Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Neo-Scholastic]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

[Harry Nevis]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

HA.  When I see a believer post clear and obvious facts, it WILL be a miracle.

[masterofpuppets]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

You've made an equivocation fallacy here. It's not that atheists have no beliefs. It's that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods. It doesn't follow that atheists don't have beliefs about the purported "evidence" Christians give, or beliefs about the claim that a god exists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

You've made an equivocation fallacy here. It's not that atheists have no beliefs. It's that atheists have no belief in the existence of gods. It doesn't follow that atheists don't have beliefs about the purported "evidence" Christians give, or beliefs about the claim that a god exists.

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous. When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

[downbeatplumb]

So here Neil DeGrasse Tyson comments that disproving god is similar in disproving a bear in your backyard. If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it, until further evidence is presented.

Something like Gods is not as foolish as you may think:

(1) There is exponential technological change.
(2) We can yield sophisticated (but crude universe simulations)
(3) The simulations in 2 get better and better, on (1)
(4) There is no law of physics that says technological change will stop, i.e., no law that says we can't simulate an accurately detailed universe, with conscious beings.
(5) Therefore something like god (ourselves actually) is not a foolish proposition.

IS this Jordan AGAIN!!! fuck are there no other places for him to pester.

[Jesster]

Are you trying to convince us or just yourself, NS? I know what I believe. If you aren't going to address that, then you aren't going to change my mind about a single subject.

[downbeatplumb]

The more recent posts kinda show the problem with the "lack of belief" chestnut. Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

Do you see the important word in what you posted I high lighted it so you can see what it is.

Now I personally do have reasons to not believe in a god and that is simply because the whole idea is laughably childish. Now I am not trying to offend that is genuinely how I feel.
I find theists thought processes to be those of toddlers.
"Fish live in the sea so the sea was made for the fish to live in" is a thing that a four year old would say but that is the basis of ALL religion.

[Cyberman]

I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God.

You're being disingenuous again. Unaware of a thing =/= disbelieving in that thing. I'm just as sure you're aware of sheep's eyes as I am that you've never eaten one. Why do you make excuses for rejecting the nutritional value of a traditional middle eastern dish?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous.

 
IMO, this is a fair point.  If I have understood you correctly, especially regarding some of your posts in the what is atheism thread, then a main problem with atheism being defined as the lack of belief in god, is that even if one has a lack of belief, then that individual must have reasons for his or her lack of belief; therefore, those reasons are subject to scrutiny.  Have I understood correctly? 

Many of the secular members here have written that they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the existence of a deity.  Hence, IMO, in this thread and others concerning atheism, theism, and etc., it seems that theists and atheists are not using the term evidence in the same way: many of the secular posters here want hard, scientific, measurable data that would stand up to the intense scrutiny of multiple examinations being performed by different teams of qualified individuals, while some theist posters have said that the NT, along with their personal experience and observations of reality, is evidence for them.  Do you see things differently?



 

When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

IMO, If a person has presented arguments against the validity of your position, such as making statements that god does not exist (a strong atheist or even anti-theist stance), and then proceeds to fall back on the lack of belief (weak atheist) definition label after a thorough and valid rebuttal on your part, then I agree that it can come off as dodgy.  However, plenty of posters here have pointed out that many of the arguments made by theists rely on assertion, and from a skeptical and secular point of view, asserting the truth of a statement must be reinforced with sound logic and supported with proof/data that shows that each premise of the argument is in fact true.  Hence, do you find that these objections are dodgy? Do you think that the evidence that the secular members here have asked for is unreasonable?

Thanks for your time and attention.

[Nonpareil]

Most atheists don't just lack belief in God that have beliefs about the conclusions theists draw from certain clear and obvious facts. The atheists are saying they do not accept the evidence, give reasons for not accepting the evidence, then, oddly, say they have no beliefs.

No, Neo. We have beliefs.

It's just that none of those beliefs are a belief in gods, so the rest of them are utterly irrelevant to whether or not we are atheists.

And we're still waiting on any actual evidence - or, come to that, "clear and obvious facts" - to be presented in favor of theism.