To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Hitchey]

Imagine these scenarios:

1 - You're a native American living freely in Europe (don't you mean living freely in N. America?) One night, you have a dream about white men coming to your land in big ships. The dream turns bleak. You dream of sickness, of disease, of death, of pain all because of the white men. When you wake up, you were so sure that the dream was real - but when you tell your elders they automatically console you... and tell you that such a thing will never happen, and that it was all a figment of your imagination. You keep believing what you saw to be true, and eventually everyone around you gives up on you as being deluded. Prove that the girl's dream was wrong.

Prove that her dream was not a vision of the future? Did someone have such a dream? No? Well, I'd say people have all sorts of dreams. Some dreams must come to fruition. If one does, is anything proven?

2 - You're living in England in the 1750s. You have a firm view in mind that all swans are white. Someone then travels to Australia fifty years later and sends you back a letter telling you that they saw a black swan. But this can't be true. Swans are white. Your friend is obviously lying because black swans clearly don't exist, as you've never seen one yourself before. Prove that the man was lying.

I wouldn't do that. My belief that all swans are white I would never defend with religious fervour. If someone presented me with contrary evidence I could always personally investigate the claim and examine the physical evidence.

3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

I have chatted with very young children, six and seven year olds, who have expressed to me with unquestioning certainty that both God and Jesus are real. I am confident they did not come to such belief all on their own. Someone taught them these things and at such a young age they neither have the experience nor the knowledge to form educated opinions of their own. If instead of holding a belief in God or Jesus they believed firmly in fairies, ghosts, and goblins, would you not say they had been unduly influenced? Brainwashed is so harsh a term and is too loosely tossed around.

 

[DarkSun]

I don't think your problem is failure to explain yourself; it's a failure in conceptualization. Do you really think that belief in the tooth fairy is as reasonable as disbelief in it? Maybe you should think twice about mowing your lawn, in case there really are fairies in the bottom of your garden? Do you make sure to live in a house with a chimney, in case Santa Claus is real? But what about the tiny invisible gremlins in your nose? Better not blow your nose, just in case. Same for driving your car, because there is a strong possibility that the streets are filled with invisible creatures of every description.

You need some principle to make sense of all these possibilities. Does the name Occam ring a bell?

A failure to conceptualise? Maybe. Because I don't see how what you're saying even disproves what I've said. So it's either my problem or everyone elses... I'm going to go with what makes sense to me. :areyoucra

Anyway, why don't I'm in danger when mowing the lawn?

I don't believe in fairies.

I don't have to worry about being attacked.

A minority do believe in fairies.

They do.

Neither side has more empirical evidence (unless you dig up your garden). I'm not saying that I do believe in fairies, I'm just saying that based on the evidence, people who believe and disbelieve aren't more or less supported than each other.

Understand?

 

[Commoner]

Neither side has more empirical evidence (unless you dig up your garden). I'm not saying that I do believe in fairies, I'm just saying that based on the evidence, people who believe and disbelieve aren't more or less supported than each other.

Understand?

What would "empirical evidence for disbelief" look like?

 

[DarkSun]

No, they don't. Not sure how many times I have to explain this to you. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a certain type of God doesn't exist, just as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sun is not up where I live at midnight.

Disprove pantheism.

Actually, the correct answer is "the person who disbelieves in the tooth fairy".

Based on what evidence?

The problem is it's not hard to understand. We get it. You think that belief in every type of god is as justified as disbelief in any gods because there's no evidence for either side. The problem is not that we don't understand what you're saying. The problem is that you don't understand what we're saying, or that you're continuing to reject what we're saying at this point simply because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

Perhaps if you explained why I'm wrong without using an example which fits with what I've been saying?

The explanation is fine, the concept you're explaining is wrong.

I don't see how, and from where I'm standing, the examples that you've provided don't discredit the concept. The problem is either yours or mine. :S

You do realize that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, right? We've discredited you many times now. You just refuse to see it.

This is the gist of the conversation so far:

P1 - All beliefs are justified unless they are not supported by the empirical evidence.
P1 - Belief and disbelief in God are both equally justified since each is based on zero evidence.
P2 - Do you believe in Santa Clause?
P1 - No?
P2 - You're obviously doing that because belief in Santa is ludicrous, therefore, belief in Santa is not equally justified to disbelief.
P1 - Even though I think the belief is ludicrous, that's my opinion, and it is no less justified empirically (with scientific evidence) than belief in Santa.
P2 - But now you're being intellectually dishonest. If you don't believe in Santa Clause, you must think disbelief in Santa is more justified.
P1 - No, I think belief in Santa is silly, but I don't see how the evidence points one way or the other.
P2 - You just don't understand what I'm saying!
P1 - Yes I do... you don't understand me.

... So where do we go from here?

I'm sorry, weren't you the one who originally used the term in this thread? Wouldn't it be up to you to define it?

True.

 

[imaginaryme]

What would "empirical evidence for disbelief" look like?

A left-handed screwdriver, silly.

 

[DarkSun]

What would "empirical evidence for disbelief" look like?

What would empirical evidence for belief look like?

 

[Commoner]

What would empirical evidence for belief look like?

Well, in the case of pixies - a pixie.

 

[DarkSun]

I don't think you are. You just don't seem to be applying it in this case.

Science aims to be unbiased. :sarcastic

 

[Willamena]

The point is that people believe or disbelieve based on evidence.

 

[DarkSun]

Well, in the case of pixies - a pixie.

Maybe we just haven't found the pixies yet. Just like we hadn't found black swans until the 1900s.

Lack of evidence for something does not count as evidence against it.

