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

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by DarkSun
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.

I don't understand this. Earlier in this thread you derided someone by stating:

But if you like to feel superior to eighty or ninety percent of the world then that's up to you.

and now you're going against the majority of opinion that has been expressed here and standing only on "what makes sense to me" even though you have no rational basis for what you believe. How is that not making yourself superior to everyone else? More importantly, why are you so closed-minded that you will not accept a rational conclusion to the stated problem?

This is where I have the hardest time with religious thought. Once a religious person believes they have the answer they will do everything to defend it, often making an arse of themselves in the process. Isn't it better to be objective, discuss the matter with others and mutually come to a conclusion based on the evidence?

 

[McBell]

Mestemia was actually wrong in saying "he's suggesting that belief in anything is right until proven wrong" because that's not entirely accurate.

Hmm.
You are correct.
I was wrong.
You are not taking the stance that a statement is correct by default until proven wrong.
My apologies for saying you were.


No, what you are doing is attempting to convince people outside the choir that the belief in something without any evidence to support it is just as logical, rational, etc. as not believing something because there is no evidence to support it.

BTW, how has that been working out?


There are just to many thread with idiots promoting idiocy.
I got them confused.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

3. However, if two people have contrary beliefs, each with equal amounts of empirical evidence, then neither belief is more justified than the other.

5. However, that does not negate the fact each individual has equal empirical evidence for each view.

6. To eliminate bias from the situation when determining which viewpoint is most right, you would have to pick the viewpoint supported by scientific evidence.

10. If there is no evidence for or against the views of each of the people in disagreement - then according to the evidence - they are both equally justified.

Lets get back to that.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that there is "equal" amount of evidence for and against the case. I also think that once or twice you sum this equal up as "no evidence". So both sides would have no evidence.
I disagree.

First of all when we talk about the existence of "god" we are actually NOT talking about "something we can call god". Most of the time even when not said and most often by theists avoided we do talk about some SPECIFIC god. a specific God that always gets blurry in definition when we reach certain logical arguments that actually DO disproove that specific version of a god.

Many times have i made such arguments only to either get a redefined version of God, a claim that one would have to interpret things differently or finally a claim that God was beyond even logic (which would render all talks senseless).

You cant even get two theists to agree on all the details of their god EVEN if they suposedly belong to the same denomination of their religion.

So when for example we speak about a God who has (himself) an absolute freedom of choice while at the same time being an absolute moral being then such a god is disproovable on mere logical arguments.

If we speak about a God who offers us free will while at the same time is allknowing (including the future) then this is disproovable on logical grounds.

If we speak about a God who created this universe 10000 years ago then there is a massive amount of evidence AGAINST this God while there is only ONE scriptural basis for the claim.

The only kind of god where we indeed have an equal amount of evidence for and against the case is a deistic god. and indeed there exists neither evidence for nor against such a god. It is a mere claim.

Contrary to your opinion however i think that believe in order to be justified requires a minimum amount of evidence. Hence a belief in such a deistic god would require at least something.

Not believing in something (in contrast to actually disbelieving it) doesnt require any evidence at all.

So saying "i have no evidence for any deistic God therefore do not assume one to exist" is more justified than saying "i have no evidence for any deistic god but i believe/assume one exists".

One must hereby allways keep in mind that actively assuming something to NOT exist is not the same as simply not assuming its existence.

But even here we could find more arguments against the existence of a specific god than for its existence.
If we speak about a supposed caring God who created the universe, who talks with us, listens to prayers, who wants us to know him, then judging by the daily life on this planet we can say that there is much that he COULD do, there is much that should be observable.
Yet none is.

So the question is what the difference between a nonexisting caring God is and one that obviously doesnt act at all?

But the case to demand evidence for the claim of existence instead of the claim of nonexistence has even more reasonable grounds.
If we look at all the forgery that mankind is capable of and that has already happened, then we should rather demand evidence for claims than evidence for the other case.

If we look at the fact that there are billions of alternatives that "might" be true then we should demand evidence FOR the (in the end) one true scenario instead of demanding evidence for the billions-1 scenarios that are false.

