Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[McBell]

... can you defend this belief in a godless universe?

Outside the wishful thinking of those claiming a deity exists, there is no evidence that a deity exists.
Let alone convincing evidence.

Perhaps it has something to do with not being a choir member?

there we go.
Defended better than any defense in support of a deity existing.

Your turn.

 

[1137]

Outside the wishful thinking of those claiming a deity exists, there is no evidence that a deity exists.

People tell me there's no evidence for evolution either, yet the evidence does not vanish.

Let alone convincing evidence.

This goes back to one of my first responses on the thread. What makes evidence convincing? Clearly many people are indeed convinced. Why should your subjective mental state be superior to theirs?

Perhaps it has something to do with not being a choir member?

... what?

there we go.
Defended better than any defense in support of a deity existing.

Your turn.

Oof.

 

[firedragon]

People tell me there's no evidence for evolution either, yet the evidence does not vanish.

There's obvious evidence for evolution. Well this is irrelevant, but what do you mean by evolution?

 

[1137]

There's obvious evidence for evolution. Well this is irrelevant, but what do you mean by evolution?

It's sarcasm. One of the most common tactics I've seen in places like this is just to pretend the evidence for theism does not exist, rather than address it. However, these same people will object when a creationist or flat earther attempts the same tactics, it's only valid when they do it.

 

[firedragon]

It's sarcasm. One of the most common tactics I've seen in places like this is just to pretend the evidence for theism does not exist, rather than address it. However, these same people will object when a creationist or flat earther attempts the same tactics, it's only valid when they do it.

My brother. I was not challenging you. Yet I think I understand what you say and agree. The issue is, the majority in religious discussion groups are atheists.

I was asking YOU a question. What do "you" refer to as evolution? Because when ever a strong evangelical atheist says the word evolution he is predominantly referring to a Darwinian gradual random genetic mutation. But it's only evident that there are more naturalistic models of evolution accepted and debated by atheist biologists and scientists out there. Genuinely, I have seen many atheists just say " that's pseudo science" like a knee-jerk reaction. Of course what else do you expect?

I was asking you for me to know what you were referring to. Nevertheless, just know, even from a completely naturalistic perspective there are many theories of evolution. Evolution is a phenomena where many people including Darwin and many other people had "explanations" of the phenomena based on their studies. Thus, the bottomline is, evolution does not mean Darwinism. You can see evolution in reality without going for any of these theories. There are blacks, there are whites, and in-betweens, tall geographical areas, short one's etc, etc, etc. Thats evidence of evolution. Was that darwinian? Cannot be proven to be fact because science does not work with facts by default.

Long ago. In the 14th century a Muslim guy said that humans evolved from chimps. He was not shunned but was an expert economist and Islamic scholar. Times change.

Peace.

 

[Tomef]

It's an irrelevant comment.

It’s the only relevant starting point. How do you know about these gods? From books. Who wrote them? Other people. If those books didn’t exist, what would we know about the gods people worshipped in the ancient world?

 

[firedragon]

It’s the only relevant starting point.

No. It's a starting point for another thread. It's a strawman for this.

 

[1137]

It’s the only relevant starting point. How do you know about these gods?

From experience, or reason.

From books. Who wrote them? Other people.

If those books didn’t exist, what would we know about the gods people worshipped in the ancient world?

This is how we know about... anything and everything from the ancient world.

 

[Tomef]

No. It's a starting point for another thread. It's a strawman for this.

In what way is it a straw man? Is ‘does Inana exist?’ a question that requires a positive claim in the sense that you mean here? What about ‘does Sauron exist?’ Or ‘does the phantom tollbooth exist?’ We know about those characters / things because someone wrote about them, not because anyone thinks they are real. You don’t need to actively not believe in them, it would never occur to anyone (or hardly anyone, perhaps) to believe they are real.

 

[Tomef]

From experience, or reason.

You know about gods worshipped by ancient Israelites through experience or reason?

This is how we know about... anything and everything from the ancient world.

