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

[Vile Atheist]

No Athiest can tell which 1 is the 1st living thing in earth.

Uhhhh, RNA?

 

[Kenect2]

DarkSun, why would you stop discussing a topic which you obviously feel strongly about? Personally, I've found this thread to be interesting, and some of your posts have been very thoughtful.

I agree with you that there is no scientific evidence of any gods. Where I disagree with you is your claim that there is no scientific evidence that goes against the idea that there is a god.

As said, you can post a philosophical argument like: "God can't exist because this aspect about this person's understanding of God doesn't make any sense to me or anyone else" - but this is not scientific evidence. It's inductive reasoning. It's just your opinion which hasn't been backed by anything except: "this doesn't make sense to me."

Inductive reasoning is an essential element of science. Inductive reasoning takes bits of "scientific evidence" and explains them or organizes them into a theory.

The theory that I find myself committed to is that there is plenty of scientific evidence of people making up stories in order to explain things. Given that behavior of Humans, and the very many stories of creation and gods on the planet, it follows that those stories of creation and gods were made up, by Humans, in order to explain things. Can I go back in time 2000 years and video tape early Christians making up these stories? Of course not. But I don't need to. I know that people frequently make up stories, and with the lack of any contrary evidence, that is sufficient evidence by my standards.

You might not be persuaded by the "proof" which I have offered for a mutually exclusive alternative explanation to the hypothesis that the god you believe in exists. However, I'd be willing to bet that my inductive reasoning would be sufficient for you in regards to gods like Zeus and Odin. You don't need to go back in time and directly observe people making up stories about Zeus to know that Zeus is a myth, do you?

Now, if you want to go and claim that there is some god who is exempt from the general rule I have stated, then the burden of proof is on you..

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

But I honestly don't see how I am wrong. I still stand by my claim that there is zero scientific evidence for or against the existence of God - because science doesn't even address God. But people here disagree, which is fair enough. But then they go and post philosophical arguments against the existence of God... which isn't actually scientific evidence. That's not a definitive, empirical proof which claims: "Look, we've absolutely proven beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist through THIS experiment, and through THIS test, so you can all stop believing now. You're wrong". In fact, there is no shred of evidence that disproves even the remotest possibility that a God of some form may exist.

DarkSun, you are (as an example) ignoring all that I have said already.
First of all you make the mistake of speaking about "some" God while in truth this already is the first strange assumption. Christians are NOT talking about "any abstract possible being that one could call God". Christians are for example talking about the CHRISTIAN god. A God who was born to a virgin, healed the blind, created the earth in 6 days (or periods or whatever), was cruxified on the cross, rose again, listens to prayers, created hell and paradise, judges you after your death and who has some SPECIFIC characteristics.

Secondly you make the mistake to assume that "scientific evidence" is the only thing that counts. Or lets say you only differ between "philosophical" and "empirical" evidence. What you seem to forget are LOGICAL arguments.
And there are quite a few logically consistent and conclusive proofs against certain specified gods.

Your third mistake is to assume that only conclusiveness counts and that there is thus either a zero or full proof or disproof of a case. If that were so then indeed all would be equal that couldnt either be both totally prooved or disprooved.
But again this also is not the case.
There is a bunch of facts that one can consider evidence for one side and a different amount of facts or evidence for the other. So both sides are not equally balanced out.

A 5th mistake is the general assumption to say that there would be no difference or there would be an equality between the two viewpoints to assume something without proof/evidence or to not assume something without proof/evidence.

As i mentioned already, it is practically impossible to hold the first stance.
For if you say you assume something even without evidence for it, then (as according to you all beliefs would be equally justified) you would have to apply that reasoning to any possible entity that could theoretically exist and for which you have no evidence.
You would have to assume one God at the same time as you assume and believe in 20, in a godess, in a golden unicorn beyond this continuum and so on.

The other side is far more practical in its approach. It simply assumes an entity if such an entity is needed in order to explain a specific condition. As long as this entity is not needed it is not assumed or believed in.

And finally:
You should differ between people telling you that they "disbelieve in any god" and people that do not believe in a specific one.

 

[Alceste]

I read the first couple paragraphs, DS, but you're still missing the point: Atheists, mostly, don't claim "God doesn't exist." They state the fact that there is zero evidence of God's existence, and so they do not believe in him.

So you've shot yourself in the foot there, right from the beginning. As we've tried to tell you from the start, but you're stuck on your idea, so... *shrug*. Good luck with that.

 

[ragordon168]

The theory that I find myself committed to is that there is plenty of scientific evidence of people making up stories in order to explain things. Given that behavior of Humans, and the very many stories of creation and gods on the planet, it follows that those stories of creation and gods were made up, by Humans, in order to explain things. Can I go back in time 2000 years and video tape early Christians making up these stories? Of course not. But I don't need to. I know that people frequently make up stories, and with the lack of any contrary evidence, that is sufficient evidence by my standards.
.

well take JRR Tolkien for example, he didnt just write the lord of the rings as random fantasy stroies, he created and entire world around it - languages, legends and beliefs, a creation myth (if you havent read it yet get a copy of the silmarillion it is excellent.)