In short:
Neither is the evidence for and against a particular god equal, neither is it zero and neither should we demand evidence at all for the idea that we do not believe or accept something but rather the contrary: demand evidence in order to believe/accept something.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, we know. And we know that that makes you feel better about yourself, and it makes you feel superior to all of us pushy atheists. Unfortunately, it's not the truth. Your disbelief in pixies is more justified than belief.

That's a strawman. I never said belief or disbelief can make a person superior to someone to disagrees. I said failure to acknowledge equality when each person has zero evidence for their belief... is probably a little arrogant.

Anyway...

I'm sending the link to this thread to another person to see what his opinion is. If I am misguided, then hopefully they'll be able to explain.

 

[DarkSun]

In short:
Neither is the evidence for and against a particular god equal, neither is it zero and neither should we demand evidence at all for the idea that we do not believe or accept something but rather the contrary: demand evidence in order to believe/accept something.

Both theists and atheists have evidence to support their view. They're both using inductive reasoning. But that doesn't mean either of them have empirical evidence for or against - which is what I'm basing my "equally justified" statement on.

 

[DarkSun]

This is why I explained the scientific method to you. That's how it works. A hypothesis is proposed and tested. If evidence is found to support it, it becomes more than a hypothesis. If not, it's thrown out. Apply this to the God debate, and you get:

Hypothesis: An omnimax, intervening, loving, creator god exists.
Tests: Looking for evidence in the universe that could only point to that being existing.
Results: Some people claim it's true, but that's the only "evidence" - if you consider it that - to be found.
Conclusion: As far as we're concerned this god does not exist.

You do realise that science doesn't even address God? That's the default position, because you can't prove either way.

Don't believe me?

Hypothesis: Any belief in a God-concept, even one which states God is a driving force for change, or possibly in a personal God, cannot possibly be true.
Tests: Looking for evidence in the universe that disproves even the remotest possibility that a God of any kind could exist.
Results: Some people claim it's true, but that's the only "evidence" - if you consider it that - to be found.
Conclusion: As far as we're concerned, a conclusion cannot be made as to whether God exists.

 

[DarkSun]

Well, the best place to go would be for you to understand the argument. That's not at all how this has gone. It's more like this:

You: Belief in disbelief in God are equally justified because they both have zero evidence supporting them.
Us: When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Believers cannot support their claim with evidence. Therefore, it is more justified not to believe until they can present this evidence.
You: But belief and disbelief in God are equally justified because they both have zero evidence supporting them. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.
Us:

You do realise that wasn't actually my reply, right?

 

[Magic Man]

That's a strawman. I never said belief or disbelief can make a person superior to someone to disagrees. I said failure to acknowledge equality when each person has zero evidence for their belief... is probably a little arrogant.

I didn't say you said that, which would tend to mean this is a strawman. What I said was that you like to think you're better than us atheists because you don't "put believers down by saying you're better than them for not believing". You think that we are being jerks by saying we know better than theists, and you like to think that your saying theists have as much justification to believe makes you better than atheists.

Anyway...

I'm sending the link to this thread to another person to see what his opinion is. If I am misguided, then hopefully they'll be able to explain.

I hope so. It's hard to imagine, now that at least 4 or 5 of us have tried several different ways to get it through to you, but I'll hold out hope.

 

[DarkSun]

Hope you don't mind me nabbing this - I think it might help you begin to understand what's been said (up to page 16 anyway).

There is no need for non-theists to seek evidence of the non-existence of anybody's gods and/or goddesses. Many of us have tried to get through to you that until there is evidence that one of these god concepts might be true, the proposal doesn't merit serious consideration. This is what you are not hearing, and why this conversation is going nowhere.

To a rational person, the proposal of "god" and "no god" are not equal: Everything we know to be true about this world we live in - every fact that transcends the barrier of culture and belief - has been the result of a philosophical foundation of materialistic naturalism and various methods of empirical investigation.

A supernatural perspective brings nothing to the table. It offers nothing in terms of expanding our collective knowledge or digging into the mysteries of life. For people who are interested in what is TRUE and FACTUAL, proposals with no evidentiary basis are not worthy of consideration.

That's all there is to it. For us, "god" and "no god" are not equal: we care about what is factual and true. We care about knowledge that transcends (as opposed to reinforces) cultural barriers - knowledge that unites rather than divides us. We go out of our way to only incorporate proposals with supporting evidence into our world view. THAT is why we have no belief in gods. It's nothing to do with "evidence of no-gods". "No gods" simply happens to be the default position for a rational person UNTIL there is evidence that such beings might exist.

