What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[bhaktajan]

and even from a scientific perspective examining the physical domain we need conceed we are near blind.

What Ho, Ole Boy!

This is the very important truth of life.
It is a factor of irony too that we are afraid of being controlled by a cult allure ---while we are guilty of being a cult of One ----one of millions of statistical consumers that the advertising industry markets to with utmost percision, but I digress . . .

The important truth referred in the above cited quote is:

Most of what we claim to know comes to us blindly and accepted blindly. I know where China is on a school Wall map . . . but could I drive there? Fly a plane there? Steer a ship there?

Okay we believe in the pilot's know-how! And the mechanic's know-how! And the weather Forecaster's know-how! And the Airport Control Tower dispatcher!

Why? Because those workers are paying a premium investment via the work obligations and, fees to Insurance companys, and, their actuarial tables' up-keep.

Those workers are selflessly preforming their obligated duties as a vocation with social redeeming value.

So, for the rest of us . . . we "leave the driving to others" ----WE ARE PLACING OUR FAITH IN OTHER AUTHORITIES HAPLESSLY ---as long as they are properly "Insured" they are ready to sell us a ticket.

Not to worry put your trust in their Insurance Companies word of Honor.

I guess there is a new niche market there up for grabs:

Insurance policies for "Change of religious faith due to dissatisfaction" Insurance.

Or similarly,

Insurance policies for "Change of Lover due to dissatisfaction" Insurance.

Life's a gamble of hit and miss ---Insurance Company insert the reality check into the equation.

Don't fly with a cult mentality phobia, fly "Sedated-Airlines ---now with blase seating and a complimentary blinders or other assorted distracting perks to take your mind off "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines", behind the curtain of actuarial tables."

You'd think that the pilot should say those things that the military drill sargent famously says to the new recruits, "Okay you baby faces listen to me, I'm your father and your mommy and your only hope, so what I say goes, you hear me?"

or how about this forbiden truism?:

"Mommy are we gonna crash?"
"Oh honey, just have blind faith in the Captain Stranger and his crew of "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" ---why don't you stare at the Video of Mary Poppins until the 100 Tons flying machine with 300 thousand parts and all the co-passengers that we now share our present destiny with until we land this flying ship safely and we can break out in applause to show our satisfaction that we didn't crash and all dies in flames. Oh Honey just believe in blind fate and/or take a nap and dream nice dreams".

 

[ellenjanuary]

Are you talking smack about atheists? Even worse, are you talking smack about my Gwynnies?

Kidding. I seem to know what you are saying. Maybe I need more sleep.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

If there was evidence for God, every rational person would have to intellectually assent to God's existence.

And there would be no place for faith, hope, or love.

Why is faith more important than evidence.

And what does hope and love got to do with god?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Why is faith more important than evidence.

And what does hope and love got to do with god?

We burn geckos around here... :sarcastic

Sorry. God is love, that simplification works. Ever wake up in the morning, not know where you are? Faith keeps one sane when the evidence is objectionable.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

We burn geckos around here... :sarcastic

What did the poor geckos ever do to you?

Sorry. God is love, that simplification works.

What kind of love?

Is it the kind of love i have for my car?

Is it the kind of love i have for nachos?

What about the kind of love i have for girls in cargo pants?

Ever wake up in the morning, not know where you are?

Yep.

Then i open my eyes and look around and figure it out. I don't make up an invisible friend to tell me where i am.

Faith keeps one sane when the evidence is objectionable.

Wouldn't it be easier to change ones perceptions of agreeable then pretend the evidence doesn't exist?

-Q

 

[ellenjanuary]

What did the poor geckos ever do to you?

It was just the lunacy of the moment, me talking to my compy.

What kind of love?

Is it the kind of love i have for my car?

Is it the kind of love i have for nachos?

What about the kind of love i have for girls in cargo pants?

Yeah. Despite being crazy (or, perhaps because of it) I have it easy. By aligning my Gwynnies directly between me and god, such simplifications make perfect sense to me. Others have all this complexity.

Yep.

Then i open my eyes and look around and figure it out. I don't make up an invisible friend to tell me where i am.



Wouldn't it be easier to change ones perceptions of agreeable then pretend the evidence doesn't exist?

-Q

Nah. We just have differing definitions of faith and god. Hey, I tried chaos. I failed. Epic-ly. That was a good day.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Nah. We just have differing definitions of faith and god. Hey, I tried chaos. I failed. Epic-ly. That was a good day.

