To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[DarkSun]

What is "fundamentalist?"

Someone who adheres to a set of beliefs strictly and without exception... irrespective of evidence.

 

[DarkSun]

Then why are you having such a hard time with the concept that the person who asserts the existence of something bears the burden of proof?

I'm not going to comment on that until I realise how I can explain myself any better than I have been. Sorry.

 

[dogsgod]

 

[Cobblestones]

Atheism is a CONTRADICTION because in order to be an atheist, one has to define God first in order to conclude later. Therefore, that atheist has understood God, but then rejected the idea that God may exist. ATHEISM DOES NOT WORK!

To reject something after examining it is not a contradiction. One cannot reject what one does not understand. There are many ideas about God and the atheist rejects those ideas on reasonable basis due to the lack of supporting evidence. When you say "that atheist has understood God" you imply that there is a single god that all theists agree upon but that is not true.

Like DS, you are in your imaginary house trying to convince people that it is real and then inferring that just because someone asks you to describe the house and they understand what you are describing they therefore agree that it is real when all along they are trying to figure out what medication would best help you out of your delusion.

 

[Cobblestones]

I'm intrigued that DS has conveniently failed to respond to post 166. Gemma ought to refer to it as well.

 

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by whereismynotecard
What is "fundamentalist?"

Someone who adheres to a set of beliefs strictly and without exception... irrespective of evidence.

Isn't that precisely what you have been doing throughout this thread? I refer you back to Post 63 to which you also failed to respond.

 

[DarkSun]

Post 166.

And I'll explain everyone else's responses again.

We all agree with 1 & 2 but we are not talking about one belief vs. another. We are not comparing Vishnu to Allah. If we were doing so then statements 1-5 would be meaningful.

In essence you are comparing Allah or Vishnu to absolutely nothing. Put another way you are standing in a field in an imaginary house and telling people how beautiful your imaginary house is. To anyone who comes along and says "There is no house" you are saying that it is simply their belief that there is no house and that since they have no evidence that your imaginary house does not in fact exist then their arguments against the existence of the house are equally weighty to your evidence that the imaginary house does exist.

I don't understand how this clarification is necessary. Belief and disbelief both have equal amounts of evidence.

And yes, belief in the tooth fairy is also based on equal empirical evidence to disbelief. You and I may find that belief silly, but the believer would find disbelief silly too - so who is more right based on the evidence? No one.

I'm finding it really hard to see how this is so hard to understand. Can you please show me where I'm going wrong in explaining? And if I am mistaken, can you please provide reasoning as to why which actually discredits me? You do realise that nothing said so far has actually done that?

What you are trying to do is change non-belief into a belief system.

What?

Are you arguing that atheists don't have views or beliefs? That's interesting.

Are you saying that disbelief in deity is not a viewpoint? That's also interesting.

Please explain.

Because if you aren't saying that at all, then we agree.

You are, in essence, the Emperor wearing your New Clothes and the rest of us are pointing out the fact that you are naked.

I don't know what's more tiring, your arrogance, or the fact that your posts suggest you don't even understand what I'm saying... because the examples given in an attempt to disprove me... actually fit well with what I've been saying all along.

And yes, it would be right for someone who watched the crowed who adored the Emperor's New Clothes to say that they were deluded or brainwashed (e.g. item #3 in the OP).

And no one has defined "brainwashed" for me yet.

 

[DarkSun]

The girl was living in Europe and therefore knew what the Europeans were capable of and likely to do. That she had a dream about them is meaningless.

This happened quite a bit, actually, except that with every new bit of proof scientists simply added the new discoveries as data to be considered and eventually all the data compiled together helped for a theory.

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist but the absence of a thing is evidence of a sort. To believe something without proof is not always irrational unless it is based on literally nothing. We have no actual proof of a lot of things that are inferred through mathematics and other scientific disciplines but the inference is evidence enough. A theory is not a proven outcome it is simply the only reasonable resolution to what all the data indicates. But there are no "miracles" or even religious experiences that cannot be explained by science. To conclude that there is a God is not a conclusion based on studies using the scientific method.

You may as well exchange "church" with "ComiCon" in the above paragraph for all that your reasoning provides. Lots of people at the ComiCons have fanciful beliefs or imaginations about all manner of things that don't exist. The only difference is that most of them know that those things don't exist.

I didn't respond to it because it doesn't apply to my point.

And having a viewpoint which I see as right doesn't automatically make me a fundamentalist. It makes me sane.

 

[DarkSun]

Well, that was ten minutes of my life which I'll never get back...

 

[DarkSun]

Oh wow. I didn't realise you were allowed to make a post consisting of one smiley. This is a surprise.

