(December 4, 2014 at 5:07 am)chris(tnt)rhol Wrote: Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.
Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?
I like this question. For me this cuts right to the heart of the debate between atheists and non-atheists. It's a very idiosyncratic issue and I suspect you will get as many different replies as there are thinking atheists in this forum. Proof requires evidence, and the level of evidence we are prepared to accept is based on our personal values. I personally believe scientific theory is as much a system of belief as any other.
It's easy to believe in the force of gravity as I watch a hammer fall to the ground, in everyday life that would seem to be sufficient, and for the vast majority of people it is. But I also know that Einstein demonstrated that gravity is not a force but an artefact of our relative view of spacetime distortions - in the same way I used to think as a child the merry-go-round was throwing me out, when in fact I was simply travelling in a straight line in accordance with the laws of conservation of momentum and that it was the merry-go-round that was changing direction and acting on me. For all intents and purposes it felt like I was being spun out, but I can now understand that is not the case.
For may people centrifugal and gravitational force are real and they believe in them because it fits their understanding of the world. People will park their systems of belief at the level of their understanding and then seek the evidence to fix it there.
Evidence is often not what it seems, empirical evidence from observation, for example, is a record of an historical event, this is then used to predict future events, when these events happen we retrospectively apply our prediction to that event and claim it as a truth. Scientific 'truth' is actually a retroaction, because there is no evidence of any kind that proves the repeatability of historical events, even scientific ones. Science requires faith, but that does not mean it is not reasonable.
What baffles me about the Western god is he was once very active and got heavily involved with intervening with particular tribes of humans, namely the Jewish tribes. But for some reason he decided to vanish up to the high heavens and not get involved any more - odd behaviour? Why is he no longer up to his antics?
If there is a god then he as screwed up monumentally. He has created religion and scientific theory both of which require faith, but scientific theory keeps coming up with information, data and observations that give scientists substance to reason, while he has decided not to give his own followers anything for over 2000 years. Why would a loving god gift his people with the ability to reason then give them nothing to reason with? That sounds incredibly cruel, egotistical but most importantly, unnecessary.
The Christian god in his own book said, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." if his words are 'true' then in the absence of any 'substance' there is no hope; in his lack of evidence there is no god. God fails his own test of faith. God is nothing but an empty promise echoing down the millennia, that will remain unfulfilled until all his followers die, along with the rest of the human race, just as Darwin predicted.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
