To the Anti-Religious

[dogsgod]

Okay. There is also a lack of evidence for God's inexistence, correct? And yet you still don't believe He exists? Could you please explain how this isn't faith, because I am very confused, and it sounds to me as if you're in denial about something that really doesn't matter.

I don't give a pink and puckered rat's *** for so called evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There's lot's of things I'm unaware of that I don't believe exist because it's impossible to believe something exists that I'm unaware of. That would include your God. I don't have a clue as to what it consists of or if it exists at all so why would anyone waste time looking for evidence of its nonexistence?

 

[DarkSun]

I don't give a pink and puckered rat's *** for so called evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There's lot's of things I'm unaware of that I don't believe exist because it's impossible to believe something exists that I'm unaware of. That would include your God. I don't have a clue as to what it consists of or if it exists at all so why would anyone waste time looking for evidence of its nonexistence?

Hey dogsgod,

Okay, fair enough. You reject the idea of God because you do not see sufficient evidence. That makes sense. I understand.

However, you have not answered my question. Do you admit that there is no evidence for the inexistence of God? If so, how would the view that there is no God not be a testament to faith when there is no proof supporting this view either?

All the best,
SolOscura.

 

[themadhair]

However, you have not answered my question. Do you admit that there is no evidence for the inexistence of God? If so, how would the view that there is no God not be a testament to faith when there is no proof supporting this view either?

Contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence - particularly when taken within the context of the myriad of now falsified god-concepts that have ever been proposed by humanity.

Edited to add:
Basically what I meant to ask, and I expressed it rather poorly, is what makes your god-concept different from those that have been produced down through human history?

 

[dogsgod]

Hey dogsgod,

Okay, fair enough. You reject the idea of God because you do not see sufficient evidence. That makes sense. I understand.

However, you have not answered my question. Do you admit that there is no evidence for the inexistence of God? If so, how would the view that there is no God not be a testament to faith when there is no proof supporting this view either?

All the best,
SolOscura.

What would the evidence for the nonexistence of white crows look like vs the the evidence for white crows? There is no such thing as proof for the nonexistence of things. Take white crows, I don't believe they exist because I have yet to be presented with one. How does one prove they don't exist, well one can't. They might be someplace where no one has looked or they fly away before they can be spotted. I believe they don't exist but it's not a firm belief because obviously my belief will change if I'm presented with a white crow. What would evidence for the nonexistence of a God look like? We don't even know what the evidence for a God would look like.

 

[DarkSun]

Contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence - particularly when taken within the context of the myriad of now falsified god-concepts that have ever been proposed by humanity.

Hey themadhair,

Okay. Absense of evidence is evidence against a viewpoint.

Right.

So what if someone held the view that God does not exist. If they lack evidence for the nonexistence of God, would their lack of evidence be evidence toward the existence of God?

This is exactly the same reasoning as what you are using.

Regards,
SolOscura.

 

[DarkSun]

What would the evidence for the nonexistence of white crows look like vs the the evidence for white crows? There is no such thing as proof for the nonexistence of things. Take white crows, I don't believe they exist because I have yet to be presented with one. How does one prove they don't exist, well one can't. They might be someplace where no one has looked or they fly away before they can be spotted. I believe they don't exist but it's not a firm belief because obviously my belief will change if I'm presented with a white crow. What would evidence for the nonexistence of a God look like? We don't even know what the evidence for a God would look like.

Hey dogsgod,

Of course there is proof against certain beliefs. Someone could hold the view that gravity acts to pull you away from the centre of a larger mass. Through a simple experiment involving an apple, an apple tree and Isaac Newton, that view would could be (and has been) proven wrong. This is just one example in which a belief could be insubstantiated through hard evidence.

Likewise, evidence could show a belief to be true. In such a case, this proven belief would not require faith, because faith is believing something without evidence. However, there are a lot of views which cannot be supported by evidence. My disbelief in invisible pixies and white crows is one of those views. Since I cannot prove or disprove the existence of invisible pixies, my disbelief in them is therefore an act of faith, by definition. The same applies to your white crow argument.

While I would not normally compare God to invisible pixies and white crows, much the same concept applies there. Since there is a lack of evidence for or against the existence of God, to believe or disbelieve in Him without such evidence is an act of faith - by definition.

Regards,
SolOscura.

 

[themadhair]

Since I cannot prove or disprove the use of invisible pixies, my disbelief in them is therefore an act of faith, by definition.

