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

[athrock]

I've seen the one with Tony Hancock and Sid James. Same thing.

Before I forget, please note the edits I made to my previous post.

Now, the movie is interesting in that all 12 jurors heard the same evidence presented in court, but each of them had a different reaction to that evidence. Different prejudices and life experiences led them to those different reactions.

In the same way, different people hear the evidence and arguments made by the defense attorneys for God (commonly referred to as evangelists and apologists) with various filters in place, and this obviously affects their reactions to that evidence and those arguments.

---

I guess what I'm driving at is that there is some evidence offered by believers that appears credible. Consequently, atheists need to do more than wish it away if they wish to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. 

What a deliciously nebulous statement.  Some evidence, some believers?  Oh, that must settle it then...pesky things like specifics only get in the way.  Success in the marketplace of ideas?  

LOL

In 1966, Time magazine dared to ask:



But as Pew Research points out 50 years later, major theistic groups like Christianity and Islam continue growing. Clearly, skeptics were crowing a bit prematurely.

---

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence.

You assume -incorrectly in my case- that atheists should all feel compelled to debunk your bullshit.  There is no such requirement.  Many atheists will go to great pains to disabuse you of your whacko beliefs.  I've got better things to do.

And yet, here you are.

[Crossless2.0]

athrock wrote:

In the same way, different people hear the evidence and arguments made by the defense attorneys for God (commonly referred to as evangelists and apologists) with various filters in place, and this obviously affects their reactions to that evidence and those arguments.

---

Which group would you say have the most filters and bias through which they view this alleged evidence: the skeptics or the believers?  For what it's worth, every believer I've ever personally known -- so far as I can tell -- arrived at belief for reasons that had nothing to do with apologists' arguments. The pseudo-philosophy they cling to is always post hoc rationalization to lend intellectual respectability to beliefs they accepted for emotional reasons.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, the point is to assess whatever evidence is offered - rarely - against reality, as well as against what it's supposed to be evidencing. That's the filter that I, for one, have in place.

[athrock]

The claim "there is no evidence" is not a typical one outside of theist strawmen. The claim, such as it is, that person x has not yet seen credible, compelling evidence, however, is.

Exactly!

I never say, "there is no evidence for the existence of a god". So, right off the bat, the OP is a straw man.

I always phrase it, "there is insufficient demonstrable evidence to support the existence of a god".

Anecdotal, personal revelation, ancient texts, philosophical arguments (Kalam, Ontological, teleological, TAG)  could all be called 'evidence'. Just really, REALLY bad evidence for the type of claim they are meant to support. 

You have to be an Olympian class 'special pleader' to consider those types of evidence sufficient for the existential claim for a god.

Well said, Simon. 

I'm pleased to see someone finally admit that there IS evidence for the existence of God. It's like Obama finally saying the words, "Radical Islam". You have to be honest about things before they can be addressed effectively.

Between your post and those of Stimbo, I think we can agree at last that some evidence exists.

The evidence may not be sufficient to convince a specific person, but it may be more than enough to convince someone else.

Now, to begin the challenge of facing it head on...

[Cyberman]

Of course evidence exists; everything offered up is evidence. What matters is whether the evidence can stand up to scrutiny, whether it actually does what it says on the tin. It's like going to a restaurant where they serve anything they can find - what you get on your plate is a meal, every time, but not every such meal is going to be food.

[LadyForCamus]

One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm not an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

Assumes we atheists are carefully coached in how to respond to idiot missionary apologists. There is no atheist school, degree or religion. You are simply projecting erroneously from your own experience.

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence.

You have this turned around. There is no need for a convincing reason not to believe the bullocks you're serving up. The onus is on you as the person seeking agreement to make the case.

In truth, even if you made a credible effort -which you haven't- I would still be under no requirement to listen. There are many projects and understandings to pursue. Which crack pot supernatural bullshit to believe is nothing I'm interested in. Can you find your own way out or do you need my boot to your butt?

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence.

You assume -incorrectly in my case- that atheists should all feel compelled to debunk your bullshit. There is no such requirement. Many atheists will go to great pains to disabuse you of your whacko beliefs. I've got better things to do.
 

Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this.

Said with a sneer no doubt. But again you take as incompetence what is often disinterest. No one can flat out disprove that your silly gods exist. Silly things are beyond the reach of reason. But there are many here who would go out their way to set you straight - but why bother? It isn't as if you're here to decide what you think. Your mind is made up. See ya.
 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.

You're right we should just say we don't really give a fuck even though it is also true that no one has ever been able to point a god out to me.

What is it with delicate starting threads, abandoning them after getting schooled, and then starting new ones? What is the point of this endless circle? Would this behavior constitute "trolling"? I honestly don't know the criteria for that type of thing.

[Cyberman]

It's really not that hard: "We consider trolling to be the creation of deliberately provocative posts with the aim of upsetting a member or inciting an angry or otherwise emotional response."

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I think this type of thinking does a tremendous disservice to the atheist community.

First, can you give some examples of evidence for ANY historical event that is repeatable, Cato?

I'll wait.

No?

Because history isn't repeatable, is it?

Birth happens.

Death happens.

Behold, this is history which repeats!

Empire rises.

The hubris of power corrupts, resulting in a critical level of incompetence and abuses.

Empire collapses.

Behold again, this is more history which repeats!

Wars happen.

Again, and again, and again, and again. They never happen because different people naturally hate each other enough to kill, they always happen when the ambitious are willing to use a war to make themselves more powerful, and the rich who would benefit from war campaigns become greedy enough. The cycle of greed, ambition, obscene war plundering, megalomania, death, suffering, and finally enough disgust from the public to rein in their warlords is never-ending.

Asshole shits all over his culture with spurious claims that a more powerful entity is motivating him.

Asshole gets his ass handed to him for stinking up the world with no socially redeeming cause.

Asshole insists he still must be right, because his imaginary friend told him he's infallible against those who deny him.

Asshole cannot prove this claim either, so he has children, upon who's undeveloped minds he will impose his mental jism, and...

Behold one more time, this is also history repeating itself!

Gods rise to power over their cultures. For example, Moloch was powerful for thousands of years longer than Jesus.

Gods eventually lose favor in favor of other gods, or better ideas than gods.

Jesus, Allah, and Jehova will eventually die in the minds of the world population, and life will go on.

EDIT: Oh, if the above doesn't address what you had in mind (and I still suspect you are being nothing but a troll which has become much too smug for his face), there is plenty of repeatable evidence which is observed on natural history. Evolutionary differentiation is observed on repeated (ad nauseum) occurrences of fossilized life forms which are either less complex than modern life, or they were fully adapted to fit an environment not like the present.

[robvalue]

I watched the brilliant film "The theory of everything" which was a portrayal of the life of Stephen Hawking. There was a part that made me laugh. He was knocking about with this Christian bird, and she was annoyed at his atheism. She said something to the effect that for Stephen's ideas to be true, "god needs to die". It made me realize that far from being powerful, god is like a precious fragile doll people carry around. They are always trying to defend it from harm, even worrying about its feelings. The idea that just by thinking about stuff and doing science god could be killed shows what a stupid notion it is.

Of course, most theists can't define god in the first place. Therein lies the problem. They use the same word, but they are not referring to the same thing, whether or not any of them are real.

[LadyForCamus]

It's really not that hard: "We consider trolling to be the creation of deliberately provocative posts with the aim of upsetting a member or inciting an angry or otherwise emotional response."

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

My apologies for being lazy. Thanks for responding in any case...