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

[Commoner]

I can't, that's the point.

Exactly, you can't because nobody is..."brave"... enough to suggest such an idea!

And is it so much to ask that people lose the belligerent, sarcastic attitude?

Impossible.

 

[DarkSun]

Not proof, DS - the lack of evidence is evidence, not proof. How could you argue it's not evidence?

I don't see evidence for black swans. Therefore that's evidence they don't exist.

Just as the lack of a certain type of side effects for a certain medicine (as shown in a study/through usage...) is evidence that the medicine does not cause such side effects, why wouldn't the lack of evidence for something be evidence against it?

True. But if other people claim that such side effects are occurring regardless, then there must be something going on. Maybe your sample isn't representative of the population? Maybe there's a genetic disposition to react a certain way to the drug? You can't just say: "this definitely isn't the case" - just because there's a lack of evidence, currently, for the scenario.

 

[Commoner]

I don't see evidence for black swans. Therefore that's evidence they don't exist.

YES! It was evidence that black swans didn't exist. It would be daft to think they did exist (without evidence), just as it would be daft to think purple swans with yellow beaks exist - until such time as there is evidence for it.

True. But if other people claim that such side effects are occurring regardless, then there must be something going on. Maybe your sample isn't representative of the population? Maybe there's a genetic disposition to react a certain way to the drug? You can't just say: "this definitely isn't the case" - just because there's a lack of evidence, currently, for the scenario.

Yes, you go back, you redo the tests, you examine the people making the claim, etc... What's your point, we've been looking for god for the last 2000 years (at least), still no evidence for it - you admit it yourself. How is a lack of evidence not evidence?

 

[DarkSun]

YES! It was evidence that black swans didn't exist. It would be daft to think they did exist (without evidence), just as it would be daft to think purple swans with yellow beaks exist - until such time as there is evidence for it.

Okay. Is there a distinction between evidence and proof here? I didn't realise there was one. Because from the way I'm looking at things, just because there's no evidence for something, that doesn't mean that it can't be true. So in that sense, a lack of evidence would not be "proof" that black swans do not exist. Whether or not you feel justified in believing or disbelieving then comes down to whatever makes sense to you.

Yes, you go back, you redo the tests, you examine the people making the claim, etc... What's your point, we've been looking for god for the last 2000 years (at least), still no evidence for it - you admit it yourself. How is a lack of evidence not evidence?

But what you're forgetting to mention is that there is no evidence for the inexistence of God, either. Atheists have been looking for that for a while, too. Just look at Dawkins.

There are, however, arguments which can suggest one way or the other... but this is not definite proof, or evidence.

 

[Commoner]

Okay. Is there a distinction between evidence and proof here? I didn't realise there was one. Because from the way I'm looking at things, just because there's no evidence for something, that doesn't mean that it can't be true. So in that sense, a lack of evidence would not be "proof" that black swans do not exist. Whether or not you feel justified in believing or disbelieving then comes down to whatever makes sense to you.

Well, then I don't know what else you're looking for - if you take evidence as proof, a lack of evidence for something is proof against it. Proof does not(!) equal truth, it simply means that one is able to come to a logical conclusion based on the evidence. A lack of black swans is evidence of there being no black swans. The more swans you see, the more sure you can be - the stronger your evidence is. That's it, that's all you can do, there's no absolute proof, no absolute truth.

But what you're forgetting to mention is that there is no evidence for the inexistence of God, either. Atheists have been looking for that for a while, too. Just look at Dawkins.

There are, however, arguments which can suggest one way or the other... but this is not definite proof, or evidence.

Which god? There is evidence for the inexistance of god - it's the lack of god.

 

[justify]

Atheists might enjoy life while they can, but in the long run they are loosing, and by the way, what makes men know wright from wrong, what makes then act moraly like they do, what commands they to act a certain way moraly, that something is god.

 

[DarkSun]

Atheists might enjoy life while they can, but in the long run they are loosing, and by the way, what makes men know wright from wrong, what makes then act moraly like they do, what commands they to act a certain way moraly, that something is god.

So according to you, God condemns people He disagrees with to hell? And at the same time, He loves us all? Don't buy it, sorry.

 

[justify]

So according to you, God condemns people He disagrees with to hell? And at the same time, He loves us all? Don't buy it, sorry.

perhaps you disagree with the perception of god by man ,heaven hell and so on, because that is what it is after all, a perception, religion is how men from diferent cultures percieve god.I do not believe the bible was written directly by the hand of god,do you ? no, it was an inspiration. Dosent change the fact that he is god.

