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

[drfuzzy]

EVIDENCE.  You yammer on and on and on about "evidence", you ignore responses and keep yammering about "evidence", and even when we ask for "evidence" you keep yammering on and give us nothing.  Zip.  Nada.   Pages upon pages upon pages of people asking for your "evidence".  You give us absolutely nothing.  Worse than nothing - you ignore everything you've been told, and type crap like the nonsense above.  All you do is stick your nose in the air, try to think up a new way to tell us how superior you are, and have fun typing more insults.  

We tell you and tell you and tell you:  Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.    We tell you that we have not seen sufficient substantive empirical evidence to support belief in any deities.   Evidence, not something from a book of fairy tales, not stories for people who had "experiences", not philosophical arguments, not "look around you, only an idiot looks at nature and fails to see god" - - - you keep flapping your jaw about evidence, so give us the evidence.  

Put up or shut up.  How much longer are you going to spread shit all over our carpets and try to claim you're throwing pearls before swine?

I have to ask you to stop and think more carefully.

Read the question:

People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence. Which are you?

"Where is the evidence?" is not one of the answers. The answers are one of the following:
a) I've examined the evidence and found it lacking, or
b) I'm incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

I don't have to answer your insulting 2-option proposition, because they are essentially flawed to begin with.  They are a word-salad way of saying "evidence exists but you're either too stupid or too incompetent to recognize it", therefore, either way, I win.  What a crock.  And you really apparently think that's acceptable debate technique.

Evidence.  Not arguments.  Not word-salad.  Not quotes from books or philosophical musings.  The only "evidence" that will EVER convince me of the existence of something like a deity (or whatever most humans think a deity is . . . ) is scientific proof.   Concrete, measurable, have the creature show up to be measured and videotaped proof.  When that happens, I will change my stance.  If you know that this has already happened, show us, and we'll thank you.  If not,  .

[Redbeard The Pink]

You  don't win in an infinite regress. Nobody does. Either intelligent force was eternal, or matter was eternal. Neither makes sense, and matter being eternal is no more reasonable than intelligence.

It is a fact of science that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. What part of that makes it unreasonable to assume that the sum of matter and energy in the Universe is constant and eternal? Even if an eternal Universe isn't a reasonable assumption, that doesn't make an eternal intelligence a more reasonable assumption.


Furthermore, now you've set up a false dichotomy. It's also possible that neither matter nor intelligence is eternal, and that the Universe as we know it essentially sprang from nowhere due to some natural event, without any guidance or help from magic. I know of no evidence to suggest otherwise, except the cultural opinions of ancient peoples (which generally only qualify as claims rather than actual evidence).


The chaos and complexity of our Universe is exactly what we'd expect to see if this much matter and energy were whizzing through such a vast space and interacting according to consistent laws over a vast expanse of time with nobody to govern it. There is nothing about the Universe that requires a designer, and "I don't know" is always a better answer than "I don't have any evidence, but claim to know anyway."

[Delicate]

I have to ask you to stop and think more carefully.

Read the question:

People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence. Which are you?

"Where is the evidence?" is not one of the answers. The answers are one of the following:
a) I've examined the evidence and found it lacking, or
b) I'm incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Those are the only two possibilities that can explain why someone sees a lack of evidence. 

So once again: Which is it?


Pretty sure noone's talking about the existence of the terms.


You're good at repeating slogans. Too bad you don't understand them.

It's been about 50 years since justified true belief was refuted. For my struggle (and those of contemporary epistemologists) you can thank Edmund Gettier.

But to keep the discussion on track, the bottom line is: Your belief+knowledge account of your view about the existence of God refutes atheism itself. 

Here's why:

1) The JTB account entails that if a belief is justified and true, it is knowledge.
2) Your belief (atheism) is not knowledge (agnosticism)
3) Therefore your belief (atheism) is not both justified and true. (modus tollens)

Taking (3) as a premise in a second argument, we get the following:
1) If a conjunction is false, one or both of the conjuncts are false.
2) The conjunction "The belief (atheism) is true and justified" is false.
3) Therefore, either atheism is unjustified, or atheism is false, or atheism is both unjustified and false.

Read the second conclusion again. You're logically committed to the view that atheism is either false, or unjustified, or it's false AND unjustified.

Someone who knows a bit of formal logic can verify the structure of my argument here.

Thanks for playing. Now tell me about your justified true belief.

I can see one fault here, atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief. I'm surprised you overlooked this since you say atheists are always telling you this.

It might be the case that you're constantly being told the same arguments by atheists because you're constantly ignoring the arguments resulting in them being repeatedly explained.

Atheists say things. Deepak Chopra says things. Politicians say things. Lawyers say things. Salesmen say things.

Who is to believe without evidence?

[Delicate]

Well I think they are false. They think I'm false.

According to me God exists.

To coin a phrase: that's asserted but not demonstrated.

When I purport to be doing a demonstration I'll call on you.

Until then your off-topic, out of context misunderstandings don't look encouraging.

Go back and look at the context of the discussion again.

[Cyberman]

You accord that "God" exists. Stow the condescension and demonstrate that existence.

[Cato]

You accord that "God" exists. Stow the condescension and demonstrate that existence.

He knows he can't which is why he's here throwing a temper tantrum.

[Edwardo Piet]

Which Clockmaker is best: the one whose clock unfolds time regularly, or the one whose clock needs constant attention and readjustment?

Well personally mine certainly doesn't need attention and readjustment but I certainly appreciate it when it gets it.

I mean it just feels so good for it to get atten-

Oh wait I misread... "clock" right...

[Nay_Sayer]

I can see one fault here, atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief.  I'm surprised you overlooked this since you say atheists are always telling you this.

It might be the case that you're constantly being told the same arguments by atheists because you're constantly ignoring the arguments resulting in them being repeatedly explained.

Atheists say things. Deepak Chopra says things. Politicians say things. Lawyers say things. Salesmen say things.

Who is to believe without evidence?

Judging by your posts, You.
I continue to pray FSM unhardens your heart.

[Nay_Sayer]

You accord that "God" exists. Stow the condescension and demonstrate that existence.

He knows he can't which is why he's here throwing a temper tantrum.

Now now, It's just you Atheist lot are irrational mean doo doo heads who won't hang out with him and his imaginary buddy.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I can see one fault here, atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief.  I'm surprised you overlooked this since you say atheists are always telling you this.

It might be the case that you're constantly being told the same arguments by atheists because you're constantly ignoring the arguments resulting in them being repeatedly explained.

Atheists say things. Deepak Chopra says things. Politicians say things. Lawyers say things. Salesmen say things.

Who is to believe without evidence?

Delicate says things. He isn't to be believed without evidence either.

You don't have to believe an atheist, and he (most of us, but I prefer not to speak for others) could give a fuck what you believe - we know how the term "evidence" is defined, and how it works with those who are qualified to evaluate it on legal and scientific grounds, and we have plenty of it. Just keep that in mind when you decide to harass those who don't believe your garbage.