No evidence for or against God? Rational to assume he's not there

[grandpa]

As I have already said several times, it is possible
to gather evidence against the existence of a particular god.
I'm not sure how one would gather evidence against all
possible gods, though.

Gather evidence against all possibl;e Gods?
It's not a task one can do logically, let alone in fact. One cannot disprove everything imaginable, and that would be my point as an atheist.

You are setting up an impossible situation. Then you act as if impossibility discredits the very skepticism you are giving creedence to. This is exactly why, quite often, atheists say there is no "belief that God doesn't exist." There is simply a lack of belief in God, which is exactly what makes it a valid view. Any other view leaves one chasing his or her tail in erratic mind games.

Unfortunately for theists, one needn't even assume a God exists, let alone attempt to prove it through science.

Grandpa h.

[Meleagar]

Gather evidence against all possibl;e Gods?
It's not a task one can do logically, let alone in fact. One cannot disprove everything imaginable, and that would be my point as an atheist. .

That's exactly my point.

You are setting up an impossible situation..

I didn't set up any situation. The situation was set up by the claim "no gods exist". If one doesn't have evidence to support that claim, then they have to accept that the claim is irrational.

Then you act as if impossibility discredits the very skepticism you are giving creedence to..

Asserting that no gods exist isn't skepticism that gods exist; it is a positive assertion that no gods exist.

This is exactly why, quite often, atheists say there is no "belief that God doesn't exist." There is simply a lack of belief in God, which is exactly what makes it a valid view. Any other view leaves one chasing his or her tail in erratic mind games. .

As I have reiterated several times, one can hold a rational skepticism that gods exist, neutral skepticism, a lack of belief ... but asserting that no gods exist is not an expression of skepticism.

[Duke Rollo]

I'm not sure how one would gather evidence against all possible gods, though.

How many do you know?

Once, when I was doing mescaline at the Burning Man next to the orgy tent, I was having a conversation with my good friend Barto. Good guy, Barto. He had a head the size of a grapefruit and was missing six fingers. Polydactylism had netted him a net loss of only 2 digits, however. His hands were always a mess. Fingers everywhere. Don't know how he lost the others.

Anyway, I had just finished vomitting into Barto's hat when I saw Kali, the Indian goddess of death. She was floating above a pile of infant skulls and weilding a bottle of bacon flavored vodka in one taloned hand, a phallic chainsaw in the other, and the rest held various scrotal sacks harvested by my ex wives. She sneered at me in a bacon alcohol induced delerium of matriarchal fury and demanded I stab myself in the gizzards with Barto's trusty swiss army knife.

I awoke sometime later in Barto's tent clutching a bloody patch of duct tape over my spleen. I remember Barto saying, "you're lucky I know first aid."

My brush with the divine had left me dazed. Confused. I couldn't tell what was going on. I remember wondering what I'd find when I peeled back the duct tape. A wound or some strange Indian stigmata.

Anyway,

Gods don't like it when you don't believe in them. They also get touchy when you throw up and wet yourself at the same time when they're trying to show you their scrotal collection. I don't know about a creator of a universe, but I do know that I'm a believer.

[grandpa]

That's exactly my point.

No, it's not. You are using a literally impossible research task to discredit skepcticism.
That's quite different from my point, which is that some things cannot be proven to exist, so we therefore should not put any significant effort into proving them. I'd call it informed skepticism.

I didn't set up any situation.

Yes, you did, and you tried to set up another one in your new post. Your latest impossible situation is this claim: "Asserting that no gods exist isn't skepticism that gods exist; it is a positive assertion that no gods exist." In reality, there is only an imaginary divide between skepticism and atheism, just like there is an imaginary divide between God and man, because the whole relationship is imagined; relative to perception and, to some degree, semantics. Atheism is merely a logical extension of skepticism. If it does make a positive assertions it is, quite simply, that no gods are likely to exist. If evidence existed to the contrary, any sane atheist (and most of them are quite sane) would at least feel compelled to believe in god, regardless of how he or she would act upon that belief.

