Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[Bunyip]

I cant justify Gods absense by lack of evidence because what I feel is lack of evidence, if you like, for one God could be evidence for another.

I also do not have any clear image of what an external God is supppsed to look like. That is like telling me to find Waldo in sea of people but I dont know the original Waldo so how would I find Him? If one person came and prooved His existence by His presence, why should I take His claim He is the Waldo I am looking for?

Evidence means nothing. A lot of people are going off of what they want Waldo to be and try to find Him in ways they are comfortable. Conseqiently, they end up prooving wrong the claims each person makes in front of them.

If you dont believe there Is a Waldo to find, all you will see is a sea of people. No one person more special than the next. You cant find evidence for someone that does not exist. That is like trying to find evidence for the existence of an unconcieved child. Doesnt work that way.

If youre looking for evidence, you (people in general) must be agnostic. An atheist is one who believes no deities exist. Why find evidence for nothing?

Well what would evidence for nothing look like? Can you give an example of the sort of evidence for god not existing you think there could be?

 

[Bunyip]

I'd like to jump in here a bit regarding what we can claim and what we cannot. You have made me think seriously about the possibility of not being able to explain the experience of consciousness with empirical data. I think you have a great point after some reflection. But I don't think the philosophical position of materialism necessarily means that is isn't true. Even if unproven, the potential that materialism is true is as possible as the potential for dualism or idealism. To say it cannot be empirically proven doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe that's what makes it a philosophical position?

I also think there is a big difference in believing in the consciousness of others and believing in the possibility of God.

For one, I can communicate directly with others sharing a language, and I can get immediate feedback in the form of that same language. Perhaps that is not proof, but God does not do that. I can pray to god, and I do not hear language back.

Also, you had mentioned that there are physical/material correlates to consciousness. While this may not be direct evidence, we can certainly study those correlates as reasonable evidence to suggests that other consciousness exist. God, as far as I know, has no such physical/material correlates. My understanding of what "gods" is usually implies is that they are often conscious without any material/physical correlates. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest any reasonable conclusion that god exists, no material correlates whatsoever.

But yes, in the end, I do see you point. Materialism cannot be taken as fact without empirical evidence, and we may never see that evidence. It's a philosophy. And as such, it has as much potential to be true as idealism.

I don't get it. Surely the material universe is evidence for materialism. Empirical evidence of materialism would just be anything material wouldn't it? All you would need is a stone.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said to an athiest, there is no reason to find evidence for God. "
You cant find evidence for someone that does not exist. "That is like trying to find evidence for the existence of an unconcieved child. Doesnt work that way."

what would evidence for nothing look like? Can you give an example of the sort of evidence for god not existing you think there could be?

There isnt. It is just a lack of what isnt there. If I held an invisible cup in my hand, why would I try to proove it exist and even more so, how? By whay things can I use to measure and proove this cup exist?

An agnostic believes there "could" be a god, but it cannot be proven. So, he could reasonably try to find evidence for a "could be existing." God. Athiests do not believe gods exist. Why would he want to reasonably proove nothing exists?

 

[Bunyip]

An agnostic believes there "could" be a god, but it cannot be proven.

Sure, most atheists are agnostic.

So, he could reasonably try to find evidence for a "could be existing." God. Athiests do not believe gods exist. Why would he want to reasonably proove nothing exists?

No idea, why would anyone need to?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ok. What did you mean by:

"Well what would evidence for nothing look like? Can you give an example of the sort of evidence for god not existing you think there could be?"?

Sure, most atheists are agnostic. No idea, why would anyone need to?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok. What did you mean by:

"Well what would evidence for nothing look like? Can you give an example of the sort of evidence for god not existing you think there could be?"?

I am asking you what evidence of nothing would look like? How could an absence be evidenced other than by the fact that we see no evidence of it?

 

[Jumi]

It's the first rational thing I've done in weeks, even years maybe, so I'm feeling quite proud of myself at the moment.

There's nothing especially rational about holding back proof and throwing in an insult to go. A more rational way to go about things is to admit your statement was false or at least being polite about backing out.

 

[psychoslice]

There is no evidence of god, never was, and never will, its all a vain dream.

 

[Curious George]

There is no evidence of god, never was, and never will, its all a vain dream.

There is plenty of evidence, it is just not credible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am asking you what evidence of nothing would look like? How could an absence be evidenced other than by the fact that we see no evidence of it?

