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

[Redbeard The Pink]

Your evidence consists of The Bible and a few other scattered, ancient writings. The Bible is not supported by archeology, nor geology, nor biology, nor geography, nor history, nor any other evidence from any other respectable field of scholarly pursuit.


Aside from that, you've got a pile of arguments that are either logically irrellevent, logically fallacious, intellectually dishonest, or some combination of those things.


Aside from that you have a bunch of personal testimony from others about things that may or may not have happened to them; things which may or may not mean what those people think they mean. Along with these I'm sure you think a bunch of your prayers have been answered (confimration bias), and you may even believe you've witnessed miraculous events or something.


That evidence should not be convincing to a rational mind. Claims cannot be evidence of themselves, so the Bible is out. Arguments are not evidence, either, especially not fallacious ones. Personal testimony is anecdotal and would be an equally convincing reason to believe in aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and Slender Man.

[Cato]

Poor Delicate, puberty must be more difficult than I remember. Arguments dashed, no evidence provided and now resorts to "we're not looking hard enough; all the while telling us we're the ones lacking intellectual capability and critical thinking skill. Seems having ones tonsils firmly wrapped around god's cock cuts off circulation to the brain.

[drfuzzy]

Scientific curiosity, yes. But what difference should it make to my life?

And no, I've read through many of your posts and you seem not at all curious about atheists. If you are, maybe you could tell me five things you have learned from your time on the forum about "atheists", and the reasons behind their belief, that you didn't already know.

No offense, but that seems somewhat sociopathic.

One can get excited to watch the Star Wars flick, get a promotion, grab some drinks at the bar. Watch the game. Get a haircut. Buy a new pair of shoes. Eat at a new restaurant. All this makes a difference in your life, surely.

But the ground of good and evil, the source of all of reality and the mind of such a perfect and powerful being, one who is supposed to love you more than anything, arouses no personal, non-scientific interest or curiosity whatsoever?

There's something unhuman about that, right? Who would reject a chance to get to know the being who created them, were such a being to exist, without being either consumed by irrational and self-gratifying priorities, or one who bore a deep and irrational hatred of God?

As for my curiosity, you read me wrong. Go through my posting history for the record of insults (by me and against me). My curiosity about atheists is precisely in those areas that do not involve self-reporting and atheistic rationalizations of prior positions. I won't get answers by posing surveys in my posts.

As for what I've learned:

1) The atheists on this forum are, largely, deeply anti-intellectual and uninterested in developing their critical thinking. My attempts to engage rationally was initially completely or predominantly unprofitable.
2) Most anti-theism here is deeply emotional. The responses here towards theism overflows with rage, hatred, contempt, and other negative feelings. Very little in the way of rational argument goes on.
3) For most of my interlocutors, truth is unimportant of a view. They won't pursue uncomfortable truths, but they will pursue what sits nicely with a priori atheistic commitments.
4) This might be a general problem, not just one that afflicts atheists. When people study things that go against their beliefs, their desire to understand and comprehension ability plummet. 

I'll think of a fifth later.

All of this, because we insist on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove that god exists.   Because arguments and personal stories are not evidence.  Because quotes from a book that is considered holy - or one that is respected in theological circles - are not evidence.  We ask for scientific proof, and Delicate throws an infantile temper-tantrum, and claims that a forum populated by individuals with multiple advanced degrees and high-functioning scientific careers are "anti-intellectual".  Yes folks, this is what xtians do when we don't give their imaginary friend immediate respect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your evidence consists of The Bible and a few other scattered, ancient writings.

The Bible is evidence that at least a couple of people knew how to write back then. But it isn't evidence for God any more than The Silmarillion is evidence for Morgoth.

[robvalue]

I'm still not sure what difference it's supposed to make. It was compared to getting a new pair of shoes!?

If God is doing anything, then he's already doing it. So I'm not suddenly going to be amazed that the universe isn't falling apart under his rule. If he's there doing whatever, good for him. If he wants to talk to me, he is welcome. Other than that, I don't care. It has no relevance to my life.

[downbeatplumb]

Scientific curiosity, yes. But what difference should it make to my life?

And no, I've read through many of your posts and you seem not at all curious about atheists. If you are, maybe you could tell me five things you have learned from your time on the forum about "atheists", and the reasons behind their belief, that you didn't already know.

No offense, but that seems somewhat sociopathic.

Said to the nicest person on the interwebz.