Actually it sounds like you did well

 

[Wombat]

This is the very important truth of life.
snip
Most of what we claim to know comes to us blindly and accepted blindly.
snip
"Oh honey, just have blind faith in the Captain Stranger and his crew"....

I can see (and largely agree) with what you are saying re ‘blind faith’ in every day life.
My reference (and I should have been more explicit) was to being literally blind to physical reality.
Imagine the range of the spectrum of light you perceive is analogous to keys on a piano keyboard... you/I see the equivalent of seven keys...a mere handspan of the spectrum.
To understand how much of the spectrum of light we do not perceive (UV,Gamma ect)...imagine the piano keyboard running all the way to the Sun....some 93 million miles............that reflects what we don’t see.
I would call that technically blind.
And in that state of near blindness to the bulk of what transpires arround us we maintain the blind faith that we can determine wether 'evidence' exists for all manner of things....invisible God included.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

Argument from ignorance. "had to come from somewhere" does not necessarily equal "god did it".

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

Argumentum ad populum. The idea that "80% of the world believes in god" is equally meaningless in terms of evidence. The majority of people used to believe that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Popular opinion isn't evidence.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

And this is a runaway metaphor. The long-hand of the argument is thus:

"Every building had a builder. Every painting had a painter. Every watch had a watch-maker. You would never look at a building, a painting, or a watch and just assume that these things happened by accident. No, the building is 100% proof that there was a builder. The painting is 100% proof that there was a painter. Likewise, creation is 100% proof that there was a creator."

Now, here's the problem with a runaway metaphor. You can't stop it there.
If we accept the initial premise of the metaphor as true (every X had an X-maker) then by extension every builder had a builder-maker, every painter had a painter-maker, and thus, every creator had a creator-maker. And it just keeps going ad infinitum.

You can't stop a runaway metaphor.

:fsm:

 

[nrg]

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean? We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals. That all had to come from somewhere.

Really? From where? And has it been observed happening, or let alone, been any evidence of it happening? Is there a working model about how it happened that can be falsified?

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

The reality is that this is an argument ad populum, and they are never legit. Don't site what the majority of people thinks outside of a sociology debate, because it doesn't matter.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

I could just as well flip this argument in the direction of atheism.

Look at the Hoover Dam, the Mahnattan Bridge or at a recipe for a dish. They're simple, elegant and meant for a single purpose. They're designed to be as effective as possible for specific things and are not very flexible at all. Sure, you can arrange a running contest on a bridge and teach chemistry with recipes, but their uses are extremely limited. You will have to convert them if you want to do lots of other stuff with designs, and even then they're often much better at their original purpose.

Now look at sand dunes, snow flakes and mountains. They're formed through natural processes, and their variation is governed by chaos; that is, you will always get the same end result with the same input, but you can't predict what will happen (pretty freaky stuff). Sand dunes are formed because of winds, winds that are in turn formed through the weather wich is controlled through chaos. They're dependent on the exact winds blowing the right ammount of sand and stopping in the right place to form the complex patterns and shapes you can see in North Africa. They're formed by the closest we can get to true randomness, and the sand dunes of Sahara, the mountains of the Himalayas and the snow flakes falling in a winter paradise close to you are all extremely more complex than the Manhattan bridge. The Manhattan bridge has subway tracks and what not, built by a web of steel that boggles the mind. But one single snow flake has about 10 quintillion water molecules (and quintillion is a really, really large number, even if you Americans are using the short scale) that grouped together because the conditions were just right, governed by chaos.

My argument doesn't prove there was no creator. However, I don't see how it's not as valid as yours, and we can't both be right. So, neither argument is actually proving anything, it's just a personal reflection of what complexity means to us.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes. Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God? The earth and life is the evidence.

You can disprove evolution, you can find observations of evolution in the fossil record, you can find the similarities between all the species in the DNA and map out the family tree, you can see useless body parts in animals that were of great importance to their ancestors or cousins and you can see how evolution can be used predictively in medicine, biology and even computer science. That's evidence, none of which the God hypotheses can bring to the table.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that we theists have to realize that what convinces us... usually a deep spiritual experience or connection to deity is not something that everyone shares, or can be understood by others.

That would make evangelism and proselytizing abjectly useless. I'm not sure how I can square this with many religions.

IMO, if we accept the idea that religion is a personal matter, then we implicitly reject all those religions that consider religion to be not just a personal matter.

Your "assertion" is noted.

Nelson asserted "I see no ships"....but then again...he had his telescope up to his blind eye

So... are you trying to say that atheists (or is it anyone who doesn't believe as you do?) are wilfully ignoring the evidence, or is this just a non sequitir?