I dont. Pretty much anything can prove nothing exists. Reasonable, no. Its like the sea of people I talked about. Maybe Waldo has blond hair blue eyes? I can make assumptions of what he "should" look like. It wont be objective. Just based on my experiences, biases, and personal opinion. That doesnt make it evidence, just assumptions that some of the religious justify by faith.

 

[psychoslice]

There is plenty of evidence, it is just not credible.

Of course its not credible, because it doesn't exist, simple.

 

[Curious George]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

Why limit it to materialism? What about physicalism? Why not skepticism?

Is it possible that you read Kant recently?

 

[Curious George]

Of course its not credible, because it doesn't exist, simple.

You do realize that testimony is evidence, right. I would argue that there is plenty of testimony about God.

 

[Bunyip]

You do realize that testimony is evidence, right. I would argue that there is plenty of testimony about God.

Sadly no. Testimony is unreliable as evidence.

 

[Curious George]

Sadly no. Testimony is unreliable as evidence.

I did not say it was reliable. I said that it is evidence. This is indisputable. That it is not reliable is merely an articulation of why it is insufficient.

 

[Bunyip]

I did not say it was reliable. I said that it is evidence. This is indisputable. That it is not reliable is merely an articulation of why it is insufficient.

But what use is unreliable evidence?

 

[Curious George]

But what use is unreliable evidence?

Everyday we rely on testimony as evidence, It is on the character, the importance, and the presence of contradictory evidence that we judge the testimony as reliable vs. unreliable.

But in this context testimony may not be good enough, but that evidence exists that we reject means that we carry burden of at least articulating why the evidence is insufficient.

 

[Bunyip]

Everyday we rely on testimony as evidence,

No. Not for these sorts of claims we don't. I would reoy on your testimony if you said "I went to the shops today", but not if you said you flew there on a winged horse.

It is on the character, the importance, and the presence of contradictory evidence that we judge the testimony as reliable vs. unreliable.

But in this context testimony may not be good enough, but that evidence exists that we reject means that we carry burden of at least articulating why the evidence is insufficient.

I guess the assumption I am applying here is that by 'evidence' we implicitly mean 'useful evidence'.

 

[Curious George]

No. Not for these sorts of claims we don't. I would reoy on your testimony if you said "I went to the shops today", but not if you said you flew there on a winged horse. I guess the assumption I am applying here is that by 'evidence' we implicitly mean 'useful evidence'.

I did not say we rely on testimony as evidence everyday for these types of claims. I said we rely on testimony as evidence every day.

When you engage in distinguishing the types of claims you are articulating why the evidence is not credible in this instance.

That is fine, I agree with you there. But the claim that we as atheists shoulder nothing in this discussion is simply not true. Our views did not develop in a vacuum, we do not believe the way we do because we lack information about God. We are actively rejecting the concept based on the lack of credible evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence.

That people want to say they have no burden in the communication of ideas because they are not making any claims is wrong. We do have claims--that the holy texts are not literal is one claim and that the testimony of followers is not reliable--to name two. But there are many more that are specific to individual religions.

If we have formed beliefs we should be able to articulate why we have formed those beliefs. We may not have the burden of "disproving" god, but we certainly have the burden of explaining why the evidence is not good enough.

 

[Bunyip]

I did not say we rely on testimony as evidence everyday for these types of claims. I said we rely on testimony as evidence every day.

When you engage in distinguishing the types of claims you are articulating why the evidence is not credible in this instance.

That is fine, I agree with you there. But the claim that we as atheists shoulder nothing in this discussion is simply not true. Our views did not develop in a vacuum

But of course they did. Atheism is the natural starting point. In a vacuum of god claims we would all be atheist.

, we do not believe the way we do because we lack information about God.

Well that is why I am an atheist.

We are actively rejecting the concept based on the lack of credible evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence.

That people want to say they have no burden in the communication of ideas because they are not making any claims is wrong. We do have claims--that the holy texts are not literal is one claim and that the testimony of followers is not reliable--to name two. But there are many more that are specific to individual religions.

Well if that is the case, how would one evidence such a claim if it is a claim?

If we have formed beliefs we should be able to articulate why we have formed those beliefs. We may not have the burden of "disproving" god, but we certainly have the burden of explaining why the evidence is not good enough.

What evidence? If there is evidence to consider - I think most atheists would be happy to see it.