 

[Magic Man]

Atheism is a CONTRADICTION because in order to be an atheist, one has to define God first in order to conclude later. Therefore, that atheist has understood God, but then rejected the idea that God may exist. ATHEISM DOES NOT WORK!

What? So, not believing in the tooth fairy is a contradiction and doesn't work either? I'm sorry, I fail to see the contradiction.

 

[Magic Man]

But not on personal experience, which is what you were alluding to.

Except that in regular circumstances, you can substitute past experiences for experiments. For instance, you can consider my thousands of days on Earth seeing the sun not up at midnight where I live as thousands of experiments to determine whether or not the sun would be up at midnight where I live.

And why did I get a lecture on the scientific method? I'm not that stupid.

I don't think you are. You just don't seem to be applying it in this case.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand how this clarification is necessary. Belief and disbelief both have equal amounts of evidence.

No, they don't. Not sure how many times I have to explain this to you. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a certain type of God doesn't exist, just as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sun is not up where I live at midnight.

And yes, belief in the tooth fairy is also based on equal empirical evidence to disbelief. You and I may find that belief silly, but the believer would find disbelief silly too - so who is more right based on the evidence? No one.

Actually, the correct answer is "the person who disbelieves in the tooth fairy".

I'm finding it really hard to see how this is so hard to understand.

The problem is it's not hard to understand. We get it. You think that belief in every type of god is as justified as disbelief in any gods because there's no evidence for either side. The problem is not that we don't understand what you're saying. The problem is that you don't understand what we're saying, or that you're continuing to reject what we're saying at this point simply because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

Can you please show me where I'm going wrong in explaining?

The explanation is fine, the concept you're explaining is wrong.

And if I am mistaken, can you please provide reasoning as to why which actually discredits me? You do realise that nothing said so far has actually done that?

You do realize that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, right? We've discredited you many times now. You just refuse to see it.

And no one has defined "brainwashed" for me yet.

I'm sorry, weren't you the one who originally used the term in this thread? Wouldn't it be up to you to define it?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm going to put it to you plain and simple. You assert that belief and disbelief in god are equally justified because neither one has evidence to support it. The big problem with that assertion is that the positive claim is always the one that needs the supporting evidence. "The sky is blue." "Prove it to me." "OK, look up." "Ah, yes it is." That's how rational thought works. When you make a claim, if you can't support it, I'm more justified in not believing it. Otherwise, we should just go around believing everything we're told. I mean, I guess I'd be justified in sending my bank account information to the next Nigerian prince who e-mails me, right?

The bottom line is two things. One, when you make a claim, you must support it for it to be justifiably believed. Two, absence of evidence for a claim serves as evidence of absence.

This is why I explained the scientific method to you. That's how it works. A hypothesis is proposed and tested. If evidence is found to support it, it becomes more than a hypothesis. If not, it's thrown out. Apply this to the God debate, and you get:

Hypothesis: An omnimax, intervening, loving, creator god exists.
Tests: Looking for evidence in the universe that could only point to that being existing.
Results: Some people claim it's true, but that's the only "evidence" - if you consider it that - to be found.
Conclusion: As far as we're concerned this god does not exist.

 

[Cobblestones]

Are you arguing that atheists don't have views or beliefs? That's interesting.

With regards to any deity, that is precisely what I and everyone else on this forum have been saying throughout this thread.

I don't know what's more tiring, your arrogance, or the fact that your posts suggest you don't even understand what I'm saying... because the examples given in an attempt to disprove me... actually fit well with what I've been saying all along.

Then somehow I have misunderstood you because what you have been saying does not sound rational to me at all. How many people have said that you can't prove a negative? And yet you are trying to say that the person who believes in their imaginary house is somehow equally correct in their belief as the person who sees that the house is clearly not there. Perhaps the best way to convince someone like that that they are wrong is to walk through the imaginary walls, challenge them to a fight and tell them that they can use all their imaginary furniture as a weapon in the combat. Who do you think would win that fight?

And no one has defined "brainwashed" for me yet.

Why is it incumbent on respondents to supply a definition for a term used in the OP? "It depends on what 'is' is..."

I don't understand how this clarification is necessary. Belief and disbelief both have equal amounts of evidence.

And yes, belief in the tooth fairy is also based on equal empirical evidence to disbelief. You and I may find that belief silly, but the believer would find disbelief silly too - so who is more right based on the evidence? No one.

I'm finding it really hard to see how this is so hard to understand. Can you please show me where I'm going wrong in explaining? And if I am mistaken, can you please provide reasoning as to why which actually discredits me? You do realise that nothing said so far has actually done that?

Then your cranium is impenetrable and further discussion is pointless. See you on another thread...

 

[Alceste]

I understand that atheism is in response to religion. But you still haven't explained how disbelief in God is supported by the available evidence.