 

[DarkSun]

The point is that people believe or disbelieve based on evidence.

On individual experience... yes.

 

[Commoner]

Maybe we just haven't found the pixies yet. Just like we hadn't found black swans until the 1900s.

Lack of evidence for something does not count as evidence against it.

Wait a minute, I asked what "empirical evidence for disbelief" would look like, not if lack of evidence is sufficient.

 

[DarkSun]

What would "empirical evidence for disbelief" look like?

What would empirical evidence for belief look like?

Well, in the case of pixies - a pixie.

Maybe we just haven't found the pixies yet. Just like we hadn't found black swans until the 1900s.

Lack of evidence for something does not count as evidence against it.

Wait a minute, I asked what "empirical evidence for disbelief" would look like, not if lack of evidence is sufficient.

Implying that the lack of pixies is evidence for the non-existence of pixies suggests you were saying that a lack of evidence for something is sufficient evidence against it.

Personally, I don't believe in pixies. But that doesn't mean I think my view is more empirically justified than the view of someone who does believe in pixies.

 

[Commoner]

Implying that the lack of pixies is evidence for the non-existence of pixies suggests you were saying that a lack of evidence for something is sufficient evidence against it.

Nope, I'm asking you what "empirical evidence for disbelief" would look like.

 

[DarkSun]

Nope, I'm asking you what "empirical evidence for disbelief" would look like.

And my reply was the rhetorical question: "what would empirical evidence for belief look like?"

The answer, in the case of God, is that there is no evidence for or against, which brings us back to the beginning of this circle.

Edit: Yes, I understand you can't prove a negative in this case, but you can't exactly prove the positive either.

Anyway, I'm off.

Alceste, I haven't read your posts yet, but I will.

 

[Commoner]

And my reply was the rhetorical question: "what would empirical evidence for belief look like?"

But we can both think of an example instantly. So I guess that wasn't really an answer, was it?

Don't go all cowardly on me now, tell me what would constitute as evidence for disbelief?

 

[JMorris]

ive been reading this thread up and down, and i must admit, i dont understand the point the OP is trying to make, maybe i missed a post that would clear it up.

how is it the responsibility of non-believers to disprove the claims that believers had made? its a matter of evidence to support one's claim. disbelief in a claim that has no supporting evidence is not only rational, but its the only rational position one can take.

for the example of the black swan. it wasnt unreasonable to disbelieve that a black swan existed when there was no evidence presented that it did indeed exist. to not believe in black swans once evidence was presented would unreasonable.

of course, belief and knowledge are 2 different things, and there is no need to believe in something that you know exists. black swans exist, we know that, theres no need to believe it. we know they exist because of evidence. so how is it unreasonable to not believe in black swans when no evidence of them had ever been presented?

i would agree that personal experience is evidence for the person. but you cant expect others to take it as such. and of course, personal experience cant be disproved, because personal experiences exist. but the same experience can be perceived differently by different people. and plenty of personal perceptions of experience have been proven to have been perceived incorrectly. examples being cases of ufo sightings, alien abductions, & big-foot sightings.

ufo's, alien abductions, & big-foot may well exist, but personal experience cant be counted on as hard evidence. we may both see the same animal, you may think its big-foot, and i may think its a bear. our perceptions of the experience has no impact on what the animal actually was, it could be either or neither. but the belief that the animal was a bear would be more reasonable since bears are known to exist, and big-foots are not.

 

[BlackSun]

in this thread: people who don't know what atheism is.

 

[BlackSun]

p.s. theism = belief in at least one god. atheism = the opposite of that. disbelief in at least one god. it means nothing more.

i haven't read every post in here but it is incredibly sad that people think that with atheism comes a whole mindset of insane notions.

I am an atheist and all that means to me is that religion is in no way a part of my life, and neither is the concept of "god" or "gods". I live my life, I do what I want and what I need to do, and that's it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Imagine these scenarios:

1 - You're a native American living freely in Europe. One night, you have a dream about white men coming to your land in big ships. The dream turns bleak. You dream of sickness, of disease, of death, of pain all because of the white men. When you wake up, you were so sure that the dream was real - but when you tell your elders they automatically console you... and tell you that such a thing will never happen, and that it was all a figment of your imagination. You keep believing what you saw to be true, and eventually everyone around you gives up on you as being deluded. Prove that the girl's dream was wrong.

Loaded and misleading question. You're attempting to draw parallels of religious experience to God with a true historical event and equating them. We don't know religious experience is true. But there are several rational, naturalistic explanations for religious experience. Once those have been ruled out, then we can have a discussion as to what the experience actually is or what it signifies.

2 - You're living in England in the 1750s. You have a firm view in mind that all swans are white. Someone then travels to Australia fifty years later and sends you back a letter telling you that they saw a black swan. But this can't be true. Swans are white. Your friend is obviously lying because black swans clearly don't exist, as you've never seen one yourself before. Prove that the man was lying.

Again, you are presupposing that God is true by drawing these parallels. We don't know if God exists or not, but it is easy to demonstrate black swans exist. And it's easy to furnish sufficient evidence for someone to accept that claim. It's not above proving the man was lying, it's about gathering enough evidence to confirm or reject the existence of the black swans. If you can furnish me with proof that God exists, have at it, hoss. I'll take an honest look at it. But you are being incredibly dishonest in your scenarios, intentionally or not.

3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

Easy. Can the parents prove to the child that God exists? Can they verify any of the religious claims with evidence? No? It's just faith? Then they are literally ************ their children. The child has been deluded into thinking whatever religion is true when there is no evidence to support that. Again, if you have any evidence, by all means furnish it.



That was a severe disappointment.