin looking at the evidence and testing their alternative models. If we don't allow people to question the consensus, then we will no longer progress.

People who believe in intelligent design may be real scientists, but not if they seek to explain the world in magical terms. Science is only concerned with the natural. For religious woo to be a proper subject for scientific research it would have to be a natural phenomenon.

All you and your kind are doing is sifting through the findings of science for the bits which can be woven together to support your pre-existing conclusion that the natural came from the magical.

You'd be much better off to investigate your theology instead. Try to get away from the literalism which is cramping your understanding. Literal creation is a theological mistake. If you were doing the theology right, there would be no reason to reinterpret science at every turn.

[Brian37]

Well the particular idiot that peaked my interest was an Eastern European Orthodox Christian by the name of IFightForJesus a rather ill educated person it seems had heard of christianity but actually knew not a lot about it and its history, you'd be surprised how often this is the case, but I digress, I was introduced to this poster by a friend of mine who was an administrator on this forum a sort of "look at the sort of morons we get here" kind of thing and then I was hooked. You'd also be surprised at the amount of theistic idiots that pass through  they be thin on the ground by gum they're entertaining Waldorf and Statler was a high point in self delusion trying to make the facts fit the bible by postulating that light travelled instantaneously in one direction and other twists of the mind to try and bend an uncooperative reality to fit with his god made world.
Theists tend to see a world made by god, they see a nice vista, god did that, someone gets saved unexpectedly in some way, god did that, but when the opposite happens god never gets the blame now does it, So theists go into the world with god tinted spectacles as a preconceived way of looking at the world. the only way to remove prejudged ideas from how we view anything is to rigorously apply the scientific method. When you do that to all the evidence none of it even hints at the existence of the thing you call god. So non-belief is the only option for any rational intelligent suitably informed person.

Okay. But the scientific method doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even make God's existence less likely.

Strictly speaking, all it does is refute those people who say there is no physical cause to an event other than a direct intervention by God. Such a view of nature has never been taught by Christianity, and the number of believers who take it to be true is not sufficient to indict all Christians. And moreover, refuting it doesn't refute all of Christianity.

So there seems to be a gap in your reasoning here. The scientific method doesn't make one an atheist. 

In fact, one would not be surprised at the lack of direct scientific evidence of God because science is limited to a subset of the operations of the physical world. You won't find evidence of the existence of Henry Ford by studying the engine of a Ford Focus either.

Wouldn't it be idiotic for someone to declare, having studied a Ford, to declare that Henry Ford never existed? That's how atheists reason routinely.

See if you can spot the pattern.......

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Allah doesn't exist"

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Yahweh doesn't exist."


"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Vishnu doesn't exist."

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Apollo doesn't exist."

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist."


How is it you'd rightfully reject the above list if others used that as an argument, but refuse to apply that same logic to your own claims? Again, maybe you need to consider you got it wrong. If the list above would not convince you, we agree, this list would not convince us either. We simply reject one more god claim than you do.