If we were to start accepting all non-evidenced proposals as "equally" justified - and accepting a supernatural world view as "equal" to materialistic naturalism, how would we differentiate between Santa Claus and Jesus Christ? Atheists would not know where to begin to sift through all the non-evidenced, absurd proposals people have come up with throughout human history, because while they are all equal to each other, none are capable of expanding our collective knowledge of what is factual and transcending cultural barriers the way the philosophy of materialistic naturalism - and its companion, empirical investigation - can.

That's what we care about, so it is quite impossible for us to view supernatural proposals as "equal" to materialistic naturalism.

Perhaps you don't care about what is factual. Which is fine - if the statistics on religious belief are any indication, you've got lots of company. But for a person who accuses atheists of having a superiority complex, I have to wonder at your persistent efforts and disparaging, belittling and misrepresenting our world view.

To Alceste.

I'm sorry for responding to your wonderfully written post so crudely, but I don't think you've been understanding me.

You're claiming that disbelief in God is the only factual view of the world which can be of any use. But doesn't painted wolf have a god-concept similar to that of the native-Americans... and isn't she an evolutionary biologist?

The fact is, claiming the view that "any form of God does not exist", is equally justified by the available scientific evidence as belief in any form of God.

In fact, science doesn't even address God, because by nature, the scientific method can't prove one way or the other. So to say atheism is more rational than theism is a misnomer - because both sides have the same amount of empirical evidence supporting them - even if both sides feel justified through their inductive reasoning.

So I'm sorry, but if you are claiming that belief is illogical... and that you're more logical than everyone else... but despite such claims, you have no evidence besides a lack of evidence... then if that isn't indicative of a superiority complex, then I really am confused.

That's not to say you're not a wonderful person. There are plenty of theists who like to believe they're better than everyone else too.

 

[Magic Man]

You do realise that science doesn't even address God? That's the default position, because you can't prove either way.

No, but it can address the claims made about an interventionalist, omnimax God. Besides, what I'm saying is that if you approach every question with the scientific method, one answer is always more justified.

Don't believe me?

Yes, yes, we all know "science doesn't address God". It would just be nice if you weren't using that as a "Get out of jail free" card. The fact is science can address some claims about God.

Hypothesis: Any belief in a God-concept, even one which states God is a driving force for change, or possibly in a personal God, cannot possibly be true.
Tests: Looking for evidence in the universe that disproves even the remotest possibility that a God of any kinds could exist.
Results: Some people claim it's true, but that's the only "evidence" - if you consider it that - to be found.
Conclusion: As far as we're concerned, a conclusion cannot be made as to whether God exists.

Now, let's go with one that's a little more accurate:

Hypothesis: God answers prayers.
Tests: Have one group of people pray for something specific, like getting a house or something, and have another group not pray at all.
Results: About the same number in each group got what the prayers were for.
Conclusion: God doesn't answer prayers, since about the same number of people who didn't pray got what they wanted anyway.

 

[Magic Man]

You do realise that wasn't actually my reply, right?

I realize that your reply was basically that, yes.

 

[DarkSun]

I didn't say you said that, which would tend to mean this is a strawman. What I said was that you like to think you're better than us atheists because you don't "put believers down by saying you're better than them for not believing". You think that we are being jerks by saying we know better than theists, and you like to think that your saying theists have as much justification to believe makes you better than atheists.

No I don't. Please quote me where I've said that.

I hope so. It's hard to imagine, now that at least 4 or 5 of us have tried several different ways to get it through to you, but I'll hold out hope.

Actually, I sent the e-mail to four friends in the end. Two theists, two atheists. We'll see what happens.

 

[DarkSun]

Now, let's go with one that's a little more accurate:

Hypothesis: God answers prayers.
Tests: Have one group of people pray for something specific, like getting a house or something, and have another group not pray at all.
Results: About the same number in each group got what the prayers were for.
Conclusion: God doesn't answer prayers, since about the same number of people who didn't pray got what they wanted anyway.

Meh. I actually agree with this.

But I don't see how it disproves God's existence. Relevance?

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, yes, we all know "science doesn't address God". It would just be nice if you weren't using that as a "Get out of jail free" card. The fact is science can address some claims about God.