 

[Commoner]

So according to you, God condemns people He disagrees with to hell? And at the same time, He loves us all? Don't buy it, sorry.

((Psst! Don't feed the trolls!:foot)

 

[DarkSun]

((Psst! Don't feed the trolls!:foot)

Lol.

 

[justify]

(snip)Which god? There is evidence for the inexistance of god - it's the lack of god.(snip)
lack of evidence is in no way proof.

 

[DarkSun]

(snip)Which god? There is evidence for the inexistance of god - it's the lack of god.(snip)
lack of evidence is in no way proof.

*Sigh...*

 

[dogsgod]

What does evidence for the non-existence of black swans look like? Oh. Wait. Hang on. Even though they didn't have any evidence in the 1600s, they still existed. So it looks like a lack of evidence for something is not proof against something. Why you keep using the lack of evidence as a reason not to believe is beyond me. If you really want to say something based on the available evidence, then it would be better to say that there is no proof either way (because there isn't).

Better yet... why am I still posting?

That's my point, there wasn't evidence for the non existence of white swans. There's no such thing as evidence for non existence, so it's ludicrous to say there is no evidence either way because it doesn't work either way. There can be evidence for, but not for non existence. The same goes for white crows, until we find evidence for them, I'm not going to formulate a belief that they exist, that would be foolish. The same goes for God. Until there's evidence I'm not playing the fool.

 

[Smoke]

The only difference between belief in the tooth fairy and belief in God, is that people actually say that the tooth fairy is a human invention. However, this is not the case for God. People actually do believe God exists. But if this were not the case, and all people claimed that the tooth fairy was actually real... and if they had a plausible reason, like their teeth disappearing, or feeling something more than what the non-existence of the tooth fairy explains... then yes. Belief in the tooth fairy, like disbelief in the tooth fairy, would be based on whatever makes sense internally to you or I. In that sense, we would all be equally justified.

People do believe in the Tooth Fairy, though those people are generally not adults or exceptionally bright children.

I agree with this quote to an extent. I'd just go one step further and say that God is the architect of the universe. I don't claim to know anything else... how would I know?

Perhaps in the same way that you know God is the architect of the universe. Why don't you explain how you know that?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Atheists might enjoy life while they can, but in the long run they are loosing, and by the way, what makes men know wright from wrong, what makes then act moraly like they do, what commands they to act a certain way moraly, that something is god.

So when God commands Israelite armies to massacre in the Old Testament, how is this moral. I intently await your answer.

 

[dogsgod]

People do believe in the Tooth Fairy, though those people are generally not adults or exceptionally bright children.

Perhaps in the same way that you know God is the architect of the universe. Why don't you explain how you know that?

Believers don't even know what they believe as it relates to God.

 

[Magic Man]

Can you honestly not see that my beliefs have nothing to do with the argument at all?

I can honestly not see that your beliefs have nothing to do with the argument at all. Why wouldn't your beliefs have to do with the argument? You keep mentioning "any form of god".

 

[Magic Man]

And is it so much to ask that people lose the belligerent, sarcastic attitude?

I guess you're the only one who's allowed to use that, huh?

 

[Magic Man]

I agree with this quote to an extent. I'd just go one step further and say that God is the architect of the universe. I don't claim to know anything else... how would I know?

So, basically, you're a deist. Now we have something to work with. Generally atheists don't outright reject deist-type gods. They may see them as extraneous, but they don't reject them like they do theistic gods. So, your form of god isn't one they're talking about when they say "God doesn't exist".

 

[Alceste]

Okay. Semantics aside, I don't think this really goes against what I'm saying.

You're not believing because there is insufficient evidence for belief, right? Well, what if we turned it the other way around and said that people are justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief? It works both ways, because it's not as if there's any proof either way.

Again, if you disagree, feel free to cite the relevant journal article.

"Journal article"? To support an opinion? No, I'm not the "appeal to authority" logic fallacy type. You go ahead if you think it will help your case. I wouldn't hold my breath though, if I were you - the members here are pretty sharp with that kind of thing.

It does not "work both ways". Belief in god/s is a positive action - a decision to embrace somebody's concept of a deity despite a complete lack of evidence supporting it. Not believing does not require any action. I never have embraced a belief without any evidence to support it. My disbelief in all the gods thus far proposed is exactly the same as my disbelief in every other non-evidenced proposal.

Once more, I will point out that by your reasoning, EVERY non-evidenced proposal is worthy of belief. That's a dangerous attitude - every now and then a drugged up teenager who sees things your way decides to believe he can fly, with disastrous consequences.