Perhaps...perhaps not. Depends on what kind of God we are talking about, depends on what kind of evidence and methodology of examination we are using and who is examining the evidence. i.e. evidence may be scriptural/historical examined in the light of mathematical probability and (like any two juries) one group may find the evidence persuasive/conclusive while another may be dismissive.

Seeing how there is such a range of god-concepts, would you care to pick one of them and explain how any piece of real evidence is better explained with that god than without it?

While maths/science may play a role in the consideration of evidence it is not a scientific experiment with hard science ('proof') outcome...it is a jury trial in which each individual has the oportunity to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion.

I respect and share the conclusion that there is no 'proof' of God.

To say that there is no 'evidence' is to assume one has exhaustively examined a vast vast domain with impartial eyes wide open...and even from a scientific perspective examining the physical domain we need conceed we are near blind.

By the same token, I assume that you concede the existence of evidence against every god-concept as well.

 

[nrg]

If there was evidence for God, every rational person would have to intellectually assent to God's existence.

And there would be no place for faith, hope, or love.

Wow, what a bummer! We would be screwed! And it's not like there's an omnipotent being who could convey this message in a way that doesn't relieve ourselves from our hope, love and faith! Or induce and keep it alive again without using this really ineffecient way! We're so screwed!

Also, I take offense when you say that believing in things because there's evidence for it and not believing in things because there's no evidence for it takes away hope and love.

 

[sniper762]

i am a christian but i will admit that is NO evidence to prove my belief......only my faith

 

[painted wolf]

That would make evangelism and proselytizing abjectly useless. I'm not sure how I can square this with many religions.

Not useless... you can still tell others about your faith. You just shouldn't expect them to just accept your experience as gospel.

IMO, if we accept the idea that religion is a personal matter, then we implicitly reject all those religions that consider religion to be not just a personal matter.

Nope, religion is also a sociological/cultural phenomenon... it's the "rules" that our spiritual experiences operate under.
There are few religions that will tell you that you don't have a personal connection or experience/responsibility with deity.

Besides, just because it's personal doesn't mean it can't be shared with others. People share personal stories with each other all the time. That is the point of this forum, to discuss personal views on religion and our experiences with it.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not useless... you can still tell others about your faith. You just shouldn't expect them to just accept your experience as gospel.

But that's what makes it useless. Proselytizing is about winning converts - without actually convincing people of your faith, it loses its point. It negates the whole idea of the Great Commission, for instance.

Nope, religion is also a sociological/cultural phenomenon... it's the "rules" that our spiritual experiences operate under.
There are few religions that will tell you that you don't have a personal connection or experience/responsibility with deity.

I said "not just a personal experience". Personal experience is all fine and good, but there are a significant number of religions that preach things like the Christian "every knee shall bow..." without qualifying that with "every knee that belongs to someone who has had a deep religious experience shall bow".

There are many religions that preach that a particular set of beliefs is true, and that it's true for everyone.

Besides, just because it's personal doesn't mean it can't be shared with others. People share personal stories with each other all the time. That is the point of this forum, to discuss personal views on religion and our experiences with it.

There's a difference between sharing views and proselytizing. In fact, this forum makes a clear distinction between the two and says that one is allowed (encouraged, in fact) and the other is not.

My point is that saying "religion is a personal matter" contradicts all those religions that say, effectively "my religion is a personal matter for you"... but there are many religions that do just that.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Wow, what a bummer! We would be screwed! And it's not like there's an omnipotent being who could convey this message in a way that doesn't relieve ourselves from our hope, love and faith! Or induce and keep it alive again without using this really ineffecient way! We're so screwed!

Also, I take offense when you say that believing in things because there's evidence for it and not believing in things because there's no evidence for it takes away hope and love.

How can you take offense at angellous? He's all angellous and stuff.

The second part of his post only reaffirms the first. If there was evidence for god, there would be an intellectual mandate to believe in god. And being the quirky creatures that we are, no matter how cool god was in that instance, some of us would not like it. At all.

So, in his case, as with others; faith, hope and love exist "without evidence." In your case, that may be entirely different. I never understood atheists either...

 

[painted wolf]

But that's what makes it useless. Proselytizing is about winning converts - without actually convincing people of your faith, it loses its point. It negates the whole idea of the Great Commission, for instance.

I'm not saying that you can't convert people by sharing your faith... just that you shouldn't be surprised that not everyone will find it convincing.