But let's face it, you are stuck doing just what I said: Playing erratic mind games. For practical purposes, it's a near total waste of mental energy to assume there is a significant difference between skeptcism (a lack of belief) and atheism (a lack of belief, though perhaps only marginally stronger). They are two words meaning virtually the same thing, with only imaginary distinctions. You assume that there is a "neutral skepticism, a lack of belief"... But what separates that from atheism? Is it the mere fact that atheists have heard of a God and do not believe in it? If so, then you truly are setting up an unfair and practically illogical situation, as few people haven't encountered a religious view of some kind. I suspect the following statement is what you're trying to prove: By definition atheists cannot be totally neutral, so they (supposedly) can't argue against God objectively. If that's your point, then you really need to evaluate your argument. Atheists argue against God; Skeptics argue against God. The only difference may be their intensity in tone or in logic.

Grandpa h.

[Meleagar]

The mind game is yours, grandpa, because what you claim atheism "means" is not what the dictionary claims. The dictionary makes a distinction between two different definitions of atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One is a positive assertion; the second is a lack of belief, or skepticism. I have been very precise in many of these threads to point out that the first kind of atheism is irrational; the second kind can be rational.

The second kind of atheist requires no support - can almost always be rationally supported, unless one is ignoring overwhelming evidence. The first kind of atheism is the positive asssertion that no gods exist, which is not neutral skepticism, and as it is a positive assertion, it should be supported using evidence and logic, or else it is irrational.

[minorwork]

The mind game is yours, grandpa, because what you claim atheism "means" is not what the dictionary claims. The dictionary makes a distinction between two different definitions of atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One is a positive assertion; the second is a lack of belief, or skepticism. I have been very precise in many of these threads to point out that the first kind of atheism is irrational; the second kind can be rational.

The second kind of atheist requires no support - can almost always be rationally supported, unless one is ignoring overwhelming evidence. The first kind of atheism is the positive assertion that no gods exist, which is not neutral skepticism, and as it is a positive assertion, it should be supported using evidence and logic, or else it is irrational.

Dictionary debates. Beautiful. Debating dictionary definitions. What great fun.

How many do you know?

Once, when I was doing mescaline at the Burning Man next to the orgy tent, I was having a conversation with my good friend Barto. Good guy, Barto. He had a head the size of a grapefruit and was missing six fingers. Polydactylism had netted him a net loss of only 2 digits, however. His hands were always a mess. Fingers everywhere. Don't know how he lost the others.

Anyway, I had just finished vomiting into Barto's hat when I saw Kali, the Indian goddess of death. She was floating above a pile of infant skulls and wielding a bottle of bacon flavored vodka in one taloned hand, a phallic chainsaw in the other, and the rest held various scrotal sacks harvested by my ex wives. She sneered at me in a bacon alcohol induced delirium of matriarchal fury and demanded I stab myself in the gizzards with Barto's trusty swiss army knife.

I awoke sometime later in Barto's tent clutching a bloody patch of duct tape over my spleen. I remember Barto saying, "you're lucky I know first aid."

My brush with the divine had left me dazed. Confused. I couldn't tell what was going on. I remember wondering what I'd find when I peeled back the duct tape. A wound or some strange Indian stigmata.

Anyway,

Gods don't like it when you don't believe in them. They also get touchy when you throw up and wet yourself at the same time when they're trying to show you their scrotal collection. I don't know about a creator of a universe, but I do know that I'm a believer.

Finally, a tale from an encounter with the negative pole of existence. Giving your will to drugs means you are at their mercy until, hopefully, they wear off. You be a lucky man. Some encounters don't end so "well." Much better to develop your own will. Encounters will be under much more controlled conditions as exits are easy. Still, all in all, a learning experience, eh?

[Meleagar]

Dictionary debates. Beautiful. Debating dictionary definitions. What great fun.

So when one is making an erroneous argument based on an incorrect definition we're supposed to do what?

[grandpa]

The mind game is yours, grandpa, because what you claim
atheism "means" is not what the dictionary claims.

I'm talking about what atheists say "atheism" means. You know, people like myself. Atheism is nothing more but the lack of a belief. A bigfoot "skeptic" might also posit that bigfoot does not exist. It does not make his view "irrational." It is perfectly rational to disbelieve in something one cannot see, or otherwise prove to exist.

Let's look at the dictionary definition again and see if it agrees with my previous statement:

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

A "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" can always be construed as a "belief that there is no God." If I "disbeliefve in the existence of Big Foot," it essentially means "I believe there is no Big Foot." Again, the difference is nothing but splitting hairs; a rhetorical, practically pointless technical distinction. As I said, the only apparent difference between atheism and skepticism is the intensity in tone or in logic.