So you didn’t learn about ancient religious beliefs through experience or reason, but from books?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not what I am saying.
Let me put it this way: How do you know that what you are looking at it is a tree with green leaves?

If you mean empiricism as per correspondence with in effect objective reality? Then I don't. Remember I am an extreme skeptic.

 

[Koldo]

If you mean empiricism as per correspondence with in effect objective reality? Then I don't. Remember I am an extreme skeptic.

You told me that I can't observe the leaves on the tree are green in the same way I can observe that the universe is natural. I dispute this.

How do you determine that to be the case?

 

[1137]

You know about gods worshipped by ancient Israelites through experience or reason?

Correct.

So you didn’t learn about ancient religious beliefs through experience or reason, but from books?

Reading a book is experience, and hopefully when doing so you apply reason. These are not mutually exclusive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You told me that I can't observe the leaves on the tree are green in the same way I can observe that the universe is natural. I dispute this.

How do you determine that to be the case?

You can tell what the leaves look like, you can touch them, you can smell them, you can hear them in the wind and you could even taste them. Now do the same with natural.

 

[1137]

In what way is it a straw man? Is ‘does Inana exist?’ a question that requires a positive claim in the sense that you mean here? What about ‘does Sauron exist?’ Or ‘does the phantom tollbooth exist?’ We know about those characters / things because someone wrote about them, not because anyone thinks they are real. You don’t need to actively not believe in them, it would never occur to anyone (or hardly anyone, perhaps) to believe they are real.

Claiming that nobody really believes in the gods (in this case Inana) is outright dishonest, imo.

 

[firedragon]

In what way is it a straw man?

Read the OP, read your comment, and you would know.

 

[Koldo]

You can tell what the leaves look like, you can touch them, you can smell them, you can hear them in the wind and you could even taste them. Now do the same with natural.

But why are you calling them 'leaves'?
You are perceiving something and then calling them 'leaves'. But calling them 'leaves' is not a direct consequence of your observation. It is rather a consequence of you finding a mental construct (a category) that is applicable to it. Likewise, it is the same with 'natural'.

 

[McBell]

People tell me there's no evidence for evolution either, yet the evidence does not vanish.

And?
You were going on and on about how allegedly no one defends the God does not exist "argument."
I flat out "defended" it.
You really should be happy.

This goes back to one of my first responses on the thread. What makes evidence convincing? Clearly many people are indeed convinced. Why should your subjective mental state be superior to theirs?

Why should yours?
Or anyone elses for that matter?
People are free to believe whatever suits their fancy.
If you wish to leave your standards for evidence low enough to allow for your favoured deity, then that is on you.
My standards for evidence are rather quite high for an all knowing all powerful creator of all there is.

To each their own.

... what?

Choir members.
Basically people who already believe are much much easier to "convince" than those who do not already believe.

Oof.

For all the whining and complaining you did over no one ever "defending" the opposite of your beliefs stance, you sure shut up quick when someone did....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But why are you calling them 'leaves'?
You are perceiving something and then calling them 'leaves'. But calling them 'leaves' is not a direct consequence of your observation. It is rather a consequence of you finding a mental construct (a category) that is applicable to it. Likewise, it is the same with 'natural'.

Well, yes, It is in both cases words but the referents are different when it comes to how you interact. One is a concrete and the other an abstract as their referents go.

 

[McBell]

It's sarcasm. One of the most common tactics I've seen in places like this is just to pretend the evidence for theism does not exist, rather than address it. However, these same people will object when a creationist or flat earther attempts the same tactics, it's only valid when they do it.

I do not pretend that theists use a much lower standard for evidence than I do.
Well, at least when it comes to their beliefs.
Most of them seem to have a real problem applying the same standards of evidence to their beliefs that they want others to present for theirs.

Creationists are really bad for it.

Interestingly enough, they also do an awful lot of whining and complaining when it is pointed out their standards are so low that the only worries about them is stubbing ones toe.

That is, IF (and a mighty mighty big IF it is) you can get them to not simply flat out ignore it.