If Atheism Means a Lack of Belief in There being a God?

[Ella S.]

Using "prove" in the way the word is used in law (rather than in mathematics), we can say it has been proven that there are no Gods currently answering a statistically significant number of prayers in one particular category ("prayers for a sick person to become well"), or that they don't answer prayers offered up by a statistically significant fraction of a sample drawn up from devout practicing Christians in the location studied.

It doesn't prove that, for example, there's isn't a tribal God in some remove village, who is highly responsive, but only to prayers offered up by His chosen people.

It certainly seems to rule out certain interpretations of the Christian deity (eg "name and claim"), though even then it's proponents could try arguing that God's ways are mysterious, and it is not for us to know if he's deliberately not answering prayers monitored by scientific studies because He doesn't want to provide proof He exists as that would reduce the opportunity to be virtuous by having faith.


It is basically a terribly tricky area, and that's before you get into Descartes, and brains in jars.

I think I see what you're saying. I agree that we should accept the fact that, just because something is likely, that does not make it certain. Even if we come to a conclusion through cogent induction, that is not an absolute proof of that conclusion.

My response to you, then, seems to have missed your point; we should always remain skeptical about such claims, no matter how likely they are.

This is a good reminder for me and a great example of how that can be done. I appreciate the insight.

 

[Aletheia Athanatos]

Why not?

I mean, the only reason to hold the positive belief, say, that dinosaurs are extinct is a lack of evidence for them living now.

Personally, I have no issue saying that dinosaurs are extinct. I also see no need to have a special standard for gods and fairies.

An absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It may not be perfect proof of absence, but it's often strong enough for practical certainty.

For practical certainty, I agree. And yes, the following argument is valid:
It is likely that, if case X were to happen, then Y would follow
We do not see Y happening
This reduces the chances of X being the case, compared to alternative Z that doesn't predict Y.

But I was talking about absolute certainty.

I don't hold a 100% certainty that dinosaurs don't exist. For example, I can't mathematically prove that is impossible that an intelligent species visited the planet Earth a few hundred million years ago to capture a breeding population of cute steggies to take back to their home planet as pets. Ginormously improbable, but not 100% impossible.

 

[Aletheia Athanatos]

There are now a bunch of chickens marching outside my front door waving protest placards saying "We're dinosaurs too" and "Taxonomists unfair to bird brains".

 

[Kfox]

Why do you believe there is no God?

I see no evidence of anything existing, that is worthy of being called "God".