You seem hellbent on emphasizing atheism as a "belief." It is only in the loosest sense possible. A "belief" that something doesn't exist hardly qualifies it as some kind of sacred doctrine, like a religious viewpoint. It is simply the logical conclusion of skepticism. If some argument (be it God or anything else) is not verified after inquiry, we can reasonably "believe" it to be invalid (that is, the argument is either mostly inaccurate or has no legitimacy whatsoever). For example, one might say the mere existence of Christian beliefs gives it a smidgen of legitimacy. But that smidgen is just appearance-wise. Asid efrom that it may have no valid basis. I mean, for all I know Heaven's Gate really did ride the coattails of a comet into heaven in their fancy Nike shoes. I wasn't with them at the time, so I am not absolutely positive. But if I believe they did not, it is hardly irrational.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

So when one is making an erroneous argument based on
an incorrect definition we're supposed to do what?

Try to understand the definition better. In this case, you should try to understand what atheism actually means. It is merely a form of skepticism. Certainly, one might be considered more miltantly "atheistic" than somebody else, but I could also imagine a Big Foot skeptic losing his cool and punching a Big Foot believer. Again, the only significant difference is in the intensity of argument.

Grandpa h.

[Meleagar]

Try to understand the definition better. In this case, you should try to understand what atheism actually means. It is merely a form of skepticism. Certainly, one might be considered more miltantly "atheistic" than somebody else, but I could also imagine a Big Foot skeptic losing his cool and punching a Big Foot believer. Again, the only significant difference is in the intensity of argument.

Grandpa h.

I was a strong atheist for years, and a weak atheist for years. I argued atheism quite well. I'm familiar with the history of the term, the root, and how it is currently used.

The problem with your definition, grandpa, is that the dictionary contradicts your claim about the definition of the term. There are two forms of atheism; one is a lack of belief, or skeptcism; the other is a positive assertion that there are no gods. I have been very specific that this is the form of atheism I am discussing.

Now, you wish to use a particular definition of atheism to erase the foundation of my argument, as if there is no such thing as strong atheists that assert that no gods exist. The dictionary and real life contradict you; there are many people that assert that no gods exist, and assert that it is rartional to believe that, and argue it. Or did you just not pay any attention to that other thread with hundreds of responses of people attempting that very thing?

Sorry, but if an atheist asserts that no gods exist, it's not a statement of neutral skepticism about whether or not gods exist. Claiming that it is ridiculous to believe in gods isn't the same as saying, well, I don't know, could be, but I doubt it.

They need to support their assertion or just admit it's an irrational position. Claiming that belief in god is ridiculous is not a statement of skepticism; it's a statement that not only do no gods exist, but that it is ridiculous to believe they do. That's not just a lack of belief, that is disbelief with prejudicial assertion that the thing in question obviously does not exist.

[Morality Games]

They need to support their assertion or just admit it's an irrational position.

What constitutes irrationality, in your view? That is still a matter of dispute in philosophy and all too often non-professional accounts of the concept are self-serving and narrow minded.

i.e. the concept of irrationality I use is a staple of non-essentialism, a trend in philosophy, not my own concept.

[Muckraker]

So when one is making an erroneous argument based on an incorrect definition we're supposed to do what?

Ever consider that "the dictionary" may be a biased source?

If you look at the actual construction of the word we find the prefix "a-," which means "lack of" tacked onto the term "theism," which I think we all understand quite well.

Semantic and rhetorical strategies can, and are, used by many to influence behavior and interpretation. Which definition sounds more favorable towards atheism in a world dominated by believers:

1. Atheism is disbelief in god.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief in god.

Look up the definition for "disbelief." Why was that word chosen for the dictionary definition when the physical construction of the word "atheism" supports version number 2? It's rhetoric, either intentional or unintentional, used by the folks compiling the dictionary you cited.

Babies are atheists by the true, word-construction, definition of the word. "Lacking" a belief is not by any means congruent with disbelief just as my lack of a beer does not mean I never drink beer.


Regarding the whole "bird in the black box" thing. If you are holding a black box then you already have a wealth of sensory input that allows you to eliminate almost every possible content of the box. You cannot say "anything" could be in the box.