atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Majikthise]

Originally Posted by Shtef

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

Wow!I had no idea scientists were in the business of justifying atheism.

Originally Posted by Shtef

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

There is no proof to support the exsistance of life other than our own in the universe , but it is , in the educated opinion of many, a statistical inevitability. The question of whether or not god exsists for an atheist could be ," Why waste my time worrying about it when I don't need it and it certainly will not impact my life for the better?". So does god exsist? Evidence for gods exsistance outside the the musings of men.....none. Scientific evidence for the exsistance of god...none.



[/quote]In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief[/quote]

For me, there's just no fence sitting on this one. Sorry agnostics.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The lack of evidence is circumstantial at best.

And circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

It can never prove or indicate a thing.

I've never claimed proof. On the other hand, to suggest that circumstantial evidence "can never ... indicate a thing" is simply preposterous.

Edited to add the following from Wikipedia...

The argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true

A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

- Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall College Div; 10th edition (1998).

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Leprechauns,unicorns, cyclops, kraken, dragons, ape men, sea monsters etc are all mythical beings but usually have real-world origins.
A god is in a totally different league to such creatures and really should not be compared. All cultures have a concept of deity and a religion, and their religions more often than not stem from the concept of a single divine force in the universe. Mythological creatures can easily be disproven due to their lack of physical existance, proving the non-existance of a non-physical, hidden force that in most cases is seen as the origin of the concept of existance itself, and thus technically lies outside of existance is, as you can see, incomparable.

Thus you believe that this applies to the Invisable Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster as well? You're claiming that this doesn't apply to god because he doesn't have a basis in the real world? BTW, what is the real world basis of a unicorn or fairy? And you're also claiming it doesn't apply to God because you believe he created the world? Why should the requirements of proof be different for God just because he is said to have done something the others haven't? if I find a story about a fairy creating the world, does that mean the same thing applies to fairies as well?

What you're suggesting is theist atheism ie. believing in one concept of deity but not another, which does not make sense, you are right. I prefer to see different gods as simply different cultures attempting to imagine the unimaginable.

Or perhaps it was a way of creating explanations for things they had no other way of explaining? Why do the tides rise and fall? Oh, because Poseidon does it. it's called the God of the Gaps. And doesn't Christianity do the same thing? What is it that Christianity provides that no other religion can? don't say it is truth - each and every religion has claimed to be the truth, and they all have as much claim to it as Christianity.

Personally i would say this is exaggeration, i don't think he had many followers and those followers he did have were unlikely to be noteworthy in history.

What about all those miracles? Feeding the great crowd with a loaf of bread? Surely there would have been one person who wrote that down!

It could be that extrabiblical references to jesus were destroyed during early Roman persecution, but that is just speculation.

Including the records of herod's order to kill all the male children? And what about the other instances in the Bible? We have very good records of Egyptian history, yet there is no record of the plagues of Egypt.

For me the best evidence for the existance of Jesus are the Mandaens. They are the "descendants" of the followers of John the Baptist, a real figure we know existed, they believe Jesus was a real man, they don't like him but they do believe he existed.

So the fact the believe he existed even though they don't like him? That's evidence? Somebody believing one particular point of view despite the fact they'd prefer it to be wrong is proof that their point of view is correct? I can believe that Day of Our Lives is real, despite the fact I would want it to be ficticious. Would that mean that it really is real? After all, I want it to be ficticious, so if I believe it is real, I must surely have a very good reason to believe that a particular bad soapie is indeed factual. A person's belief about something does not influence that thing in any way.

I disagree, absence of evidence is just that, absence of evidence. Extrapolating absence of evidence to become evidence of absence is, for me, taking it one step too far.

Perhaps you are right. perhaps the fact that there is no evidence of the elephant sitting on my knee is not in fact evidence that the elephant is not there...

To have evidence of absence we need evidence of myth origin or evidence that precludes the real world existance of the object in question.

You mean like something that is self contradictory? Like God knowing for sure what will happen tomorrow, but being able to change it?

See, then i wouldn't call you a strong atheist, just an atheist. A strong atheist as i know them are certain of the non-existance of deity and will not listen to theist reasoning of any kind, even evidence to the contrary they would reject (although i don't know how you could have actual evidence for deity).

I am a strong atheist. I am certain that there is no God, just as I am certain that dinosaurs once existed. Of course, if concrete and verifiable proof was offered tomorrow that proved beyond any doubt that all dinosaurs were hoaxes, then i'd re-evaluate my position on that too.

[Sunstone]

Jay, did you have to quote Copi and Cohen's 10th edition? I'm feeling old now. Their second edition was my text for Intro To Logic 100 back in the days when I was young, beautiful, and knew everything. Lordy! Time flies!

I have to agree that in some cases an absence of evidence is evidence of an absence. The strength of such evidence depends, in my understanding, on making a case that it is reasonable to expect evidence in the circumstances.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I have to agree that in some cases an absence of evidence is evidence of an absence. The strength of such evidence depends, in my understanding, on making a case that it is reasonable to expect evidence in the circumstances.

As I suggested in post #35: "The absence of evidence is, in all cases, evidence. The quality/worth of this evidence depends on the likelihood of such an absence." I agree that "strength" is a better term here than was "quality/worth" - thanks.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

As I suggested in post #35: "The absence of evidence is, in all cases, evidence. The quality/worth of this evidence depends on the likelihood of such an absence." I agree that "strength" is a better term here than was "quality/worth" - thanks.

In all cases? I suppose that necessarily follows from the principle. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

The lack of evidence is circumstantial at best. It can never prove or indicate a thing. Given the gentleman who fought off the muggers, you might have missed his smoking gun. Too many conclusions are reached by using Jay's logic and I am sure many have died because of it.

Ah, but he could show you the smoking gun. he could tell you where it happened, and you could go there and find the dead bodies of the muggers laying in the alleyway with bullets in them that match the ones in the gun. People would have reported the gunshot. All the evidence you need.

And yet, when God does this, the evidence is missing. Jesus existed, says the Bible. And yet, when we look for evidence, there is none. he was a carpenter, yet there are no works he made. He performed miracles in front of witnesses, yet there are no eyewitness accounts. he was tried and executed by the Roman government, yet there are no records of it, despite the Romans being rather meticulous record keepers. We can conclude what evidence there will be (just as we determined in the earlier example that if the immaculately dressed man shot the muggers there should be some shot muggers), yet this evidence doesn't seem to exist.