One can get excited to watch the Star Wars flick, get a promotion, grab some drinks at the bar. Watch the game. Get a haircut. Buy a new pair of shoes. Eat at a new restaurant. All this makes a difference in your life, surely.

But the ground of good and evil, the source of all of reality and the mind of such a perfect and powerful being, one who is supposed to love you more than anything, arouses no personal, non-scientific interest or curiosity whatsoever?

Well the thing you are describing sounds a little far fetched to me and I will need some really good evidence for me to find it anything other than a silly idea. Like trolls under bridges or fairies dancing at the bottom of the garden I put it in the myth pile.

There's something unhuman about that, right? Who would reject a chance to get to know the being who created them, were such a being to exist, without being either consumed by irrational and self-gratifying priorities, or one who bore a deep and irrational hatred of God?

You have the thought processes of a little child who still believes that we were created by "beings" and ignores the vast evidence that science has that provides much better and evidenced alternatives.

As for my curiosity, you read me wrong. Go through my posting history for the record of insults (by me and against me). My curiosity about atheists is precisely in those areas that do not involve self-reporting and atheistic rationalizations of prior positions. I won't get answers by posing surveys in my posts.

I have never believed in god or even though that one was likely. Seems like a stupid idea to me.

As for what I've learned:

1) The atheists on this forum are, largely, deeply anti-intellectual and uninterested in developing their critical thinking. My attempts to engage rationally was initially completely or predominantly unprofitable.

Well I think you are wrong but there you go.

2) Most anti-theism here is deeply emotional. The responses here towards theism overflows with rage, hatred, contempt, and other negative feelings. Very little in the way of rational argument goes on.

My arguments are not emotionally based. I could not give a damn what deluded thing people believe, but this is our house and if you come here spouting unsupported idiocy I will respond. 

3) For most of my interlocutors, truth is unimportant of a view. They won't pursue uncomfortable truths, but they will pursue what sits nicely with a priori atheistic commitments.

Wow project much. The uncomfortable truth is that there is no evidence to support your statements, poor long refuted arguments are NOT evidence.

 
4) This might be a general problem, not just one that afflicts atheists. When people study things that go against their beliefs, their desire to understand and comprehension ability plummet. 

Well this is true but to honest my atheism is not a big deal to me. If evidence I could not deny was presented I would believe in god. Can you say the same with regard to its non-existence?

I'll think of a fifth later.

oh goody.

[paulpablo]

But it's also a way to spend your life grappling with millions of false claims about god.

I'm not just making an offhand remark or a simple joke when I say that.  It's simply like one fire brigade trying to put out every fire in the world, with new forest fires starting everyday.

Practically speaking even if I set out on a new mission to tackle every claim of evidence that there is a god, abandoned my family, friends and newborn baby and job and focused on this one goal, I still would probably not have tackled even 10% of the claims made, and it's more than likely the 10% I did try and tackle would still be sure they were right even if they were wrong, and new religious claims would have been made by the time of my death, and entirely new religions created with new cult leaders.

I won't deny I ignore things and I'm full of ignorance.  Ignorance is a by-product of focus. Normal functional people have to ignore things, it's a survival skill to decide what to ignore and what to focus on in life.  If you paid attention and gave merit to every scam, false advertisement, cult in the world you simply wouldn't have time to live.

I've been raised with the "evidence" in the form of the bible, rejected that, become acquainted with the quran, same bullshit, and I see a lot of different claims on here that are either easily proven wrong or so vague that that can't be proven wrong or right and pretty much don't mean anything.

One might say the same about science. Science involves grappling with millions of false claims about reality to discover the truth.

If science can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about reality, atheists can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about God.

Or, you know, one can be intellectually honest and be an agnostic, because they haven't been able to successfully justify atheism.

Or, one can depend on philosophers or other specialists as a filter so only the good arguments remain, many of which are in circulation today.

The situation isn't hopeless.

Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Scientific curiosity, yes. But what difference should it make to my life?

And no, I've read through many of your posts and you seem not at all curious about atheists. If you are, maybe you could tell me five things you have learned from your time on the forum about "atheists", and the reasons behind their belief, that you didn't already know.

No offense, but that seems somewhat sociopathic.

A sociopath would not care how dishonest or insulting his arguments are in his efforts to make himself feel better about the beliefs which he is afraid to question himself. To that end, he will not stop short of defaming anyone, depriving them of their civil rights, and will even resort to physical violence. Yes, causing the premature death of a woman with a name, who has loved and touched so many people in her brief time on this planet is murder. The outlawing of abortion causes premature deaths of very real people, therefore it's murder. If you support that, then yes, you are a murdererous fucking sociopath!

