Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Clearly, you misinterpreted him. He meant what he said. The post wasn't difficult to understand. If you truly need Positron or others to explain it to you, it says more about you than you might care to reveal.
There's still a difference in mindset between science and more genuine kinds of religion. Differing definitions of 'faith' and 'truth' are big parts of it.
In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.
In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.
Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.
If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."
Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."
Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.
In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.
In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.
Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.
If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."
Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."
Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.
superstring01
Moderator
I don't ask for evidence of god, because I don't care one way or the other if people believe in the friggin' tooth fairy, Thor or Zeus. Religion is a faith based system of beliefs that, inherently, cannot be supported by any facts. Which is fine. But show me ONE credibe Athiest/Evolutionist who asks for evidence in that sense. The only reason why the question is asked is to prove the "empirical" point. It can neither be proven or disproved.
~String
He's saying that since the advent of the scientific method humans can no longer be wrong about what they take to be obvious and unquestionable truths. (In this instance, it's obvioulsy impossible that extra-terrestrial intelligences are visiting earth, presumably because it would be impossible for anything to travel the distances involved).
aethiest's like to ask for evidence of a god because they have no faith in the good in this world
they will forever unfortunetaly be trapped in a state of negative energy even when they feel happy because they think good things are happening to them but soon the shit will hit the fan, whereas christians, catholics etc. or christian(other) as i call myself realise the benefits of prayer, meditation, and focusing in on what you want. the personal experience statement, hit the nail on the head. Its all up to what you take out of what happens to you, my life went from suicidal tendencies to finding true love the one thing people search for over anything else, over a period of 3 years. Given the right guidance from a mentor and the evidence that I have seen first hand (not saying u must believe my evidence but you should analyze your own) i know that something is out there acting like a genie to those who really deserve what they want.
they will forever unfortunetaly be trapped in a state of negative energy even when they feel happy because they think good things are happening to them but soon the shit will hit the fan, whereas christians, catholics etc. or christian(other) as i call myself realise the benefits of prayer, meditation, and focusing in on what you want. the personal experience statement, hit the nail on the head. Its all up to what you take out of what happens to you, my life went from suicidal tendencies to finding true love the one thing people search for over anything else, over a period of 3 years. Given the right guidance from a mentor and the evidence that I have seen first hand (not saying u must believe my evidence but you should analyze your own) i know that something is out there acting like a genie to those who really deserve what they want.
btw there is scientific proof of the energy field of the mind being transmitted at a frequency that humans cannot recieve, which also brings a conversation on psychics but for another day. this machinery has detected that the human mind while focusing in on a particular energy transmits at a frequency if its transmitting a frequency on a level humans cant understand whos to say its not really going anywhere?
there has to be a point to why scientists can log the different frequencies then mind produces.
there has to be a point to why scientists can log the different frequencies then mind produces.
Exactly, thereby making atheism a faith-based belief system no different from any other faith-based belief system....with or without evidence you'll never believe in God......
Well in all fairness many Christians dont really see the good in this world and are just biding their time until the Rapture.
Prejudiced drivel.
Do you know every atheist? Ever heard of humanists?
Non sequitor. Irrelevant. Countless logical fallacies.
Rather than on what your god wants? That's a tad selfish isn't it?
And belief in a god is the only way to achieve this?
Have a bit of confidence in your own abilities to resolve your own issues. Claiming that it is the work of a god would be to belittle your own abilities.
Positive mental attitude also works.
Having a more positive attitude can stave off many illnesses.
Having a regimented life can stave off harmful obsessions and/or dependencies.
Neither of these need a god.
Claiming it is the work of god, let alone being evidence for god, is to undervalue what is evidentially 100% your own work.
*************
M*W: You'd be more accurate in saying atheism is non-faith based. What is there for the atheist to believe? Don't answer. I already know what you were gonna say.
Well let me explain how atheism is just another faith-based belief system.....
There is a great chance that consciousness exists independently of the brain (like a soul or mind), atheists using blind atheistic faith conclude that there is absolutely no chance of this, and that the brain is everything there is....
