Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Thumpalumpacus]

Alternatively, rob, you might consider that God's love is so great that He did all of this, created all of this, specifically for our benefit.

That's rich. Cancer is to our benefit. So are black widows, defective brakes, tsunamis, and metal fatigue in the left wing of the airplane you're flying in.

Yeah, spare me the "god is good all the time" horseshit. You worship an evil god, and you're so morally blind you cannot see that simple fact. You worship a god who sentenced every human who ever lived to death, for the "sin" of the first two. You worship a god who has commanded, and committed, genocides. You worship a god who practices scapegoat justice -- and you are comfortable with a scapegoat relieving you of your obligation to be moral.

[Randy Carson]

"There's no evidence for God" suggests that Horn is right; atheism cannot be falsified.

When you assert "by fiat" (as I'm routinely accused of doing) that "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD", you are the poster child for Horn's entire article.

The problem with this is that atheists do not PRESUPPOSE there is no proof of gods existence, but after examining the claims made by religion they state they haven't seen sufficient evidence

The statement is phrased more definitively that it should be, because no agnostic atheist will ever tell you with absolute certainty that there is no evidence for god, which would be equivalent to claiming there is no god, which is strong (gnostic) atheism

The factual statement that could be made by an agnostic atheist is 'I haven't seen any evidence for god', which does not assume that said evidence doesn't exist

I'd like to believe that what you're saying is true, Neimenovic, but I'm not convinced it is.

I think that a sizable number of atheists come across something that supports theism, and they don't stop to say, "Hey, maybe this is better than all the lame arguments I've heard in the past...let me consider this." No, they set about finding fault with it because they know in advance that there is no God.

Now, the converse is equally true: the Christian/theist hears an objection to his or her belief and thinks, "Well, that doesn't square with what I believe; what is the error in this atheist argument?"

Both sides are equally guilty in this regard.

What would constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of god.....? Oh I don't fucking know Randy, maybe his allegedly omnipotent and omnipresent ass could show up for once instead of unconvincing apologetics -_-

He did, and we killed Him.

[The Grand Nudger]

-which is why, and there need be no other reason, I'm not joining your little club.

[Randy Carson]

Do you see why your ministry has failed here Randy?  You came in with bad intel.  Apologists aren't winning souls, the con isn't even -for us-.  It's for you (and your fellow christers), and you've swallowed it whole.  Now you're here regurgitating -their- shit and making an ass of yourself.  

Rather than bitching and moaning to us about the situation you find yourself in, maybe you should take the issue up /w the apologists who lied you into the situation you are in to begin with?

[Randy Carson]

What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.

The formal name for this logical fallacy is poisoning the well.  Go loook it up so that you'll understand the problem, and then stop practicing it -- or quoting shitty articles that peddle it.

And here we come to the point of THIS thread...if there is no evidence that can falsify atheism, then it is not based on science; it is a faith position.

There is evidence that can falsify strong atheism ... you just don't have it. In order to cover up that deficiency, you point at atheists and shout, "Yabut you are based on faith!" ... all the while hoping that no one notices that you have no evidence.

Never mind the fact that agnostic atheists like myself make no claim as to the existence of god(s). I make no assertions about god(s); I only make assertions about my lack of faith.

You have a nice day, now.  Bless your heart.

The challenge for me, Parkers, is that when I post an article such as the one in the OP, someone is bound to take exception to it based upon his or her own position vis-a-vis the theist-agnostic-atheist spectrum.

You're speaking of YOUR position. Great. In a one-on-one conversation, I would tailor my remarks to what you believe just as I would when speaking of infant baptism with a Baptist or a Methodist (since they come down on different sides of that doctrinal dispute).

I posted the OP because a few members of this forum ROUTINELY cite the GotG objection to virtually anything I post.

If this is not you, then you can ignore this thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're having trouble articulating yourself...then perhaps you aren't the best messenger for the almighty? If you want people to stop calling you out on creating gods to fill gaps -or gaps to put your god into-....then perhaps you should stop doing that?

[Randy Carson]

But the "role" that God has is not confined these "narrower and narrower" gaps. In fact, a deist might argue that God created the clock, wound it up, and kicked back to watch it run. I believe in a personal God who is more interactive than that, but what necessity is there for even a personal God to be involved in the day to day running of the material universe?

What role would a personal god play? I'd settle for making sure that his followers all live good lives, regardless of where they live in the world, and keep them from killing each other over which way to worship him. Instead you have someone claiming to be a catholic who made himself known worldwide for killing 180,000 jews [emphasis added]. You have babies dying of neglect because their christian parents rely on prayer healing instead of going to the doctor. You have holy men raping children. You have wars fought over differences in opinion on how to worship the same guy.

If you want to fall back on just a creator god, it could be Vishnu as much as it could be Yahweh, or anything else. What do you get out of a personal relationship with a deity that watches his followers kill each other, and lets their prayers go unanswered?

This is off-topic, but I am curious about the point I highlighted in your post. To whom are you referring?

[Longhorn]

I'd like to believe that what you're saying is true, Neimenovic, but I'm not convinced it is.

I think that a sizable number of atheists come across something that supports theism, and they don't stop to say, "Hey, maybe this is better than all the lame arguments I've heard in the past...let me consider this." No, they set about finding fault with it because they know in advance that there is no God.

This is a mere assertion, and a strawman

While it may be true of some, I know atheists who really sincerely wanted or still want to believe, but they are not convinced by the arguments and I would argue that those who presuppose god does not exist are in the minority

Now, the converse is equally true: the Christian/theist hears an objection to his or her belief and thinks, "Well, that doesn't square with what I believe; what is the error in this atheist argument?"

Both sides are equally guilty in this regard.

Well, I'm glad you admit that, Randy.

He did, and we killed Him.

Gott ist tot, huh? What's stopping him from doing it again, without assuming the mantle of a half mad Jew? He didn't do a very good job for the first time. Certainly not sufficiently good for a deity

[Randy Carson]

Religion makes scrutiny a death worthy crime.

It does, huh?

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

[Chad32]

What role would a personal god play? I'd settle for making sure that his followers all live good lives, regardless of where they live in the world, and keep them from killing each other over which way to worship him. Instead you have someone claiming to be a catholic who made himself known worldwide for killing 180,000 jews [emphasis added]. You have babies dying of neglect because their christian parents rely on prayer healing instead of going to the doctor. You have holy men raping children. You have wars fought over differences in opinion on how to worship the same guy.

If you want to fall back on just a creator god, it could be Vishnu as much as it could be Yahweh, or anything else. What do you get out of a personal relationship with a deity that watches his followers kill each other, and lets their prayers go unanswered?

This is off-topic, but I am curious about the point I highlighted in your post. To whom are you referring?

Hitler. That guy from Germany with the concentration camps. Also started world war II. Not that jews were the only people he killed.

Please don't tell me you've never heard of people beng killed for heresy or apostasy, or I'll have to believe you're being willfully ignorant or dishonest.