paarsurrey
Veteran Member
There's no scientific evidence for the existence of "no-gods" position/non-position so why do atheists believe in Atheism. Can you understand such a simple sentence? Please
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Atheism based on superstition?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Regards
There's plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of "no-gods" position. Every strong atheist has the "no-gods" position.
Strong atheists believe all gods don't exist. Monotheists like you believe all gods don't exist except the one you believe in. Strong atheists have different reasons for believing gods don't exist. Just like you have your reasons for believing all gods don't exist except the one you believe in.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And one's evidences from science that G-d does not exist:
- from a text-book of science
- from a pre-reviewed article by peers published in a science journal of repute
- identifying the discipline of science with consensus that took up this issue
Regards
@paarsurrey, if nobody convinces somebody that God exists then they will not believe in God. This is a very simple concept.
If a child is growing up with nobody telling them about God, they will not come to believe in God. Therefore, they'd be an atheist.
If a child is growing up with nobody telling them about God, they will not come to believe in God. Therefore, they'd be an atheist.
Why do you expect strong atheists to provide scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? Can you provide scientific evidence for the non-existence of all the gods you believe don't exist? If not, why the double standard? You're just one god away from being a strong atheist yourself.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
if nobody convinces somebody that God doesn't exist then they will believe in God. This is a very simple concept.
If a child is growing up with nobody telling them that God doesn't exist, they will not come to disbelieve in God. Therefore, they will remain believers in God evidently. Right? Please
Regards
That really doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Look, if a child grows up in Europe, South Asia or the Americas and is never told about giraffes, they don't automatically believe in giraffes, do they? They do not believe in giraffes, because they have never heard of giraffes to believe in them. Same goes for atheism - if somebody never receives evidence that God exists, they will never have a reason to believe. So they will be atheist by default.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Why do you expect believers to provide scientific evidence for the existence of God? Can you provide scientific evidence for the non-existence of God you don't believe exists? If not, why the double standard? Please
Regards
Because unless somebody proves to you something does exist, you continue in your default position of not believing it. As you say, atheism is a non-position, it's just a lack of taking the theistic position.
There is no double standard. I expect believers in the existence of gods to provide evidence for the existence of gods and I expect believers in the non-existence of gods to provide evidence for the non-existence of gods. I will consider the evidence presented by both parties for the existence and non-existence of various gods. So far no believers in the existence of gods have managed to convince me that any gods exist.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
We are not talking about giraffes? Just to remind one. Please
We are talking about God who exists and is Evident and who has revealed Himself to people in all ages with human and in all regions of the world, they have testified to it .
Atheism itself pegs itself with Theism. Right? Please hence Atheism cannot be reasonably a default position/non-position. It is just incorrect.
Regards
The giraffes point was to get the concept across paarsurrey. I don't know if you understood it though.
Of course atheism is defined by theism. It is the lack of theism. If someone is not a theist, that leaves them as an atheist. This is really astonishingly simple.
Do you believe in astrology? If not, you are an a-astrologist. You don't need someone to prove not-astrology to you, you just need to not have someone prove astrology to you.
You are talking about a god you claim exist and I am waiting for you to provide evidence for his existence.
Atheism is based on reasoned, logical, empirical and scientific arguments against claims made about existence of God or Gods. So, depending on the arguments being made against God, it can be rational, empirical, experiential or scientific.
Here's a fun one - are you an atheist, sayak?
I am atheistic regarding Abrahamic type of God or literal Gods of the Vedas and Greek religions. I am currently in three minds regarding pure scientific (or Vaiseshikan) materialism, Buddhist phenomenalism (Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti) and Upanisadic idea of Brahman as the "real behind the real". All three posit the world to be made up of one and only one thing appearing in many forms
1) Matter-Energy-Space-Time for scientific materialism (modern rendition of the mahabhuta-s)
2) Evanascent stream of causally interdependent "empty" tropes or Dhammas ( Buddhism)
3) Brahman for the Upanisads.
So all three begin with the simplest hypothesis about reality. The next question of course is how well they are able to explain and predict this reality using this hypothesis. This is where I am stuck at, for though I know what science can do, there isn't enough effort being made (yet) by the people believing in the other two worldviews to bring their philosophies up-to-date.
Interesting! Wary as I am of approaching proselytising, I have found the Upanishadic idea (which I find to be highly compatible with many Buddhist and Daoist understandings) to hold water irrespective of scientific progress, essentially. I can't see the material as anything other than emergent within consciousness (for want of a better word), although no doubt as a jnana yogi you'll have different ways of going about things.
I am curious as to what it is that one of your three minds finds persuasive about Vaisheshika-style materialism?
If we really wanted to be pedantic, the opposite to Jack's belief wouldn't be atheism; it would be some other type of theism ("all the gods that Jack believes in don't exist, and all the gods that Jack rejects do exist").
That was interesting reading indeed. I'll admit that I haven't been following it.
My perception is that materialism is essentially predicated upon the independent reality of the observed from the observer. If one takes that as an assumption, then certainly the philosophy of Vaisheshika, and what you discuss in those posts, are solid. As such, regardless of whether one is a materialist it has value from an immediate perspective. However, to stand solidly as a philosophy materialism would need to prove, rather than assume, that pre-requisite, and I don't see any way that can be done given the fact that external verification is impossible.