JRRT was just an author and he created all that so why is the same guy 2000+ years ago a blessed person who heard the word of god. for all we know JRRT has the right version not the bible.

 

[Im an Atheist]

Imagine these scenarios:

1 - You're a native American living freely in Europe. One night, you have a dream about white men coming to your land in big ships. The dream turns bleak. You dream of sickness, of disease, of death, of pain all because of the white men. When you wake up, you were so sure that the dream was real - but when you tell your elders they automatically console you... and tell you that such a thing will never happen, and that it was all a figment of your imagination. You keep believing what you saw to be true, and eventually everyone around you gives up on you as being deluded. Prove that the girl's dream was wrong.

2 - You're living in England in the 1750s. You have a firm view in mind that all swans are white. Someone then travels to Australia fifty years later and sends you back a letter telling you that they saw a black swan. But this can't be true. Swans are white. Your friend is obviously lying because black swans clearly don't exist, as you've never seen one yourself before. Prove that the man was lying.

3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

1) Called a nightmare......... (Prove God exsists)
2) Genetic variation, the man just hasn't seen a black swan so he doesn't believe in it. Like i haven't seen God or have no proof for him, i believe it is not true......
3) Athiests never believe that people of a religion of being brainwashed or fed lies unless it is a cult. Stop trying to degrade us (y)

 

[Cobblestones]

So considering the scientific evidence alone (Read that three times if you need to. Whatever you do, just make sure it sinks in)... evidence which is based on things which can be proven empirically... theists and atheists alike have zero evidence to support their views. Therefore, objectively speaking (that is, without bias - and based on the lack of scientific evidence for both sides), atheists and theists are equally justified.

OK. I'll take a stab at this. The problem with your thinking is that you assume that atheism is a belief or more accurately anti-belief which it is not. It is the absence of belief. Do you see the distinction? As someone else pointed out earlier, "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby.

As I have stated before, the presence of "atheism" is impossible without someone first putting forth a claim that there is a god. If no one made the claim and no one believed in god there would be no atheists any more than there are currently a large population of azyzzybalubas who do not believe in the existence of zyzzybaluba. There would simply be people.

Do you see this? The lack of scientific evidence makes the theist's claims invalid until such evidence is produced. The absence of evidence is in fact a kind of evidence against the proposition and therefore the beliefs of theists are not on equal grounds as those people who look at them and say "prove it."

 

[Cobblestones]

No Athiest can tell which 1 is the 1st living thing in earth.

Who flipping cares?

 

[Magic Man]

The fact that she doesn't always agree with me? And we don't speak very often, so it's a bit hard to class her as a friend.

So, my friend with whom I talk only about once every 6-8 months or so is not actually my friend? Weird. I didn't realize there was a time limit on communication with friends. I don't always agree with my friends either, but I'd bet that if I sent them a link to this and they looked at it, they'd probably just go with it.

Anyway, have you noticed how I'm not really arguing any more?

You mean you're not arguing about the original topic. You're now arguing with the idea that friends tend to support friends and arguing with who is actually considered a friend. Amazingly, you've moved on to an even more bizarre and worthless argument.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Only this question cause the major change in human life, how u can say "who cares". If Athiests dont have answer for this, y they become athiests?

I didn't become an atheist. I always was one.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't become an atheist. I always was one.

Me too.

 

[Magic Man]

Fine. I'll make one last post then I'm dropping it.

Why are you making one more post? Do you really mean to tell me that it hasn't become obvious to you that you need to stop talking and start listening?

I've realised that I might be wrong. I've considered it, too, which is why I've asked four people to check whether I was making sense.

Yes, we know. Again, asking friends whether or not you're being an idiot isn't the best way to go about determining whether you're being an idiot.

But I honestly don't see how I am wrong. I still stand by my claim that there is zero scientific evidence for or against the existence of God - because science doesn't even address God. But people here disagree, which is fair enough. But then they go and post philosophical arguments against the existence of God... which isn't actually scientific evidence. That's not a definitive, empirical proof which claims: "Look, we've absolutely proven beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist through THIS experiment, and through THIS test, so you can all stop believing now. You're wrong". In fact, there is no shred of evidence that disproves even the remotest possibility that a God of some form may exist.

OK, again, we're not talking about every form of God. We're talking about specific god-concepts.

There is all kinds of evidence, including scientific evidence, against some god-concepts. Science does address many claims about God. Also, we're not just talking about actual scientific studies that have been done. When something is illogical or inconsistent, it's a good bet it's wrong.

Bottom line: There is plenty of evidence against certain god-concepts. You even agreed on some of that evidence.

So can't you see that saying: "God probably doesn't exist" is not based on the available evidence at all? If not, please present a scientific journal article which has shown that any God-concept is impossible. Can't do it? That's because there is no proof whatsoever. None.

Sure, we can. There's no point, though. Let's keep it simple. Some god-concepts involve the god answering prayers. We know that doesn't happen, therefore that claim is false. People claim that their god intervenes in the world. Science has never found evidence for this claim. It has always found a natural, simple explanation for everything.

