Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[SkinWalker]

But according to atheists the only reason they do not believe in God is to quote Dawkins is because "there is not a single shred of evidence". So evidence is both the theists' and atheists' problem....

Therefore the conclusion is obvious, atheism is just another faith-based belief system since atheism is not falsfiable....

You couldn't be more wrong in both paragraphs. Your premise in the first paragraph is sound, there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports the notion of a god. The second premise, however, doesn't follow from the first. Evidence is not the atheists problem since the atheist isn't making a claim. There's no claim that god doesn't exist. There simply is no good reason to believe in a god. There also is no good reason to believe in a giant chocolate bunny farm on the dark side of the moon. The lack of evidence for both is the same.

Would you have us accept that because there's no evidence for the giant chocolate bunny farm, it therefore is a problem for those that don't believe in the giant chocolate bunny farm to prove? Preposterous. Your gods deserve no greater consideration. The claim is greater, therefore the need for its claimants to produce evidence is greater -but the lack of evidence for either gods or lunar chocolate bunny farms is not problematic for those that aren't deluded by their existences.

Finally, your conclusion rests on a premise that you didn't make until after you drew a conclusion. You haven't shown how atheism isn't at least potentially falsifiable (the key term in discussing falsifiability is "potentially," by the way). Should evidence be presented of your gods, atheism is instantly falsified. Therefore it is falsifiable. Therefore atheism is not based on faith. QED.

 

[KennyJC]

I am rather asking that what would constitute as undeniable evidence.

Are you deaf?

 

[SnakeLord]

..Begley has some clear answers. Until recently, neuroscientists believed the adult brain's structure was irrevocably fixed. Then research into the brains of songbirds showed they expand each year during the nesting season as the birds perfect their songs, and then shrink again in winter. Similar expansion has been seen in jugglers' brains and in London taxi drivers acquiring "the knowledge" - their "internal map" of the city.

This plasticity does not simply involve an increase in the size of brain regions that are intensively used. It also turns out that brain regions can change their function. If you are born blind, say, your visual neurons will not remain idle: in fact, you can be trained to "see" by attaching a video camera to a device that stimulates your tongue with a pattern of points corresponding to the images. After training, stimulating the tongue causes activity in visual neurons. If these neurons are stimulated directly, you will not see flashes, but feel tingles in your tongue.

These results are not only dramatic evidence of plasticity in adult brains but also demonstrate the intimate relationship between brain and mind, Begley reminds us. They show how changes in brain structure and function influence our conscious experience.

Quoted from the New Scientist article.

Hope someone finds it relevant

 

[TW Scott]

Oh merciful Lord in heave give me the strength to deal with morons.


Listen, I am not saying that I know for a fact that there is a god. I can't prove it anymore than I can prove that nothing escapes a Blackhole. I can observe what I have seen and experienced and make a guess.

In this case it is about my belief that there is a God and that he did create the Universe. I don't propose to know how, why or when. I simply believe it is so. I believe that like all Parents his skills neede refining in raising his creation. One day God saw that mankind was to a point that it would be open to God's message, so God sent a fragment of God down to Earth. Since then God has left us to our own devices in hopes that we will choose God.

Now no one can say for certain that what I believe is not in fact true. No one has explored the universe, no one has seen everything. That doesn't give the right to claim that it is true, only that it is my beliefs.

In comparison the Atheist believes in random chance. I say believes becuase there is also no evidence to support the idea that everything happened by chance either. So claiming that your belief in randomness is not more or less sound than my belief in God.

Then there are the poeple that came that there cannot be a god. Again they have lack of evidence. These are the people I have a problem with. They try to obsuficate their Opinion so that it appears as fact.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

In comparison the Atheist believes in random chance.

You really can't generalise like that. All you can say about atheists is that they do not believe in gods. The rest is up for grabs. Some atheists are liberals. Some are conservatives. Some atheists have high ethical standards. Some don't give a damn. And some believe in "random chance", while others believe in a universe governed by the laws of physics.

I say believes becuase there is also no evidence to support the idea that everything happened by chance either.