Hope you don't mind me nabbing this - I think it might help you begin to understand what's been said (up to page 16 anyway).

There is no need for non-theists to seek evidence of the non-existence of anybody's gods and/or goddesses. Many of us have tried to get through to you that until there is evidence that one of these god concepts might be true, the proposal doesn't merit serious consideration. This is what you are not hearing, and why this conversation is going nowhere.

To a rational person, the proposal of "god" and "no god" are not equal: Everything we know to be true about this world we live in - every fact that transcends the barrier of culture and belief - has been the result of a philosophical foundation of materialistic naturalism and various methods of empirical investigation.

A supernatural perspective brings nothing to the table. It offers nothing in terms of expanding our collective knowledge or digging into the mysteries of life. For people who are interested in what is TRUE and FACTUAL, proposals with no evidentiary basis are not worthy of consideration.

That's all there is to it. For us, "god" and "no god" are not equal: we care about what is factual and true. We care about knowledge that transcends (as opposed to reinforces) cultural barriers - knowledge that unites rather than divides us. We go out of our way to only incorporate proposals with supporting evidence into our world view. THAT is why we have no belief in gods. It's nothing to do with "evidence of no-gods". "No gods" simply happens to be the default position for a rational person UNTIL there is evidence that such beings might exist.

If we were to start accepting all non-evidenced proposals as "equally" justified - and accepting a supernatural world view as "equal" to materialistic naturalism, how would we differentiate between Santa Claus and Jesus Christ? Atheists would not know where to begin to sift through all the non-evidenced, absurd proposals people have come up with throughout human history, because while they are all equal to each other, none are capable of expanding our collective knowledge of what is factual and transcending cultural barriers the way the philosophy of materialistic naturalism - and its companion, empirical investigation - can.

That's what we care about, so it is quite impossible for us to view supernatural proposals as "equal" to materialistic naturalism.

Perhaps you don't care about what is factual. Which is fine - if the statistics on religious belief are any indication, you've got lots of company. But for a person who accuses atheists of having a superiority complex, I have to wonder at your persistent efforts and disparaging, belittling and misrepresenting our world view.

 

[Alceste]

I don't understand how this clarification is necessary. Belief and disbelief both have equal amounts of evidence.

Are you arguing that atheists don't have views or beliefs? That's interesting.

Atheists aspire to have only beliefs and views that are evidence-based. In constructing our evidence-based world view, we have come to find that god is simply not included, because there is no evidence that any gods (or fairies, or leprechauns, or unicorns, or demons, or spirit guides) actually exist.

Frankly, it's ridiculous that you're using the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD/S to argue that the "evidence" is equal for both belief and non-belief. Yes, of course zero is equal to zero. However, for a person who strives for an evidence-based world view, proposals with zero evidence must automatically be rejected.

 

[slave2six]

To a rational person, the proposal of "god" and "no god" are not equal: Everything we know to be true about this world we live in - every fact that transcends the barrier of culture and belief - has been the result of a philosophical foundation of materialistic naturalism and various methods of empirical investigation.

This is an excellent summary of this conversation. You are 100% spot on in your assessment and response.

...knowledge that unites rather than divides us.

This is an excellent point. Things like the international space station, WHO and various cosmology groups who base their membership on common scientific disciplines transcend both culture and religion and each of them works toward the betterment of the human race as a whole rather than just one people group or another.

 

[slave2six]

I understand that atheism is in response to religion. But you still haven't explained how disbelief in God is supported by the available evidence.

Someone else pointed this out but you are trying to make disbelief=belief (I think the phrase was something like "turning atheism into a belief system") and this is your primary mistake. The "A" in "atheism" is the latin prefix that indicates the absence of the appended word. "Amoral" is not the same as "immoral". The latter is someone who acts against a set of standards while the former does not recognize that such standard even exist. So with a-theism. It is not the opposite of theism in which both parties agree upon some standard. Rather, it is the utter rejection of the standards put forth by theists. As such, the two are not in any way related to one another.

 

[Autodidact]

And yes, belief in the tooth fairy is also based on equal empirical evidence to disbelief. You and I may find that belief silly, but the believer would find disbelief silly too - so who is more right based on the evidence? No one.

I don't think your problem is failure to explain yourself; it's a failure in conceptualization. Do you really think that belief in the tooth fairy is as reasonable as disbelief in it? Maybe you should think twice about mowing your lawn, in case there really are fairies in the bottom of your garden? Do you make sure to live in a house with a chimney, in case Santa Claus is real? But what about the tiny invisible gremlins in your nose? Better not blow your nose, just in case. Same for driving your car, because there is a strong possibility that the streets are filled with invisible creatures of every description.

You need some principle to make sense of all these possibilities. Does the name Occam ring a bell?