There is a great chance that there is an intelligent cause behind reality, abiogenesis, etc...solving the problem of induction, etc...atheists using their blind atheistic faith conclude that there is no need to evoke an intelligent cause, etc....
Everything in atheism is PURELY faith-based to highest degree....it all requires immense amounts of faith beyond imagination to rule out any possibility of an intelligent cause, anything divine, supernatural, etc...which what atheists do...
*************
M*W: Wrong. Atheists contribute a lot of good to the world and enjoy the benefits of reality.
*************
M*W: Wrong again. You don't know how atheists feel. You cannot get into our psyches. We are not the ones trapped at all! You are the elite fellowship of the trapped delusional!
*************
M*W: Wrong yet again. So, you think atheists don't know how to do these things you mention or you think that we just don't want to do them? In both cases, you are still WRONG! Atheists certainly know how to pray, but we just don't call it that. We may call it "positive affirmations," "creative visualization," "wishful thinking," "day dreaming," etc., and we know how to "meditate." Even I as an atheist meditate frequently, and not just when I'm wanting something. When I meditate, if I'm wanting something, I just try to think out the best way to do what I need to do to get it. Most of the time, I really don't need anything that I don't already have, so I meditate about the state of the world, or feeding hungry children, or peace in Iraq. There's really no limitation on how atheists "pray," if you want to call it that.
*************
M*W: I am glad you got over your negativity and found love. You were lucky. Sometimes it takes people most of their lives to find love. I think it's because they don't love themselves, so they don't attract love with their negativity.
*************
M*W: And I suppose this is where your god comes in? Personally, I believe your life turned around, because you started taking care of yourself. People notice that. People want to be around someone who is positive and happy with themselves. It's really sad to know that there are a lot of lonely people out there that crave the love and attention of someone, but fail to give it to themselves! I'm happy for you. It sounds like you are not only contributing to your own happiness, but you are a positive being in this world. It's quite easy to thank a god-being for your good fortune, but I think you need to give credit where credit is due -- to yourself -- for taking control of your own happiness. That's really where it comes from.
I did not say that. Read it again.
This "great chance" is based on what, wishful thinking?
I'm sure it has been pointed out to you that atheism has nothing to do with assigning probabilities to the source of consciousness.
It's possible. Lots of things are possible though. Are you going to believe in everything that is possible?
Well some people would rather figure things out than resort to "it's all too hard so a magic god did it"
Atheists don't believe in things without evidence, unlike theists who fall back on what feels comforting.
Please provide a % for this "great chance"?
And on what do you make this assessment of "great chance"?
Guesswork? Subjective desire? Fear?
Not true. They merely conclude that since there has never been any evidence given for something that is non-material (either in nature or cause) then "consciousness" should be assumed, under Occam's razor among other things, to be material in cause.
Please provide a % for this "great chance"?
And on what do you make this assessment of "great chance"?
Guesswork? Subjective desire? Fear?
Please indicate the need.
LOL!
You crack me up.
Go and read up on what atheism is.
Then please provide evidence as to why someone should BELIEVE in the existence of these things you spout.
Sarkus,
How can you decide something is material if you don't know what it actually is?
And why does occam's razor apply to something which is scientifically unknown?
Why does it have to be "material"?
There doesn't have to be a need.
It means you don't believe in God, period. All the other stuff is embellishment to make you appear rational.
Jan.
How can you decide something is material if you don't know what it actually is?
And why does occam's razor apply to something which is scientifically unknown?
Why does it have to be "material"?
There doesn't have to be a need.
It means you don't believe in God, period. All the other stuff is embellishment to make you appear rational.
Jan.
Q,
I said:
To which you replied "until the advent of the scientific method, it did apply, but no longer." Which means that since the advent of the scientific method humans can no longer be wrong about what they take to be obvious and unquestionable truths.
I said:
To which you replied "until the advent of the scientific method, it did apply, but no longer." Which means that since the advent of the scientific method humans can no longer be wrong about what they take to be obvious and unquestionable truths.