That's a weak basis for belief in God. "Oh dear, I can't accept 'random chance', and I have to believe in something, so I guess I'll believe in God. Or maybe pyramid power..."

 

[SkinWalker]

Oh merciful Lord in heave give me the strength to deal with morons.

Whenever you point your finger, just remember there are four more pointed back at you.

For instance:

In comparison the Atheist believes in random chance. I say believes becuase there is also no evidence to support the idea that everything happened by chance either. So claiming that your belief in randomness is not more or less sound than my belief in God.

This is what some could characterize as a moronic assumption that atheism=evolutionist which, in turn, equals a belief that life is the result of random chance. There may be those that would call this a 'moronic' assumption since neither the premises nor the conclusion are sound.

1) Atheism does not equate to evolutionist -there are evolutionists that theistic and atheists that haven't the foggiest understanding of evolution.

2) Random chance isn't how evolution works.

While there are those that would be more than willing, I wouldn't characterize your opinion as 'moronic.' It is merely under-educated and uninformed. Typical of most who are deluded by superstition, they buy into the deceptive rhetoric and doctrine of their superstition's leadership without actually educating themselves or employing skepticism or inquiry on their own.

I highly recommend chapters 1, 3, and 11 of The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. He explains the reason why random chance isn't even a consideration in evolution far better than I could ever hope to.

 

[Cris]

TW,

That doesn't give the right to claim that it is true, only that it is my beliefs.

Belief that something is true and a claim that something is true, is the same thing. You are attempting to make a distinction where none exists. Think that through a little more carefully. If you can't bring yourself to claim that a god exists then your only alternative is to admit that you are a skeptic, and your belief is more accurately described as a speculation.

 

[heliocentric]

There's actually two different types of atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism. i think most of you dont recognise/realise this and are therefore talking past each other.

Weak atheism isnt a belief, its simply an absense of belief.
Whereas strong atheism takes it a steps further and proports to know (just as theist does) how the universe came into being.
The strong atheist essentially states: i know with absolutely certainly that the universe came into being of its own accord without any casual agent.

I think its this latter extreme form of atheism that most of you are arguing against, but the problem is alot of the atheists in this thread may not even buy into that form of atheism!

 

[TW Scott]

Did you see me claim anything but that I believe God exists? I didn't say it was the truth, just that I believe it. Of course since I do believe it it is truth to me, but that does not apply to this situation. All my statement does is state my beliefs. It does not verify or dismiss the possibility of god any more than the phrase "Rubber baby buggy bumbers."

However the statement "The is no God." is making an absolute statement. It is not expressing a belief. It denies any belief and tries to assert itself as fact. Of course I argue the same against the "There is only one God." "There are gods." "There is a god" statements as well.


You see it is not just the atheistic I denounce it is the rabid Theists as well. Anyone who makes an absolute statement regarding the existance or non-existance of God is simply an ass.


"I believe" leaves room for us to discover the truth.

 

[Godless]

"I believe" leaves room for us to discover the truth.

It also leaves room to be completely deluded. Just as you "believe" there's a god, there are morons out there who believe demons & devils exists just as well, there are literally thousands of folks who believe UFO's exist, and others who believe that they have been abducted by aliens, so belief says nothing about "reality" What one determines to be real is not whether one believes in X or Y but that X and Y actually exists!!

 

[Sarkus]

As Godless states, belief is irrelevant in determining truth.
If anything, belief (through nothing but subjectiveness) clouds the search and is a hinderance.

Further, how can you have a belief that something exists, and yet not claim that the thing exists?

You are free to say "I believe that God possibly exists" or "I believe that God might exist".
But you don't.
You say "I believe God exists". This is you claiming that God exists.

It is the majority of atheists on this site that actually say "God might exist" but they then say "but without evidence I do not have a belief that he does".

So to sum it up: "I believe God exists" is basically synonymous to "I claim that God exists".
The only difference is that the former is almost admitting his statement of "belief" is based on zero evidence. But is still seen as, and taken as, a claim.

 

[Fathoms]

The strong atheist essentially states: i know with absolutely certainly that the universe came into being of its own accord without any casual agent.

