Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

[PureX]

How does an atheist arrive at their proof from evidence that only the physical is real?

That would make the theism vs. atheism debate more equitable.

Then from there we can determine if God has physical properties.

And excellent suggestion, ... that will get no traction, I predict.

 

[stvdv]

Oh, what was the point? I thought you were advocating for gullibility.

I see

Yes, you totally missed the point

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I just want to say, 'Grow up and accept neither side has proof or disproof.'

You could say the same about a lot of things:

There is/isn't such a thing as a 40 foot tall grasshopper, penguin or tardigrade.
There is/isn't such a thing as an invisible, fire-breathing dragon
There is/isn't such a thing as Mjolnir, Thor's hammer
There is/isn't such a thing as fairies at the bottom of anybody's garden
There is/isn't such a thing as --- well, you could make an arbitrarily long list here.

The thing is, there is no proof or disproof of any of those things (as anyone can tell you, it might just be that we haven't looked in the right place yet). But a key thing to bring to bear on the topic is this: in that list above, based on what (little) you know of the world, which side would you come down on? Is, or isn't?

And I think the same case can be made for the statement "there is/isn't such a thing as God."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

waiting and expecting a proof of God to arrive, might last an eternity

That's true about every nonexistent thing. It doesn't mean that gods are also nonexistent, just that if one can't detect one in an eternity, what difference does it make whether one or more exist? The undetectable and the nonexistent are indistinguishable, meaning they should be viewed and treated as the same.

An Atheist "not asking for proof" makes sense to me

What an atheist is actually telling you is that he will not believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence. I already know that no theist can provide that, so what's the point in asking for it? Theists believe by faith. That's not an option for the critical thinker.

Even greater is the ideal of faith

Faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. From Pat Condell:

"The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace. It's a state of choice, because without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe. So why is that worthy of respect, any more than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is faith considered some kind of virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don't think so. Faith, by definition, is unexamined. So in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences. Yet, if it could, it would regulate every action, word and thought of every single person on this planet"

How would someone prove consciousness if they did not experience it themselves? No amount of evidence tells you that consciousness is real.

And there is no need to prove that any other thing than oneself is conscious. What if you were the only conscious entity in the universe, and you knew for a fact that the rest of us were just unconscious automatons. What are you going to do differently? Stop talking to them? Divorce the one you're married to?

The god question is the same. If a god exists that is undetectable by any means, knowing about it's existence is useless.

How does an atheist arrive at their proof from evidence that only the physical is real?

I recently wrote to a participant in this thread in another thread that I have don't recall encountering the theist who can articulate what it is that atheists actually believe and claim. It's not that. Is there really any value in telling you what it is? Surely you've seen it dozens of times already just on this site alone.

Can any theist reading this fix that for him? I'd be amazed if one did.

 

[osgart]

That's true about every nonexistent thing. It doesn't mean that gods are also nonexistent, just that if one can't detect one in an eternity, what difference does it make whether one or more exist? The undetectable and the nonexistent are indistinguishable, meaning they should be viewed and treated as the same.



What an atheist is actually telling you is that he will not believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence. I already know that no theist can provide that, so what's the point in asking for it? Theists believe by faith. That's not an option for the critical thinker.



Faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. From Pat Condell:

"The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace. It's a state of choice, because without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe. So why is that worthy of respect, any more than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is faith considered some kind of virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don't think so. Faith, by definition, is unexamined. So in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences. Yet, if it could, it would regulate every action, word and thought of every single person on this planet"



And there is no need to prove that any other thing than oneself is conscious. What if you were the only conscious entity in the universe, and you knew for a fact that the rest of us were just unconscious automatons. What are you going to do differently? Stop talking to them? Divorce the one you're married to?

The god question is the same. If a god exists that is undetectable by any means, knowing about it's existence is useless.



I recently wrote to a participant in this thread in another thread that I have don't recall encountering the theist who can articulate what it is that atheists actually believe and claim. It's not that. Is there really any value in telling you what it is? Surely you've seen it dozens of times already just on this site alone.

Can any theist reading this fix that for him? I'd be amazed if one did.

I don't like debates, and consider myself atheist about most Gods. Mostly I have seen everything about evidence, and nothing much regarding proof of what the evidence is saying.

I definitely wouldn't frustrate myself in explaining the physicalist position if I was frequently engaging in theism debates and have made the point already.

There are a lot more educated theists out there like David Bentley Hart, Michael Jones on YouTube, and a few others who would understand the science and philosophy involved.

