Re: Theo, Pineapplebunnybounce, Locke,
So you won't see this for a week then, but the wikipedia article is correct. There can simply be too little evidence to determine a thing's existence. So lack of evidence does not automatically mean it doesn't exist, as Maelstrom might suggest.
In the case of religion (in favor of the atheism side), I think the millenia-long lack of evidence makes a stronger case for it, but alas is still not an iron-clad case for definitive proof.
Re: absence of evidence v. evidence of absence, you're spot on. We may well never have the capacity to explore the universe in search of god. So we will always be burdened by absence of evidence, and may get confused in suggesting it is directly evidence of absence.
This is not necessarily a problem for the atheist argument though. It remains that there is no valid evidence to believe item X, so we ought not assume item X is true just because. We would then suffer the burden of believing any number of items X for any number of bad reasons, some of which may include "because I feel good." Also, this violates occam's razor. This video does a good job in detailing the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJrud71gL8&t=06m52s
I don't understand what your remark means concerning absence of evidence. Can you clarify this point?
And your second point is true, but that evidence could still ultimately be overturned by a later case of intervention. So yes, it's evidence, but that's not definitive proof that such a god couldn't affect the world.
Lot of ground to cover, so here goes:
1. I actually started this thread to inquire on what grounds the theists would consider their position incorrect. What real life scenario would prove them wrong? Is there a way their position can be falsified in their minds, or will no evidence ever change their mind?
2. There are some historical atheists who were terrible human beings (of which, Hitler was not an atheist). Nevertheless, their behavior had nothing to do with atheism. To refocus your definition of atheism, atheism is a rejection of the belief that there is a god on grounds of insufficient evidence. It is not a positive assertion that no god exists definitively, as the Concise Encyclopedia lazily suggested. In no way is this rejection of belief a recipe for terrible acts. Pol Pot, etc, did not do what they did as motivated by their atheist view point. So your ascription of historical atrocities to atheism can equally be attributed to wearing a mustache or having a penis. SO, "if you're going to be honest," then you should probably drop this tremendously fallacious line of thinking.
3. You are building this social construct, that atheist must get their morality from "whoever is at the top when God is removed," as if to nod again towards Pol Pot or Hitler and say, "See? That's atheism for ya!" Atheism doesn't require a central figure head divining moral authority. You must be confused, because that's religion. Morality is best derived from the golden rule. A dictator or even an elected official is not the definitive author of morality.
4. Poor metaphor. Going above the speed limit is not an immoral act. Laws are enacted to protect people. Some of which are fairly arbitrary, and necessarily so. Traveling 70 MPH on the highway is not necessarily a moral act while traveling 75 MPH is not.
5. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. A being that has no art cannot create art. A being that has no pizza cannot create a pizza. A being that has no house cannot make a house. Except those are all false. Also, physics is thriving with evidence to show how dark matter and empty space occupy much more of the energy and matter of the universe than anything (Lawrence Krauss comes to mind). And he explains how something can come from "nothing." To avoid some hangups, I will define what I think is meant by "nothing" - the absence of all matter. No elements from the periodic table (or yet to be discovered), and none of their subatomic particles. A complete vacuum in space. Nevertheless, physicists are discovering that this empty space takes up 70% of the energy of the universe. And Krauss explains how that energy can indeed create matter (without violating the laws of thermodynamics) using quantum physics. So your point 5 is incorrect regarding both your purpose argument, and your physical claim, both of which you utilize to build the slipperiest damn slope I've ever heard of.
6. You're correct on the first point. But completely off on the second. Atheism doesn't address morality. It just rejects the evidence for a creator. But a person who is atheistic can still, without a doubt, weigh in on matters of morality, such as widescale murder as commanded by the Christian god. You do not have to believe in magic to have such an opinion. They never had to step out of the morality sphere at all, nor needed to step back in, just because their beliefs aren't about fake things.