Then why are you addressing God with the scientific method?

Edit:

Better still, why are you saying your disbelief in God is more logical than someone else's belief when you've as well as admitted that you can't prove for or against?

 

[Magic Man]

To Alceste.

I'm sorry for responding to your wonderfully written post so crudely, but I don't think you've been understanding me.

Of course. That's it.

You're claiming that disbelief in God is the only factual view of the world which can be of any use. But doesn't painted wolf have a god-concept similar to that of the native-Americans... and isn't she an evolutionary biologist?

Would you pleas stop equivocating all god concepts? I've told you several times that all god concepts are not equal. Atheists are necessarily don't believe in the Abrahamic god. Basically, this is what you sound like:

Us: I don't like chairs.
You: You don't like people who are the heads of committees?
Us: No, I just don't like the inanimate objects that are made to sit on.

"God" has many different meanings to many different people. The only one atheists generally say is false and/or ridiculous is the Abrahamic one, a theistic, omnimax, interventionalist one.

The fact is, claiming the view that "any form of God does not exist", is equally justified by the available scientific evidence as belief in any form of God.

But we're not talking about any form of God. We're talking about specific versions of God. As I said, most atheists won't really disagree with the pantheistic version of God. I also don't disagree with the view of god as love. I just disagree on using that label for that thing.

In fact, science doesn't even address God, because by nature, the scientific method can't prove one way or the other. So to say atheism is more rational than theism is a misnomer - because both sides have the same amount of empirical evidence supporting them - even if both sides feel justified through their inductive reasoning.

Didn't you just tell me that this wasn't your response to us?

So I'm sorry, but if you are claiming that belief is illogical... and that you're more logical than everyone else... and you have no evidence besides a lack of evidence... then if that isn't indicative of a superiority complex, then I really am confused.

There it is, the accusation of a superiority complex. I'm glad you made it that clear. I do have lack of evidence against the type of God I say is illogical. You just don't want to hear it. So, who was it again with the superiority complex?

That's not to say you're not a wonderful person. There are plenty of theists who like to believe they're better than everyone else too.

Yup, like you, for instance.

 

[Magic Man]

No I don't. Please quote me where I've said that.

You haven't come out and said. You don't want to admit it. It's just clearly implied in the whole thread.

Actually, I sent the e-mail to four friends in the end. Two theists, two atheists. We'll see what happens.

Again, I hope they can get through to you.

 

[Magic Man]

Meh. I actually agree with this.

But I don't see how it disproves God's existence. Relevance?

Because that's one of the claims made about the version of God we're talking about. It's like the tooth fairy example. You can clearly demonstrate that no fairy comes and takes your tooth and leaves you money. You can clearly see that it's a human being that does it. Since you can disprove an integral claim about that being, you have evidence against that being existing.

Like here, you can do the same experiment with many qualities assigned to the Abrahamic god. And with every one you get the same answer.

 

[Magic Man]

Then why are you addressing God with the scientific method?

Because, as I said, the scientific method can address certain claims made about God. You even agreed to a specific case. No, science is never going to say "God does not exist", but that's mainly because of the wide range of meanings for "God" that exist. Science can say that certain qualities don't work.

Edit:

Better still, why are you saying your disbelief in God is more logical than someone else's belief when you've as well as admitted that you can't prove for or against?

I haven't admitted that. You just want me to have done that. What I've admitted is that science can prove and disprove some claims about God. If the claims concerning a certain god concept are proven wrong, it's more logical not to believe in that god concept.

 

[DarkSun]

Didn't you just tell me that this wasn't your response to us?

I didn't respond to "the burden of proof rests with you" - with a repetition of what I'd origianlly said.

And besides, disbelief in all forms of God isn't supported by the evidence either.

 

[Magic Man]

I didn't respond to "the burden of proof rests with you" - with a repetition of what I'd origianlly said.

What? You responded to someone else's response with your original statement.

And besides, disbelief in all forms of God isn't supported by the evidence either.

Who ever said it was? I've told you several times that this is the problem. No one has ever claimed this, at least not here. We're talking specifically about one particular god, not all forms of god. Talking about all forms of god is just stupid. There are too many versions to have a meaningful conversation. All we're concerned with is the one god concept, the Abrahamic one.