Theism vs Atheism Part 2

[Charos]

they are not evidence that no god exists. Furthermore, rebuttals or responses to the various logical arguments for god are, again, just rebuttals (to whatever degree effective) against positive logical arguments for the existence of god of some sort. They are not positive arguments that "no gods of any kind exist".

Exactly...that's what I'm saying...one doesn't make positive arguments for a negative position in a debate, it's not only impossible, but to ask for that sort of evidence is considered just flat out bad etiquette within the debating community. That's true all around, if someone postulated something in biology for example, let's say a paleontologist argues dinosaurs were slow lumbering beasts and another states "I question that assertion, I lack belief in that statement" then it's the proponents job to offer EVIDENCE for dinosaurs being slow lumbering beasts rather than fast agile predators.

The theist has not only a "hint" of evidence and argument on his side; he has all the evidence and all the arguments,

They just seem supremely unwilling or unable to present them then...

even though they are of course subject to criticism. You have to first provide positive argument and evidence in order for anyone to attempt criticism or rebuttal. There is factually a world of evidence of all sorts, and logical argument, indicating a god of some sort exists.

Like? You've said this a bunch of times, but you haven't offered any yet...I've seen an argument about how the big bang occurred, a God wedged into any part science hasn't clarified yet (without any evidence as to who this god is, what it is, how it came around, where it is, how it did what it did, WHY it did what it did and so on and so forth) and then that being used as "evidence" for the existence of a deity. This is classic God of the gaps, 700 years ago it would have been just as valid an argument to ask "well, why does a ball fall down when I drop it?" and answer "god grabs it and pulls it to the ground"...that doesn't SAY anything, it isn't evidence that such a statement is true, it doesn't back any assertion, and has been consequently found to be untrue. Maybe one day we WILL see evidence for the existence of a deity and afterlife, hell, I'd be ecstatic if such a thing happened, but just because the ancient Nordic race saw lightening and though Thor was throwing it around, it doesn't make it so, nor is it evidence of anything in any way shape or form...

However, the atheist has no evidence whatsoever that "no gods exist", nor can the atheist make any logical case that "no gods exist",

And again, you don't make logical cases to prove negatives or neutral, it is the job of the person making the positive claim, "there is a god" to back that assertion.

because such an attempt would be folly and they know it.

Damn right, it would violate every single fundamental code of conduct for debate that has been built up for thousands of years...it would be ignoring the very basis of logical thought and critical analysis on almost every level to even attempt it, and anyone who HAS attempted it has set themselves up into a giant bear trap of their own making and they'll wind up making a fool of themselves. The same holds true for (for example) a Christian who tries to "prove" Mohammed wasn't the prophet of God or Krishna wasn't an incarnation of one. Once you start trying to prove a negative, no matter the subject, you've already lost.

There's simply no way to support a universal negative claim that something categorically does not exist (unless one is making a case for logical self-contradiction).

Exactly! Nor should any person ever, ever make the attempt to support a negative claim...they'll wind up looking a fool no matter what they're arguing.

The only rational position in the face of such a situation is either some form of theism, or neutral agnosticism. Unless one irrationally denies all evidence for god, or simply ignores it, then they are faced with a mountain of evidence for the existence of a god of some sort - even if it is, in their mind, problematical and unconvincing, and zero evidence and argument for the contention that "no gods exist". Evidence and positive argument of some sort (and a mountain of it) on one side, and zero evidence and argument on the other side.

Thus far I've yet to see evidence on EITHER side, you've claimed there IS evidence, and I'm presuming that's evidence beyond a statue crying or someone with cancer praying and going into remission...actual, viable, logically based evidence...so let's see it.

No wonder atheists hide behind the fallacious "atheism is just a lack of belief" mantra. They have zero evidence for their actual faith that no gods exist.