I said "not just a personal experience". Personal experience is all fine and good, but there are a significant number of religions that preach things like the Christian "every knee shall bow..." without qualifying that with "every knee that belongs to someone who has had a deep religious experience shall bow".

There are many religions that preach that a particular set of beliefs is true, and that it's true for everyone.

Like I said, theists can't agree among themselves... why should they expect atheists to simply accept things?

There's a difference between sharing views and proselytizing. In fact, this forum makes a clear distinction between the two and says that one is allowed (encouraged, in fact) and the other is not.

Sometimes it's a fine distinction.

My point is that saying "religion is a personal matter" contradicts all those religions that say, effectively "my religion is a personal matter for you"... but there are many religions that do just that.

And yet you find those same religions push a personal experience with deity... the heart of becoming "born again" is such an experience for example.

Effectively what they are actually saying is "my religion is a personal matter for you because you need to have a transformative spiritual experience like I did."... they think they can induce such an experience by haranguing you into it. (a point I disagree with btw)

wa:do

 

[nrg]

The second part of his post only reaffirms the first. If there was evidence for god, there would be an intellectual mandate to believe in god. And being the quirky creatures that we are, no matter how cool god was in that instance, some of us would not like it. At all.

So God has to keep everyone happy? Before I go on, I want to know, is this what you mean?

So, in his case, as with others; faith, hope and love exist "without evidence." In your case, that may be entirely different. I never understood atheists either...

I can't say I have a lot of faith (albeit I have some, since complete knowledge of absolutely everything is not possible), but love and hope? Yes, I do, and my hope for the World keeps growing the more I listen to the statistics on falling poverty, famine, diseases and many other, nasty things. I've been voulenteering for three months now, and the feedback I get from people I help is enough to get me through my stressful studies.

The more I see the World through the lense of evidence and reason, the more hope and love I see and the easier it is to understand it. I really don't see the necessary connection between rationality and a decrease in love and hope.

On a side note, I've never really understood theists using these arguments at all. Why do people keep making excuses for someone who can do whatever he wants and control all the consequences?

 

[ellenjanuary]

So God has to keep everyone happy? Before I go on, I want to know, is this what you mean?

Absolutely not. In fact, god makes me crazy. My Gwynnies makes me happy. Then again, others tend to note, "You and that dang Gwynnie; ellen, you're crazy!" But what seems to be a common denominator is that all who view god use a lens; whether or not that lens be established religion, a sacred text, or personal revelation. And what should be thus apparent, between man and lens there is flaw enough. I'm not the kind of theist who believes that everyone should "know god." I'm more the kind of theist who believes everyone should know themselves; in the course of such investigation, there is usually found "something beyond the self." But I am not telling you what to believe... believe it or not.

I can't say I have a lot of faith (albeit I have some, since complete knowledge of absolutely everything is not possible), but love and hope? Yes, I do, and my hope for the World keeps growing the more I listen to the statistics on falling poverty, famine, diseases and many other, nasty things. I've been voulenteering for three months now, and the feedback I get from people I help is enough to get me through my stressful studies.

The more I see the World through the lense of evidence and reason, the more hope and love I see and the easier it is to understand it. I really don't see the necessary connection between rationality and a decrease in love and hope.

On a side note, I've never really understood theists using these arguments at all. Why do people keep making excuses for someone who can do whatever he wants and control all the consequences?

I'm not making excuses for god. I'm making excuses for angellous. He's all angellous and stuff. See? You got a lens. You have a degree of faith that is expressed through existence for others... what are we arguing about?

 

[bhaktajan]

"had to come from somewhere" does not necessarily equal "god did it".

You can't stop a runaway metaphor.

That is the very definition of "God"!
God = "He/She/It from whence everything originates from"

It's like when a 'human' goes to a 'human' doctor/dentist/electrics/plumber/candlestick maker ---it each case their services and comodities and expertise CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ---and OUR TASK is to pay the fee and allow the experts to show How it is done.

Typically we don't know how any thing operates ---yet after years of training and preparation in expertises beyond our sphere of knowledge . . . others arrive to remedy a problem that affects us in excahnge for absolutely mutually recognised "Legal Tender" [aka, cash for services rendered].

If you got cheated . . . again, consult a legal-rights-rep [aka, a lawyer] ---If, in this case, No contract was signed ---then chalk-it-up to a 'learning experience'.

This applies to living a life that accrues future karma . . . that we had no idea who it all works . . . thus, our errors in life-after-life-time add up to chalking-up a new (or repeatedly re-occurring) 'learning experience'.



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Argument from ignorance?