I think the actual arguments go very deep. Probably too deep for an RF format. RF usually cuts things short with the evidence alone argument.

Anyone can fill in the gaps in knowledge with either naturalism, or God. I would like to know when something is brute fact, or in need of further explanation.

I don't believe that theists are not good with science. I don't think that just because someone is theist means that they are no good at science or philosophy.

 

[stvdv]

What an atheist is actually telling you is that he will not believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence

NO

What the Atheist is telling me, is that he has not been able to figure it out himself

 

[stvdv]

The undetectable and the nonexistent are indistinguishable, meaning they should be viewed and treated as the same

I am fine that YOU SHOULD view/treat them as the same
But I disagree that I should view/treat them as the same

Another point we seem to disagree on

 

[PureX]

"... without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe."

And no reason not to. Which is how it becomes a CHOICE in the first place. A choice that one can base on the value that results rather than on evidence that isn't there. Which is why "unbelief" based on nothing is both illogical, and foolish.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is why "unbelief" based on nothing is both illogical, and foolish.

Are you saying that to be wise & logical, we must pick
some unevidenced beliefs, & have total faith in them?

 

[Heyo]

And no reason not to. Which is how it becomes a CHOICE in the first place. A choice that one can base on the value that results rather than on evidence that isn't there. Which is why "unbelief" based on nothing is both illogical, and foolish.

There is a good reason for not believing: parsimony. Why should I clutter my brain with beliefs that have no evidence?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

Heh...
Interesting analogy. Here's my version...

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how this particular RF Atheist would reply;

I'M ALREADY MARRIED, BUT THANKS.

But in the interests of exploration, just think about it for a moment, with a little less fluffy language, since the narrative is always pretty interesting.
Out of the blue, a person walks up to you and offers you sex. They don't know anything about you, including your orientation, marital status, mental or physical health (including STDs). And you don't know theirs, largely.

My quick question back : Does this seem like the way a meaningful relationship starts?

Meh, by all means, fun is fun (and I post more crappy fun threads than most). But if I was looking for a life-changing relationship, randoms wandering up to me on the street and offering sex seems an unlikely path.
You're also making a whole lot of assumptions about the nature of the religion, since your analogy doesn't cater for quid pro quo. Many forms of religion have expectations on the believer...not just an offering of 'fulfillment'.

There are plenty of religions and Gods I would not follow/worship, even if I KNEW they existed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And excellent suggestion, ... that will get no traction, I predict.

For myself, I don't assume that only the physical is true. I just assume that our scientific methods are only capable of dealing with the material.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's from a point of weakness
That shows me the Atheist is not really eager to know
I never ask other people "show me", I try to figure it out my self

1) No need to capitalise 'atheist', short of normal grammatical rules
2) Atheists I'd bother conversing with about religion have indeed done plenty of their own research. I'd go further and suggest that some atheists spend a lot of effort on this, and it's something we are commonly accused of (the whole 'Why do you care about religion, why are you here, etc' trope)
3) Almost anything you say about 'atheists' is going to be wrong. You're not alone in that, atheists commonly make the same mistake. The whole idea that 'atheists are rational', for example. It's pretty laughable. Atheists are people, and a varied group of people at that.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

I mean seeing the person in the flesh and having proof they exist goes way beyond what has ever been presented as evidence for god so....? It would be more akin to getting a chain email claiming all these things and all you have to do is give us your credit card information and social security number. In that case I'd be pretty skeptical.

 

[blü 2]

Depends how you read the anecdote; the word sex is not mentioned

No, it's not, but to my eye it's readily implied. However, my comment reads more aggressively than it should, and I withdraw it.

Instead I'll say that what you seem to be offering is pleasure instead of reason, hedonism instead of truth, and in unbelievers' terms, imaginary pleasure at that.

I doubt you'll have many unbelievers signing up on that basis, but let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[F1fan]

And then the atheists jump right into the 'stupid pit' along with them. Pretty much every time. "But Mama, HE did it first!"

What is the "stupid pit"? Is that online debate forums?

"Backed up" how, and according to whom?

Backed up like any claim. If you claim to have a 1974 Ford Pinto and I don't believe you I expect you to show me that you do indeed own one. I'll accept an insurance card with it named as your car. But I'd prefer to see it in person. This kind of evidence is what we expect for any claim of a God existing. If you cannot demonstrate that you know a God exists, or at least demonstrate evidence adequate to convince an objective mind, then you can't blame people for rejecting your outrageous God claim.

Theists have their reasoning, and their 'evidence', and they find it compelling. Just like anyone else.