Strawman. An atheist doesn't have to know how the universe came into being to figure out that "God" had absolutely nothing to do with it. Wherever there is mystery, the default explanation can't simply be "God did it". Did what exactly, wave his big ol' magic wand and make stuff happen? Just because no concrete rational explantion exists for something isn't a liscence to advocate a decidedly irrational one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cris,

First of all a believer does not know there is a God(s), they merely believe there could be one.

Without knowledge that belief is of little value. Why is that any different to simple delusion?

What do you mean by knowledge?
You are, in effect, claiming that a person who has belief in God, is delusional.
Where is your evidence.

And hence their belief can only be based on fantasy, right? Why should that position attract any respect?

It depends what you mean by "knowledge".
Can you elaborate on that please?

Second of all the skeptic that goes "There is NO god(s)" is making an absolute statement.

And how many skeptics say that? That's what you think they say in your attempt to erroneously shift the burden of proof.

They do not have to say the words directly to convey their meaning.

A belief is a conviction that something is true.

It can be, but that is not the extent of theism.

There is no difference in your two statements. If you have no proof for the belief then your assertion that something is true, i.e. belief, is without value.

The subject matter is trancendental to material nature. Do you think it is possible to derive proof, of a material nature? If you think yes, then please state what kind of material evidence would convince you that God exists.

Belief that something is true and a claim that something is true, is the same thing.

Nice try with the tricky wording, but his claim was that he believes in God, not that he KNOWS God exists.

You are attempting to make a distinction where none exists.

You are being blatently dishonest.

Think that through a little more carefully. If you can't bring yourself to claim that a god exists then your only alternative is to admit that you are a skeptic, and your belief is more accurately described as a speculation.

So in actuality the term "belief" is nonexistent, with regard to God, as it is impossible to believe in God, without claiming God exists, as a natural phenomenon?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Nice try with the tricky wording, but his claim was that he believes in God, not that he KNOWS God exists.

Please explain how someone can "believe in God" but not "know that God exists"?

Is this "belief" then just nothing more than wishful thinking?

And please explain how you can "believe" in something without any evidence of that things existence without being irrational?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Please explain how someone can "believe in God" but not "know that God exists"?

Common sense, and faith

Is this "belief" then just nothing more than wishful thinking?

It can be, it depends on the individual.

And please explain how you can "believe" in something without any evidence of that things existence without being irrational?

It depends on what you regard as "evidence", and the subject of belief.

Jan.

 

[Varda]

Radiation escapes blackholes

 

[Sarkus]

Common sense, and faith

Hardly an answer.
Please explain how "common sense" can lead someone to "believe in God" but not know that the god exists.[/QUOTE]

 

[Godless]

Common sense leads one to believe in god, by the hear say of others, hence if Jan had been born in an atheist family had been reared as an atheist, had been taught to THINK for himself/herself "forget which?" He/She? would have COMMON SENSE instead of relying on FAITH!!

 

[mikenostic]

common sense
–noun sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

If you read the bible w/o any of the aforementioned 'specialized knowledge and training (i.e. bible study), then all the contradictions and 'things that don't add up' become apparent. It's only when you are blinded by faith, that you fail to see any of that crap.

Metaphorically speaking; It's almost like a theist is a girl that is in a relationship with a total jerk/asshole. Everyone of her friends can easily see that the guy is a jerk and totally not right for her, but she is blinded by love (or is maybe too afraid to be alone(finding out the truth)) and ingorantly stays with him.

 

[heliocentric]

It also leaves room to be completely deluded. Just as you "believe" there's a god, there are morons out there who believe demons & devils exists just as well, there are literally thousands of folks who believe UFO's exist, and others who believe that they have been abducted by aliens, so belief says nothing about "reality" What one determines to be real is not whether one believes in X or Y but that X and Y actually exists!!

I see your point, but it doesnt apply to UFOs atall, which im assuming youre using for short hand for 'craft using esoteric form of propulsion outside of known technology' (as people most commonly do).

We know absolutely that they exist, i really wish people would stop lumping ufos in with demons and spirits, sorry but it's just incredibly ignorant.