One can get excited to watch the Star Wars flick, get a promotion, grab some drinks at the bar. Watch the game. Get a haircut. Buy a new pair of shoes. Eat at a new restaurant. All this makes a difference in your life, surely.

But the ground of good and evil, the source of all of reality and the mind of such a perfect and powerful being, one who is supposed to love you more than anything, arouses no personal, non-scientific interest or curiosity whatsoever?

There's something unhuman about that, right? Who would reject a chance to get to know the being who created them, were such a being to exist, without being either consumed by irrational and self-gratifying priorities, or one who bore a deep and irrational hatred of God?

Where's your evidence that that your god exists? You have been asked for this 1000x, and you ignore this completely. If you don't have any, then it's time for you to deal with that fact, and be honest about it for the first time in your life. Of course you never will, being sociopathic as you are.

As for my curiosity, you read me wrong. Go through my posting history for the record of insults (by me and against me).

Honey, you reap what you sow!

People have been nothing but fair to you in explaining why your arguments don't apply here, and very specific on what we see wrong with your claims. Specifically, we have spelled it out in crystal clear terms why we find it so insulting, understanding that those who have never conversed with those outside of their own groups would be unaware. You respond to all that by throwing one huge hissy-fit after another like a two-year old, while repeating exactly what you have been corrected on ad nauseum (also like a two-year-old). Fucking grow up already!

As for what I've learned:

1) The atheists on this forum are, largely, deeply anti-intellectual and uninterested in developing their critical thinking. My attempts to engage rationally was initially completely or predominantly unprofitable.
2) Most anti-theism here is deeply emotional. The responses here towards theism overflows with rage, hatred, contempt, and other negative feelings. Very little in the way of rational argument goes on.
3) For most of my interlocutors, truth is unimportant of a view. They won't pursue uncomfortable truths, but they will pursue what sits nicely with a priori atheistic commitments.
4) This might be a general problem, not just one that afflicts atheists. When people study things that go against their beliefs, their desire to understand and comprehension ability plummet. 

I'll think of a fifth later.

LOL, are you by any chance related to Walt Disney, the Master Imagineer?

1)  Your attempts to engage rationally were unprofitable because you don't know the first thing about rational discourse. People here sincerely strove to explain that to you, but how could you have really listened, coming in here with the precognition that your ideas are infallible? Discussion, My Dear, doesn't work that way - if there's going to be one at all, then it has to be a two way street. We understand you perfectly, but you don't understand anything about us.

2) Funny, how you call atheism emotional. Anybody can be provoked to an emotional response, depending on just how maliciously his views come under attack by those who attempt to invalidate his views through mischaracterization when they cannot disprove their validity in truth. However, aside from newborn babies there are no atheists, none whatsoever, who's positions weren't decided based on what they learned from far better sources for learning and social progress than your bible.

3) Your opinion on supernatural ideas is just an opinion. We have shown you the basics on how we go about searching for truth, but you ignore this. I for one am very, very comfortable with discussing your ideas, they do not intimidate me at all - in fact, I know them intimately as a former evangelical Christian. I know them, I fear them not, and they are still wrong.

4) Well-stated on those who think their own ideas trump rational discourse, and the resulting conclusions which begin with empirical evidence (or the neutral position which must result when said evidence is missing). That's right, atheism is a neutral position, neither positive nor negative. What cannot be proven true is not necessarily false, but given the record of Christians to prove their god without any evidence, thinking that argument counts for that when it counts only for insult, my neutral position on your god is very probably not.

[Delicate]

One might say the same about science. Science involves grappling with millions of false claims about reality to discover the truth.

If science can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about reality, atheists can survive this ordeal to discover the truth about God.

Or, you know, one can be intellectually honest and be an agnostic, because they haven't been able to successfully justify atheism.

Or, one can depend on philosophers or other specialists as a filter so only the good arguments remain, many of which are in circulation today.

The situation isn't hopeless.

Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.

I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.

The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.

One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism. 

I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.

I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.

Again, you prove only your complete disinterest in any legitimate discussion. YOU and your clan are not the broader world of intellectual discovery! If you want to know the truth on that statement, then you should ask at random large numbers of agnostics and atheists. If you wanted to give any fair assessment of Paulpablo's observation, then you would have asked him why he believes that!

The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.

One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism. 

I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.

I'll be sending this to X-Files reboot producers.