As said, you can post a philosophical argument like: "God can't exist because this aspect about this person's understanding of God doesn't make any sense to me or anyone else" - but this is not scientific evidence.

And? It's still evidence based on our understanding of the world. That's not really a philosophical argument, it's just a logical one. It actually works very well. "This god-concept can't exist because these claims (flooding the world, creating all living things individually, answering prayer, saving people from car crashes, etc.) aren't true." I don't need a scientific journal to support my belief that it's going to be dark until at least 5:00 AM here.

It's inductive reasoning. It's just your opinion which hasn't been backed by anything except: "this doesn't make sense to me."

No, it's also been backed by the human experience, and science, along with reason and logic.

And besides that, there are as many God-concepts as there are stars in the sky. Each one makes sense to the individual - and each is based on zero empircal, scientific evidence.

That's great. How many times does it take to get it through your head that atheists don't necessarily reject all god-concepts, and even if they do, they wouldn't use these arguments against them all? The arguments concerning actual evidence of a god-concept only really applies to most theistic god-concepts.

Even disbelief in God is not based on science.

There is nothing verifiable about some supernatural being who can evade empirical tests

I see, so you're going with the whole "Well, God is omnipotent, so he could just make it look like he isn't doing it". You're right, anything is possible. Any wacky claim people make is legitimate. I see it now.

So considering the scientific evidence alone (Read that three times if you need to. Whatever you do, just make sure it sinks in)

I'll tell you what. Why don't you take your own advice? Read our posts again until they sink in. As I said, it's not us who don't understand you, it's you who doesn't understand us.

This is essentially the same as saying that all religions are equally justified,

No, it's not.

And yes, if you want to go to that extreme, it is essentially the same as saying: "Belief in the tooth fairy is equally justified to belief in the Easter Bunny."

That's not the argument here. The argument here is "Belief in the tooth fairy is not as justified as disbelief in the tooth fairy". Nice to see you're trying to confuse your own argument to try to make it work.

But unless someone stops stealing your teeth... there is no proof either way. Therefore, we are both equally justified. Whether you or I think it sounds silly is just our opinion. Nothing more.

No, we're not. We know that the claim about the tooth fairy that a fairy comes in at night and steals your tooth and leaves money is not true. It's not just my opinion. I can prove to you that the tooth fairy doesn't come to kids who lost their teeth.

Just to sum up, I'm sick of this guys. Feel free to tear this post apart based on your opinion on whether you think I'm right or not. But don't expect a response. I'm not going to open this thread again.

Well, we all know you're going to open the thread again. You may not respond, but you'll at least check it.

As I said, you can just say what you want and leave, or you can try to actually understand why people are telling you you're wrong. You have only done the first thing so far, and my only problem with you leaving it unfinished is that you'll just come back with the same BS in the future, and we'll just have to keep correcting you on it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Is the purple hunchback invisible? If so, then how do you know it's purple? And if not, then why don't we have evidence against it?

It's invisible, didn't you read the description?

 

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by atotalstranger
I didn't become an atheist. I always was one.

Me too.

Lucky! Some of us had to go the long way through religion before we realized how wrong we were.

 

[DarkSun]

I read the first couple paragraphs, DS, but you're still missing the point: Atheists, mostly, don't claim "God doesn't exist." They state the fact that there is zero evidence of God's existence, and so they do not believe in him.

So you've shot yourself in the foot there, right from the beginning. As we've tried to tell you from the start, but you're stuck on your idea, so... *shrug*. Good luck with that.

You disagree with the statement: "God probably doesn't exist," do you? That's what I claimed atheists believed in the second paragraph. If I am wrong, please feel free to explain.

 

[DarkSun]

OK. I'll take a stab at this. The problem with your thinking is that you assume that atheism is a belief or more accurately anti-belief which it is not. It is the absence of belief. Do you see the distinction? As someone else pointed out earlier, "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby.

For me, belief and viewpoint are synonymous. Do you disagree? My dictionary doesn't seem to. So are you suggesting that disbelief in God is not a viewpoint?

 

[DarkSun]

So, my friend with whom I talk only about once every 6-8 months or so is not actually my friend? Weird. I didn't realize there was a time limit on communication with friends. I don't always agree with my friends either, but I'd bet that if I sent them a link to this and they looked at it, they'd probably just go with it.



You mean you're not arguing about the original topic. You're now arguing with the idea that friends tend to support friends and arguing with who is actually considered a friend. Amazingly, you've moved on to an even more bizarre and worthless argument.

Stop being a prick. Kthxbye.

 

[Commoner]

Me too.

Ditto.

 

[logician]

Imagine these scenarios:


3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

Easy, I would be looking at myself in the past, and though there were some good memories, I came to the realization that I was being sold a bill of goods. Then I left.

 

[Magic Man]

It's invisible, didn't you read the description?

Yeah, but that doesn't make sense, so it can't be true...wait a minute, but even if it doesn't make sense, you're still justified in believing it, right? So, I guess you'd be justified in believing in an invisible, purple 1-pound elephant with an 8-foot-wingspan, too.