Exactly! You seem to understand perfectly well but you just don't seem to like the fact that the burden of proof is on the theist side...we have no evidence either way, period...zip, zero, nil. If someone believes in something, that's great...it's awesome, I'm happy for them...believe it, but don't go fooling yourselves or people around you by proclaiming "evidence" for the existence of such a being outside of ones own mind.

It is entirely rational to be a theist in the face of such overwhelming evidence; it is rational to be a neutral agnostic about it. However, once apprised of the arguments and evidence, only the irrational can believe that no god or gods of any sort exist.

You're actually not going to present any of this "overwhelming" evidence are you?

It's not exactly fallacious, it's just a semantics disagreement. If the above is how you define atheism, than call me an agnostic. Of course, that would make me agnostic on subjects such as big foot and the lochness monster

it would make us agnostic about a LOT of things...leprechauns, Fae Folk, the dark lord Morgoth, Voldemort...

and I would say that I am in the sense that I really have no opinion or interest in those subjects. Positive atheism, what you are describing, is a matter of induction, which isn't logical, but at the same time, all of science and daily knowledge is based on that same principle and it seems to work. (Which would be me using induction to prove that induction works, yea, I know.)

Which seems the real problem here, people are blobbing "atheist" into one big overarching group, this is as silly as assuming "Christian" is one big overarching group, Catholics are no different from Eastern Orthodox or Protestant or Quaker or whatever else. There are millions of atheists, and about as many "variations" on atheist as there are atheists...

You're attacking a straw man, this would only apply to those who believe positively there is no God, and most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief.

You're setting yourself up, she's going to argue that "no, no...most atheists do believe this", nevermind the whole swaths of atheists who state outright "I simply lack a belief" or even "the concept in and of itself is nonsensical", there's either the explicit, hard atheist and then there's agnostic in the way they're trying to define it...the argument in and of itself they're making borders on false dichotomy

[Meleagar]

Here is the thread I was referring to, as far as evidence and argument for the existence of god.

[Meleagar]

It's not exactly fallacious, it's just a semantics disagreement. If the above is how you define atheism, than call me an agnostic. Of course, that would make me agnostic on subjects such as big foot and the lochness monster and I would say that I am in the sense that I really have no opinion or interest in those subjects.

I'd say that it is obvious that seeking out and participating in threads about a subject is the direct antithesis of someone who claims to have no opinion about or interest in the subject.

You're attacking a straw man, this would only apply to those who believe positively there is no God, and most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief.

Please support your claim that "most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief."

Secondly, the straw man is clearly the construct of those that do not wish to expose their anti-theistic beliefs to debate, but would rather hide behind feigned agnosticism and unsupportable universally negative claims which amount to nothing more than baseless rhetoric.

There's plenty of evidence that supports the view that a god of some sort exists, unless of course you would deny that anyone has ever testified to having experienced god. Regardless of how you view the quality or credibility of the evidence I outlined here, that it exists cannot be rationally denied. There is no evidence whatsoever that "no god of any sort exists", which is a ludicrous and unsupportable perspective on the face of it.

Simply put, the comparative volume of evidence (lots vs none), regardless of how convincing one finds the evidence, must rationally tip the scale at worst to "slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists". Simple logic prevents one from holding the belief that "no gods of any sort exist" because it is entirely unsupportable - but, we all know that if many atheists were honest, they'd have to admit that the latter is exactly what the actually believe, even if they will not try to defend that belief.

[Jack]

I'd say that it is obvious that seeking out and participating in threads about a subject is the direct antithesis of someone who claims to have no opinion about or interest in the subject.

Perhaps you're thinking of ignostics or even agnostics of a sort, but there's no reason a person who lacks religious belief must also "have no opinion about or interest in the subject". Just because I don't believe in alien abductions my disbelief doesn't prevent me from having an interest in debates on the topic or having an opinion on the veracity of the claims made supporting alien abduction. Many atheists were once theists and therefore have a vested interest in and opinion of religious belief.

Please support your claim that "most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief."