7. Presupposition 4), which is tied to the refocused definition: Atheists don't believe there is a designer, which is a subtle but important distinction from presupposition 2. This may help clarify disagreements on this point.
Okay, so now that I'm all caught up on this thread, the totality of the cases offered where a theist might acknowledge they are wrong can be summed up as follows:
(August 10, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Theo Zacharias Wrote:(August 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The false dilemma issue you seem so concerned about can be disputed via the absence of evidence argument.
Are you saying that you don't agree with the article in Wikipedia that say that "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dilemma? Don't afraid to say that because Wikipedia can be wrong (although very rare). Fyi, I agree with the article. Do you agree or not. You seem to say that there statement is refuted by another article. So you don't agree?
The article on Wikipedia about "Evidence of absence" is actually does not support your position. It's said that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You said that there is no evidence that God exist (absence of evidence), hence it's a proof that God does not exist (evidence of absence). So what you said before is the same as saying that absence of evidence is the same with evidence of absence. The article on Wikipedia disagree with that. So you don't agree with this article on Wikipedia too?
So you won't see this for a week then, but the wikipedia article is correct. There can simply be too little evidence to determine a thing's existence. So lack of evidence does not automatically mean it doesn't exist, as Maelstrom might suggest.
In the case of religion (in favor of the atheism side), I think the millenia-long lack of evidence makes a stronger case for it, but alas is still not an iron-clad case for definitive proof.
Re: absence of evidence v. evidence of absence, you're spot on. We may well never have the capacity to explore the universe in search of god. So we will always be burdened by absence of evidence, and may get confused in suggesting it is directly evidence of absence.
This is not necessarily a problem for the atheist argument though. It remains that there is no valid evidence to believe item X, so we ought not assume item X is true just because. We would then suffer the burden of believing any number of items X for any number of bad reasons, some of which may include "because I feel good." Also, this violates occam's razor. This video does a good job in detailing the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJrud71gL8&t=06m52s
(August 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: @theo, you are sooo confused. Absence of evidence thing only applies if you don't claim that your god has evidence.
But if your god affects the world in anyway, it must generate some form of evidence. So absence of evidence is evidence of your god's inability to affect this world.
I don't understand what your remark means concerning absence of evidence. Can you clarify this point?
And your second point is true, but that evidence could still ultimately be overturned by a later case of intervention. So yes, it's evidence, but that's not definitive proof that such a god couldn't affect the world.
(August 10, 2013 at 3:10 pm)Locke Wrote: 1. FOR THE RECORD I don't care if you believe in it or not, but this thread was started to ask theists what they believe and why, rather than to disprove Atheism.
2. The point I am making is that they are moral IN SPITE OF their Athiestic claims. The examples of those people in history are relevant because they were atheists, and when there was no law they acted precisely IN ACCORDANCE with atheism, which claims to lie outside the sphere of moral anchors. This has consistently proven to produce such results in history as I mentioned. And, if you're going to be honest, such accurate consistency is EVIDENCE that cannot be refuted.
Whether or not atheists follow this is a different story, but that only means they are not adhering to atheism, yet claiming to do so.
3. Just because I say I eat beef doesn't make it so; it is only true if I actually do eat beef. I am NOT claiming that atheists have no basis for morality - in fact I am claiming that they DO. HOWEVER, atheism itself claims that morality is integral to human society, because human social groups need predictable rules and behavior to function.. but these rules change based on whoever is at the top when God is removed, and it has been proven time and time again that this leads straight to the devolution of the human race when put into practice. In light of all this, I was simply stating that Atheism makes no sense to me, so I don't follow it.
4. "One wonders whether there might be a degree of wish fulfillment in the belief that there is no God. For example, people often say they would do the right thing regardless of whether they would be rewarded or punished. However, when the police are visible on the highway, drivers really do slow down. When they think 'the law' is far away, they take significantly greater liberties. Denying the increase in immorality when the law is absent is as naive as discounting the connection between belief in a judgment day (and a Judge) and right living.
