Question for atheists...

[Something completely different]

never.


Where are the specific metaphysical claims, not just about what they are, but which ones they are, from where they are from, when they were published and from what point of view they were writen.

---

I am going to bed, but I will continue annoying you tomorrow morning.

[BeeDeePee]

Hang on, what point are you trying to make about claims like heliocentrism?

My point is that you can not say that you know God doesn't exist, because there's no evidence that supports that statement.

When things like this were discovered, it was because they were tested in some way. Anyone who believed that the sun revolved around the earth before someone had tested that fact was irrational.

So, any scientist who is setting a hypothesis (=probable explanation of some natural phenomenon) is irrational?
Also, saying that something is irrational says mainly nothing about the qualty of it. Many things that we all appreciate (like art) are irrational, and it doesn't make them bad.

---

But those were not metaphysical as empirical evidence is what proved their existence.

They are not metaphysical today, when scientists can use a lot of methods to test whether they are true or not. But they were metaphysical in the past when it was not possible.

[Question Mark]

Well of course we can't, but that's not the issue, and it's not what most of us do. You might see my RV under my name: "agnostic atheist". Yeah, I don't know there isn't a god, but it's not up to me to prove there isn't one. Just like there wasn't any cause for people in the lower middle ages to prove that the earth does not revolve around the sun. It was the job of Copernicus and later Galileo to prove that it in fact did.

Anyone who believed that the earth revolved around the sun until it was demonstrated, was irrational, as i think I've said on this thread? Might have been a different one.

[BeeDeePee]

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

---

And that's why Popper rejects logical positivism (one of the reasons).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute

I read Karl Popper and Adorno

You are putting the term into a completly different context and I believe you are doing this intentionaly with dishonest intent.

Or can you show me how Popper and Adorno would think that some shit bible prophecy or interpertation of the bible would leave a conclusion about current knowlege?

I'm using the term "logical positivism" in a right way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I've never said that they thought Bible can help us to understand and explain natural mechanisms. They just rejected the claim that all metaphysical claims are meaningless because they are not proven.

[Simon Moon]

The main reasons for me is the lack of demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support the existence of a god or gods.

In other words, the claim that a god exists put forth from theists has not met its burden of proof.

The lack of evidence is probably the most common argument that atheists use, but I think it's missing the point, because it leads us to a debate where from the very beginning, the final conclusion is known and evident: there's no evidence that supports God' existence or existence of any other metaphysical being.

Not just that such evidence doesnt' exist, but it is impossible to exist. Claim that states something like "God exists" is not scientifically tested, becaue you can not use hypothetico-deductive method upon that claim.

It's not just lack of evidence, I also included that there is no valid or sound logic that supports the existence of a god.

So, let me say for arguments sake, I accept your premises.

Since we both agree that evidence does not exist for the existence of a god, what should be my justification to believe the claim that the Christian god exists? Why should I believe the Christian god exists, but dismiss the existence of all those other gods, that also lack evidence for their existence?

What heuristic should I employ to determine that the Christian god exists, that will also dismiss the existence of all the other gods?

[Nine]

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

Yeah you seem to be a little bit swamped.

[Baalzebutt]

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

Don't say stupid things and you won't get bombarded.

Look,you are claiming that there were things that were "metaphysical" in the past. Then they were empirically proven and are now no longer metaphysical.

You are trying to make a comaprison between physically, empirically proveable ideas and god. By your own admission, god is not proveable.

There is no evidence in any area of study that has verified ANYTHING of a metaphysical or supernatural origin. Plain and simple. In other words, ghosts don't exist, unicorns and gryffins are imaginary, and we don't get healed by crystal channeling universal energy.

You god claims are nothing more than another imaginary creature that belongs firmly in the realm of fairy tales.

[CapnAwesome]

But you're doing the same literally every day. When you're going to school, you're accepting the ideas of other people; when you're reading, you're accepting the ideas of others; when you're upbringing and educating your children, the're accepting what they were told. You can be atheist, but you can not escape from this.
I have to ask: what is wrong with that? It can be wrong if you accept it by not using critical thinking, if you don't ask and don't doubt... otherwise, it's completely okay.

No, you cannot totally escape using other peoples ideas, but you can filter the good ones from the bad ones. Religions though don't allow a filter, some liberal theologians filter the ideas anyway, but it doesn't make them good or bad. Also the idea that everybody suppresses their critical thinking to some degree is not a good excuse for doing it more. Everybody pays taxes, that doesn't mean I should give my whole paycheck to the government.

Also I think you are mistaken in the idea that God is not a provable or disprovable idea. God is not disprovable, but God is so easily proved. All he would have to do for me to accept his reality is appear. It's a very low standard of proof which he fails to fulfill every single day.

[downbeatplumb]

My point is that you can not say that you know God doesn't exist, because there's no evidence that supports that statement.

You do know that there is also no evidence to support the claim that there is a god don't you?

There is the old saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" but I think to a certain extent that if enough claims for something are proved to be false then you can think that the evidence for it is shaky.

I will not list all he claims that were made for god that have proven to be false coz the internet is only so big and I bet you've heard them all before but have somehow managed to convince yourself that for one reason or another you can rationalize them into you beliefs.

Basically you believe because you want to. I have never believed and have seen no reason to start.

[Faith No More]

They are not metaphysical today, when scientists can use a lot of methods to test whether they are true or not. But they were metaphysical in the past when it was not possible.

There is a vast difference between something being untestable due to constraints from the current body of knowledge and something being metaphysical. Something doesn't simply stop being metaphysical once we are able to test it. It either is or isn't metaphysical, regardless of human capabilities.