The evidence is easy to find. Read a book by Daniel Dennett or the posts on the Dawkins forum. Read a few blogs written by atheists. You'll find very few who take an absolute position that no god of any type could possibly exist. To make such an absolute and all-encompassing claim would require absolute knowledge. The vast majority of atheists I know or are familiar with are intelligent enough to know that no human possesses absolute knowledge of anything.

Regardless of how you view the quality or credibility of the evidence I outlined here, that it exists cannot be rationally denied.

What an audacious statement. It's the very fact that we question the quality and credibility of your "evidence" that leads to a rational denial of its validity. That point is clearly made by many of the posts following yours in that thread.

There is no evidence whatsoever that "no god of any sort exists", which is a ludicrous and unsupportable perspective on the face of it.

A point which has been agreed with by others in this thread including non-believers.

Simply put, the comparative volume of evidence (lots vs none), regardless of how convincing one finds the evidence, must rationally tip the scale at worst to "slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists".

Even if we conceded that there is a possibility that a god or god-like creature of some sort exist in some fashion somewhere in the universe there's still no verifiable evidence of that, rendering the possibility so insignificant that it's hardly worth considering plausible. Most theists, though, do not suggest that their god is a god like that. Their gods have distinct characteristics and attributes and most theists believe their gods directly influence believers on this planet. Such claims are worth investigating and subjecting to the scientific method, where in all the cases I'm familiar with they have failed to prove definitively the existence of any particular god.

...we all know that if many atheists were honest, they'd have to admit that the latter is exactly what the actually believe, even if they will not try to defend that belief.

We all know that? You might be convinced of it but I hardly am and I doubt others who aren't mind readers would question that statement as well. It's not just insulting to presume that when someone tells you what their opinion is of theism they must be lying if they dare disagree with your opinion but it suggests you posses powers of perception beyond that of mere mortals.

[Dave In Canada]

Is Any Form Of Atheism Ra

tionally Justifiable?

Definition of God:

First cause, prime mover, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow. I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the chrstian or islamic god.

Mel, above is your definition of a God. Your arguments you made for the existence of such a god were disputed and shown to be anything but a proof or evidence.

I see no reason why we should accept your definition of some sort of God who may have some of the above attributes as being some sort of truth. According to your logic we should (including you) accept that the existence of some sort of Alien have been abducting humans and possibly farm animals simply based on the evidence provided by those who claim to have been abducted.

Your arguments may seem logical to you, however to the rest of this forum they simply didn't hold water.

[Jack]

Indeed, there are a couple of threads challenging the "logic" of suggesting that free will can exist with an omniscient god.

[BlackSheep]

I'd say that it is obvious that seeking out and participating in threads about a subject is the direct antithesis of someone who claims to have no opinion about or interest in the subject.

I think he was talking about big foot and the loch ness monster.

Please support your claim that "most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief."

This seems are to find stats on. I a running a poll as I type. I certainly find that both on debate boards and real like few state there are no gods.

Secondly, the straw man is clearly the construct of those that do not wish to expose their anti-theistic beliefs to debate, but would rather hide behind feigned agnosticism and unsupportable universally negative claims which amount to nothing more than baseless rhetoric.

Support you claim we have anti-theistic beliefs and that we are creating a straw man here. I am not even sure this would be a strawman. You are not claiming we are altering your argument to one we can easily defeat.

There's plenty of evidence that supports the view that a god of some sort exists, unless of course you would deny that anyone has ever testified to having experienced god. Regardless of how you view the quality or credibility of the evidence I outlined here, that it exists cannot be rationally denied. There is no evidence whatsoever that "no god of any sort exists", which is a ludicrous and unsupportable perspective on the face of it.

It is not evidence that would stand up to any scrutiny. It would not be the kind of evidence that would stand in a court of law for example. frequently people say no evidence when the evidence is not able to stand up to scrutiny.