Fallacy of equivocation alert.

 

[DarkSun]

Fallacy of equivocation alert.

How is it a fallacy? Please explain.

 

[themadhair]

How is it a fallacy? Please explain.

You are adhering to a particular definition of faith that is clearly not shared by other posters. Religious faith is not equivalent to other uses of the word, and what you are doing is to try and shoe horn in an equivocation by ‘adhering’ to a specific definition. It is a term that I try to avoid using precisely because its differing meanings are often used to set up the same equivocation you are shooting for.

 

[DarkSun]

You are adhering to a particular definition of faith that is clearly not shared by other posters. Religious faith is not equivalent to other uses of the word, and what you are doing is to try and shoe horn in an equivocation by ‘adhering’ to a specific definition. It is a term that I try to avoid using precisely because its differing meanings are often used to set up the same equivocation you are shooting for.

Is faith not the act of believing something without proof? What other definition is there?

 

[themadhair]

Is faith not the act of believing something without proof?

I believe my car will work tomorrow but I can never prove it - is this an act of faith? If so then your definition is so broad as to be a pointless attempt to equivocate between scenarios involving different standards of supporting logic and evidence.

 

[themadhair]

Examples of different uses of the word faith:

1) I have faith in that person.
2) I have faith that my car will work tomorrow.
3) I have faith that god exists.

Are those really equivalent uses of the faith? If you claim yes then you are equivocating.

 

[DarkSun]

I believe my car will work tomorrow but I can never prove it - is this an act of faith? If so then your definition is so broad as to be a pointless attempt to equivocate between scenarios involving different standards of supporting logic and evidence.

Well, until you take it to a mechanic to see if there's something wrong with your car, then yes, the belief that your car will break down tomorrow is an act of faith.

 

[DarkSun]

Examples of different uses of the word faith:

1) I have faith in that person.
2) I have faith that my car will work tomorrow.
3) I have faith that god exists.

Are those really equivalent uses of the faith? If you claim yes then you are equivocating.

No, I'm not. Each of those all fit under the definition of faith. :sarcastic

To me, there is only one definition to begin with, so how can I equivocate anything?

 

[themadhair]

Well, until you take it to a mechanic to see if there's something wrong with your car, then yes, the belief that your car will break down tomorrow is an act of faith.

Why did you misrepresent my example to be its exact opposite???????

 

[themadhair]

No, I'm not. Each of those all fit under the definition of faith. :sarcastic

To me, there is only one definition to begin with, so how can I equivocate anything?

Then everything is an act of faith and the concept is meaningless. So why introduce it if not to attempt an obvious equivocation?

 

[DarkSun]

Then everything is an act of faith and the concept is meaningless. So why introduce it if not to attempt an obvious equivocation?

No. If the view is proven then it is not an act of faith. Instead, it is a fact.

Why did you misrepresent my example to be its exact opposite???????

Oops. Sorry.

I'm tired, give me a break.

But my point is still there. If you just reword it to: "Take it to a mechanic to see if it'll work," then yeah, you get my point.

 

[themadhair]

If the view can be proven then it is not an act of faith.

If you want to take the term in its broadest, and most useless, sense in order to try and draw an equivocation between two unequally supported positions then feel free. It is pretty obvious where the fallacy is entering into the picture. Whether you take it on board or not is another matter, but having to rely on a word that isn’t precise should sound alarm bells.

 

[themadhair]

To give an example of the fallacy you are trying to reach, consider the following three statements:

1) I have faith that my car will work tomorrow.
2) I have faith that Barack Obama is an alien that will soon attempt to take over the world.
3) Since both 1 and 2 rely on faith they are both equally reasonable.

Problem is that I’ve danced this dance more times than I care to count and it has gotten rather old. People still seem to like pushing it though.

 

[DarkSun]

If you want to take the term in its broadest, and most useless, sense in order to try and draw an equivocation between two unequally supported positions then feel free. It is pretty obvious where the fallacy is entering into the picture. Whether you take it on board or not is another matter, but having to rely on a word that isn’t precise should sound alarm bells.

The word is specific, and has a specific definition. Faith is the act of believing something without evidence.

Belief in God and disbelief in God are both acts of faith.

As is my belief that the dog trainer is about to walk through my door in a matter of seconds.

It's not my fault that you find the word vague.

How is it such a bad thing that atheists are doing exactly the same thing as theists?

Anyway, I have to go now.

Ciao.