Oddly what is good for Hindus is not good for Christians, and vise versa, so if your evidence isn't even good enough to convince people who already believe in hundreds of gods, you have a weak case.

Well that's patently false, and quite illogical. And yet you don't see this at all. How is that, do you think?

Sorry, it's a fact that in logic and debate that the default is that a claim is treated as false until it can be demonstrated true. This is related to the justice system assume ng innocence until guilt is proven.

And it is exceptionally logical because we cannot assume all claims are true because many are going to conflict. Do you accept all Hindu gods as existing when a Hindu claims it? Probably not, and you probably now use how useful it is to treat claims as untrue.

Sort of like pointing out that one has failed to demonstrate that broccoli tasted good.

Yet broccoli exists. Whether a person likes the tase is a matter of many factors, but still dealing with something real, not imaginary.

 

[F1fan]

How would someone prove consciousness if they did not experience it themselves?

Well it takes conscious beings like we humans to observe and understand consciousness in action. That some creatures experience consciousness doesn't mean they understand the concept or anything about the functions their brains are performing.

No amount of evidence tells you that consciousness is real.

So you being consciously aware is not good enough evidence for you?

It would help the argument if people realized that physicalism is a metaphysical claim requiring proof. How does an atheist arrive at their proof from evidence that only the physical is real?

Not all atheists are claiming this. What objective thinkers do is acknowledge that we mere mortals can only refer to things existing through being able to observe, measure or somehow confirm it exists.

That would make the theism vs. atheism debate more equitable.

Atheists owe theists nothing. If they make claims they cannot demonstrate are true then that's their solitary problem.

Then from there we can determine if God has physical properties.

If a God exists and has physical qualities it's irrelevant whether atheists offer equity in debate. Its a matter of material facts that can be confirmed in some way, and that includes atheists being able to recognize that a God does indeed exist.

 

[F1fan]

And no reason not to. Which is how it becomes a CHOICE in the first place. A choice that one can base on the value that results rather than on evidence that isn't there. Which is why "unbelief" based on nothing is both illogical, and foolish.

And what pressures is a person feeling that they will decide that a God exists?

 

[osgart]

Well it takes conscious beings like we humans to observe and understand consciousness in action. That some creatures experience consciousness doesn't mean they understand the concept or anything about the functions their brains are performing.



So you being consciously aware is not good enough evidence for you?


Not all atheists are claiming this. What objective thinkers do is acknowledge that we mere mortals can only refer to things existing through being able to observe, measure or somehow confirm it exists.


Atheists owe theists nothing. If they make claims they cannot demonstrate are true then that's their solitary problem.


If a God exists and has physical qualities it's irrelevant whether atheists offer equity in debate. Its a matter of material facts that can be confirmed in some way, and that includes atheists being able to recognize that a God does indeed exist.

I mean equitable debate in the sense that there is something to learn from both sides. And that it wouldn't be the same standoff, go nowhere debate.

Why not put all claims on the table?

There is no third person evidence of consciousness. It's always first person.
I can't dig into someone else's brain and find consciousness. The way I know consciousness is different.

Isn't an atheist claiming there is no God?

And what about logical proofs inferred from evidence?

So every claim has a counter claim, and all arguments go beyond evidence into inferences to the best explanation.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Atheists' bizarre way asking for "proof of God"

Suppose it has been many years since you made love, and you are really yearning for love, and suddenly out of the blue, a gorgeous person walks up to you, you are smitten and the person even tells you "If you make love to me, you will feel like you are in Heaven; your best experience ever, all that you were ever searching for, your life's goal fulfilled"

This is how the RF Atheist usually replies

NO. I don't believe you:
1) First you must prove it to me
2) I want it written in black and white
3) It must be peer reviewed, by at least 10 other scientists
4) And it must be a triple blind scientific study

IF you bring me the above THEN I might take you up on your offer

Uh, atheist here, and, uh, no. Silly that I would be asked to intellectualize such an event; but here goes:

I can see the woman. I can see that she is real.
Because she is real and she is a woman, it stands to reason that she can provide me carnal pleasure.
She appears willing and consensual in providing me that carnal pleasure.
I would doubt her claim that she can provide me "the best experience ever"; but the best way to test that out is not through peer reviewed scientific research, but by .... shall we say .... experimentation?


As far as the rest of your statements, I will counter simply by: I became atheist after years of indoctrination and adherence to dogmatic, fundamentalist Christianity. At the end of my journey, I became convinced that there was nothing there; and there never had been.