What type of atheist are you?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I whant to know is in what category would you put God

1 you know with high degree of certainly that god doesn't excist....... You would put god in the same category you would put Santa Clause, (this view requires a burden proof)

2 you dont know ... You would put God in the same category you would put aliens.... Perhaps he exists perhaps he doesn't. We dont have sufficient evidenve to conclude ether way (this doesn't require burden proof)

What did I just say? Read it again.

 

[leroy]

What did I just say? Read it again.

you haven't answer

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you haven't answer

Yes I did. It's just not the answer you wanted. Here it is again:

I can't be bothered to sort out that mess; I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

 

[exchemist]

But in the case of santa we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

In the case of God, "we dont know" if he is the cause of the universes

So Santa and God are not comparable


Agree?

Not really. We don't have evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.

What we have is evidence that the presents put out for children are, on all investigated occasions, put there by their parents and not by Father Christmas. But he could exist. It is just that there is no evidence for him and so we apply Ockham's Razor and do not invoke his existence to explain what we observe.

Father Christmas is thus an unnecessary hypothesis to explain the appearance of presents on Christmas Morning.

And, er, God is um, ah, very much in a similar position, I would say, at least from a scientific point of view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. We don't have evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.

What we have is evidence that the presents put out for children are, on all investigated occasions, put there by their parents and not by Father Christmas. But he could exist. It is just that there is no evidence for him and so we apply Ockham's Razor and do not invoke his existence to explain what we observe.

Father Christmas is thus an unnecessary hypothesis to explain the appearance of presents on Christmas Morning.

And, er, God is um, ah, very much in a similar position, I would say, at least from a scientific point of view.

There's much stronger evidence for a historical St. Nicholas than there is for a historical Jesus.

 

[exchemist]

There's much stronger evidence for a historical St. Nicholas than there is for a historical Jesus.

Maybe, but not relevant to this discussion.

 

[leroy]

Yes I did. It's just not the answer you wanted. Here it is again:

I can't be bothered to sort out that mess; I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

So what is the point of participating in this thread if you won't answer to the OP?

 

[leroy]

Not really. We don't have evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.

Disagree but granted for the purpose of this thread


However we have positive verifiable and objective evidence that Santa is not the cause of presents in the Christmas tree.....

Would you say the same thing about god and the cause of the universe?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok how did any of that made the gap smaller.... Or to put it in different words, how did any of that made the existence of God less likely tham before the discovery?

Those two considerations aren't the same, though.
Making 'the gap' smaller only impacts on certain beliefs around God. It doesn't make God more or less likely.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

..... the type of 'non-theist' Deist that atheists won't let in to their club.

Meh, I'm not in the club either. Apparently I need better shoes.

 

[Willamena]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

I am none of those types, though I could argue each of them. I'm a hard atheist-agnostic. God is unlike anything else. God is that thing that, barring all else--literally all else--both fails and never fails to exist.

 

[leroy]

I am none of those types, though I could argue each of them. I'm a hard atheist-agnostic. God is unlike anything else. God is that thing that, barring all else--literally all else--both fails and never fails to exist.

I guess the real question is what is your view on God

1 there are good arguments against the existance of god and few (or none) arguments in favor

2 there are no good arguments ether way

3 there are strong arguments on both sides, just that the arguments against are stronger.

 

[Sand Dancer]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God

Santa Claus was a real person, I think.

4. God doesn't exist, or at least there is no evidence of existence.

 

[Heyo]

So there is no evidence nor good arguments for nor against God.... Does tjis represent your view?

You keep using that word. I think you should use "universe creator" instead, it is less confusing.
Yes, I think we have neither good evidence nor a convincing hypothesis for the start of our universe. It is all conjecture. Simulation, cyclic, multiple different multiverse hypothesis including an outside creator are all equally improbable.

 

[oldbadger]

Meh, I'm not in the club either. Apparently I need better shoes.

You see? As soon as they dump God they get all tied up with Mammon, it's gotta be the house size, car, even the shoes. A lot of bloody show-offs if you ask me.

So there they are with their cut-price drinks and happy-hour and me down the tatty old Victory with a half-pint of flat-mild.

I blame religion........ the lack of it!

 

[exchemist]

Disagree but granted for the purpose of this thread


However we have positive verifiable and objective evidence that Santa is not the cause of presents in the Christmas tree.....

Would you say the same thing about god and the cause of the universe?

"Cause" of the universe??

See post 104.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You see? As soon as they dump God they get all tied up with Mammon, it's gotta be the house size, car, even the shoes. A lot of bloody show-offs if you ask me.

So there they are with their cut-price drinks and happy-hour and me down the tatty old Victory with a half-pint of flat-mild.

I blame religion........ the lack of it!

Closest to a religion I have is beer.
I just went and spent some time contemplating the full range, and now I feel fulfilled. Without even drinking a drop!!
(Although 30 degrees and a public holiday tomorrow, so might give it a nudge)

 

[leroy]

"Cause" of the universe??

See post 104.

In post 104 you said "we dont know if the universe had a cause" (implying perhaps that we don't know if God is the cause or not)

In the case of Santa we know that he is not the cause of presents in the Christmas tree.

So can we conclude that God and Santa are not comparable?

 

[exchemist]

In post 104 you said "we dont know if the universe had a cause" (implying perhaps that we don't know if God is the cause or not)

In the case of Santa we know that he is not the cause of presents in the Christmas tree.

So can we conclude that God and Santa are not comparable?

Nope. See post 124.

In summary:

1) it makes no sense to demand a "cause", at all, if time itself starts at the singularity. The cause of something has to be present beforehand, so if there is no beforehand there cannot be a cause, it seems to me.

2) Both God and Father Christmas could exist but there is no objective evidence for either, so science would apply Ockham's Razor and would make no use of either hypothesis. Fr. Christmas and God are in that sense exactly comparable.

The question therefore becomes, why is it we all agree to use Ockham's Razor to dismiss Father Christmas, but many of us decline to apply it to God? In other words, the onus is on the believer to account for why the two are treated differently in his worldview. (I have tried to answer that as well.)

 

[Willamena]

I guess the real question is what is your view on God

1 there are good arguments against the existance of god and few (or none) arguments in favor

2 there are no good arguments ether way

3 there are strong arguments on both sides, just that the arguments against are stronger.

4 There are good arguments either way, it's just that they argue for a god that neither exists nor doesn't exist.

That's what kind of atheist I am.