5. A being that has no purpose cannot create purpose; something cannot come from nothing (as we know from physics, for example). Therefore, if there is no external agent to instill purpose, we cannot have any purpose. If we make our own purpose, it is relative only to ourselves, who in turn are without purpose, so our purpose itself is purposeless. This is making its way towards ex nihilo, which accomplishes nothing.
6. You're right, atheism declares itself to be outside the sphere of morality.. which is why it's senseless for an atheist to reject theism on grounds of an immoral God, since they have to step back into the sphere of morality to do so.
7. There are only 3 possible presuppositions:
1) Atheists believe there is a Designer
2) Atheists believe there is not a Designer
3) Atheists believe there may or may not be a Designer
Lot of ground to cover, so here goes:
1. I actually started this thread to inquire on what grounds the theists would consider their position incorrect. What real life scenario would prove them wrong? Is there a way their position can be falsified in their minds, or will no evidence ever change their mind?
2. There are some historical atheists who were terrible human beings (of which, Hitler was not an atheist). Nevertheless, their behavior had nothing to do with atheism. To refocus your definition of atheism, atheism is a rejection of the belief that there is a god on grounds of insufficient evidence. It is not a positive assertion that no god exists definitively, as the Concise Encyclopedia lazily suggested. In no way is this rejection of belief a recipe for terrible acts. Pol Pot, etc, did not do what they did as motivated by their atheist view point. So your ascription of historical atrocities to atheism can equally be attributed to wearing a mustache or having a penis. SO, "if you're going to be honest," then you should probably drop this tremendously fallacious line of thinking.
3. You are building this social construct, that atheist must get their morality from "whoever is at the top when God is removed," as if to nod again towards Pol Pot or Hitler and say, "See? That's atheism for ya!" Atheism doesn't require a central figure head divining moral authority. You must be confused, because that's religion. Morality is best derived from the golden rule. A dictator or even an elected official is not the definitive author of morality.
4. Poor metaphor. Going above the speed limit is not an immoral act. Laws are enacted to protect people. Some of which are fairly arbitrary, and necessarily so. Traveling 70 MPH on the highway is not necessarily a moral act while traveling 75 MPH is not.
5. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. A being that has no art cannot create art. A being that has no pizza cannot create a pizza. A being that has no house cannot make a house. Except those are all false. Also, physics is thriving with evidence to show how dark matter and empty space occupy much more of the energy and matter of the universe than anything (Lawrence Krauss comes to mind). And he explains how something can come from "nothing." To avoid some hangups, I will define what I think is meant by "nothing" - the absence of all matter. No elements from the periodic table (or yet to be discovered), and none of their subatomic particles. A complete vacuum in space. Nevertheless, physicists are discovering that this empty space takes up 70% of the energy of the universe. And Krauss explains how that energy can indeed create matter (without violating the laws of thermodynamics) using quantum physics. So your point 5 is incorrect regarding both your purpose argument, and your physical claim, both of which you utilize to build the slipperiest damn slope I've ever heard of.
6. You're correct on the first point. But completely off on the second. Atheism doesn't address morality. It just rejects the evidence for a creator. But a person who is atheistic can still, without a doubt, weigh in on matters of morality, such as widescale murder as commanded by the Christian god. You do not have to believe in magic to have such an opinion. They never had to step out of the morality sphere at all, nor needed to step back in, just because their beliefs aren't about fake things.
7. Presupposition 4), which is tied to the refocused definition: Atheists don't believe there is a designer, which is a subtle but important distinction from presupposition 2. This may help clarify disagreements on this point.
Okay, so now that I'm all caught up on this thread, the totality of the cases offered where a theist might acknowledge they are wrong can be summed up as follows:
Religious but open minded about the arguments of atheists? You may have spent your whole life learning about the arguments for religion. May I present to you 10 segmented hours for the case against it?
![[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FAJqsKtG.jpg)
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