Simply put, the comparative volume of evidence (lots vs none), regardless of how convincing one finds the evidence, must rationally tip the scale at worst to "slightly more likely that a god of some sort exists". Simple logic prevents one from holding the belief that "no gods of any sort exist" because it is entirely unsupportable - but, we all know that if many atheists were honest, they'd have to admit that the latter is exactly what the actually believe, even if they will not try to defend that belief.

Pretend for a moment that gods do not exit. Is there any possible way to prove they do not?
By your logic if I suggest something incredibly outlandish exists ad claim to have seen it then it is more likely to exist than not as you have no evidence that it does not.

Please support this statement and explain what "the latter" is: "we all know that if many atheists were honest, they'd have to admit that the latter is exactly what the actually believe, even if they will not try to defend that belief."

[finder]

Please support your claim that "most people that call themselves atheists do not hold that belief."

The evidence is easy to find. Read a book by Daniel Dennett or the posts on the Dawkins forum. Read a few blogs written by atheists. You'll find very few who take an absolute position that no god of any type could possibly exist. To make such an absolute and all-encompassing claim would require absolute knowledge. The vast majority of atheists I know or are familiar with are intelligent enough to know that no human possesses absolute knowledge of anything.

That's true, one can find all kinds of statements by atheists claiming they don't rule out the possibility of God or a god 100%. But they live, carry on, ridicule, debate, and generally pride themselves on their ability to oppose all theists beliefs in every way. So, despite the claims, they conduct their lives as if they know, " no god of any type could possibly exist." And that fact renders their claims to the contrary moot, just superficial plausible deniability in regards to ultimately denying God.

[arX]

moot, just superficial plausible deniability in regards to ultimately denying

Lol.

[Jack]

That's true, one can find all kinds of statements by atheists claiming they don't rule out the possibility of God or a god 100%.

But of course you know our minds better than we do so you're able to "read" our true beliefs, right?

But they live, carry on, ridicule, debate, and generally pride themselves on their ability to oppose all theists beliefs in every way.

Of course we do, because the vast majority of theists suggest that their specific god, of all the gods humans have ever worshiped, is the only "real" god. Theists rarely espouse a belief in some nebulous, generic god-like creature. They insist that their god, of whom they suggest very specific attributes and claim interacts with its believers, exists, and those claims can be challenged as lacking verifiable evidence.

So, despite the claims, they conduct their lives as if they know, " no god of any type could possibly exist." And that fact renders their claims to the contrary moot, just superficial plausible deniability in regards to ultimately denying God.

See, I knew that old black magic, excuse me, Christian telepathy, was working. I'd suggest the error is not in the actions perceived but rather in the perception itself.

Seriously, those of you theists who pretend to be able to tell us what we actually mean and think; think how you'd react if we were to say, "Those theists don't really believe in god. If they did they'd be so much more Christ/Muhammad/whatever deity-like than they are. They just say they believe but they don't really".

[finder]

Of course we do, because the vast majority of theists suggest that their specific god, of all the gods humans have ever worshiped, is the only "real" god. Theists rarely espouse a belief in some nebulous, generic god-like creature. They insist that their god, of whom they suggest very specific attributes and claim interacts with its believers, exists, and those claims can be challenged as lacking verifiable evidence.

Understood. After all, that's what theists do concerning other "deities." That is because there are intricacies involved that people who are predisposed to a way of thought will never except. Suffice it to say, just because most are false doesn't mean all are false. But the reality is, once someone attributes belief to, "some nebulous, generic god-like creature" then that creature (god like) would be rejected as well by atheists because then the vague characteristics would no longer be left to speculation. Wouldn't you say?

[Jack]

But the reality is, once someone attributes belief to, "some nebulous, generic god-like creature" then that creature (god like) would be rejected as well by atheists because then the vague characteristics would no longer be left to speculation. Wouldn't you say?

I can't say, or rather, I can say for myself but I can't speak for anyone else. Show me a religion that worships an undefined god, one with no attributes or characteristics, and I'll examine their claims and let you know.