Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
ĜĕðMĕťŗŷ ĥą§ Ñð ŗĕą1īťŷ ðƒ īť§ĕ1ƒ, īť'§ §ŷMbð1īç ðƒ ŗĕ1ąťīðѧĥīþ§.
Last edited:
So NDS, you'll have to time-travel back two thousand years, good luck.
You're right, if you were an ancient person you wouldn't have any evidence for electromagnetism, black holes or leprechauns and thus would have little reason to just believe in them if someone said they did exist. It doesn't ultimately have to mean that those things never existed, but that there's no evidence to suggest they do.
'I contend that we are both atheists. Yes Vital One, you're an atheist too.. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you'll understand why I dismiss yours'.
Tell me, why do you not believe in Zeus, Apollo, Abellio, Gilgamesh, Marduk, Tiamat etc?
No - it is intellectually honest for an atheist to say that they do not believe in the existence of God due to the lack of evidence. This is the reason they give because it is the reason. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about telling the truth.
"Compelling reason" to me suggests that it is a matter of weighing up the evidence and deciding that, on balance, there is no "compelling reason".
For this to be the case there has to be at least some evidence in favor of the existence of God.
So "no evidence" is the reason they give because it IS the Intellectually Honest reason.
They give "no evidence" as their reason for not believing in Santa, believing in Tooth-Fairies, believing in the FSM, etc.
Would you honestly say that there is merely "no compelling reason" to not believe in these? Or the more precise claim of "no evidence"?
I recall one paper in regard to this - I can't locate it but I will try and present what I can recall of it.
Evidence, particularly for the atheist, means empiricism - god of course, being transcendental by definition, is beyond the scope of empiricism - so in other words a god that can be revealed by empiricism would be a contradiction.
No doubt there are many wonders that empiricism can reveal, and it indicates and entertains many mysteries and theories on how things work - all such things of course work by the potency of god (including the brain of the aspiring empiricist)
The desire to reveal god by empiricism however is driven by the atheistic ambition to usurp god's potencies - since along the way to understanding god
by such a method, one would also evidence by empiricism god's potencies (thus one would make god's potencies repeatable in controlled environments)
In other words the desire to have god evidenced by empiricism is merely another aspect of atheism
Ah yes - the theist view that positions them upon the unquestionable pedestal - that answers everything - yet answers nothing other than through their own prescribed definitions - all cloaked in self-referential logic with nothing but a gap at the heart.
well, do you hold that empiricism is the gapless medium of perception?
Sarkus,
It is intellectually dishonest because you have a descriptive idea of the nature of God (spirit), and you know that that medium is beyond the scope of current scientific scrutiny.
There is evidence of design in the structure of the universe, which can be seen as a primary step toward reason. The fact that you do not view this as evidence is your choice.
As stated above, it boils down to a matter of choice of belief. By doggedly asking for evidence, you are only affirming your choice of disbelief.
Even if they did believe in these things, it would not necessarily be the same as believing in God, so this analogy is irrelivant.
You can "not believe" in something for a variety of reasons, and I rather think "the claim of no evidence", by itself, is a pretty weak one. Because it suggests you are only prepared to believe something that you can see with your own eyes, or else it doesn't exist.
Jan.
It is intellectually dishonest because you have a descriptive idea of the nature of God (spirit), and you know that that medium is beyond the scope of current scientific scrutiny.
There is evidence of design in the structure of the universe, which can be seen as a primary step toward reason. The fact that you do not view this as evidence is your choice.
As stated above, it boils down to a matter of choice of belief. By doggedly asking for evidence, you are only affirming your choice of disbelief.
Even if they did believe in these things, it would not necessarily be the same as believing in God, so this analogy is irrelivant.
You can "not believe" in something for a variety of reasons, and I rather think "the claim of no evidence", by itself, is a pretty weak one. Because it suggests you are only prepared to believe something that you can see with your own eyes, or else it doesn't exist.
Jan.
Well, the examples your giving- santa clause, tooth-fairies, are putatively physical phenomenon and I therefore think it is legitimate to require evidence for those things. God on the other hand is not physical and therefore don't see how any "evidence" could be provided even if it does exist.
But the point is that they are perfectly legitimate in their "no evidence - no belief" position - and there is nothing intellectually dishonest about that, which was my point to you in those examples. The fact that the thing is not material is irrelevant.
-I don't agree. What exactly would this evidence for the immaterial be?
Surely it is therefore the THEIST that is intellectually dishonest to come up with a notion that is so beyond scrutibility?
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about stating a reason for non-belief being that they see no evidence of the thing - and thus no reason for belief.
Jan Ardena said:
Haven't we been down this road before in another thread?
I do not claim that the only evidence is material.
However, the only evidence that has ever been produced is of the material.
If you can produce evidence of the non-material - do so.
I am not saying it doesn't exist - but there is no evidence for it.
If you are asking me to provide such evidence then I would effectively be answering my own request of you - and if I could do it then I wouldn't have asked you.
This is the entire crux of the problem. This could prove one of two things;
1) There is nothing that isn't material. Or,
2) There are things that are immaterial but evidence can not be produced for it.
It's fine if you want to believe the first proposition but it is just as much an article of faith as the second.
Last edited:
There is at least one alternative that you don't present....
3) There might well be things that are immaterial, but evidence has not (yet) been produced for such things.
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
Everything in this world, especially in the human realm, has a spectrum of action. In this particular spectrum, theists are at one extreme, and atheists are at another. Both are equal in their limit of perception. One relies on absolute faith, and the other relies on absolute questioning. If you are ultimately theist, letting it take over your life, then you are blinded to the spectrum of questioning. If you are ultimately atheist, then you are blind to faith. As a human, both of these sides are needed to successfully go through this world.
Yes, no one can label anothers' experience. When we try to put words to something that other haven't experienced, or have experienced but relate to differently, then you are painting a false picture in their mind.
Yes, but there are many striking similarities, which could mean nothing more than we have a strong acsestral memory.
Everything evolves, yes. But we are far from proving or knowing the true nature of evolution.
This, I would say, derives from man's (and most likely every organism's) selfish nature, residual from the days of 'survival of the fittest' and 'every man for himself'. There is an unsettling lack of emphasis on protection of the natural world in most religions. You would think God would tell us right off the bat not to fuck up the world or we'll die. But, then again, maybe that is our test, to see if we can figure out that we need to respect everything because it is part of us, and if we don't then we will certainly die.
Yes, it seems that humans are so avidly curious about the mysterious. And once we've figured it out we don't care anymore. So religion has stayed around for so long because it doesn't really explain much, other than how we should live together. Hmmmm.... perhaps that means we should only use it for a communal basis and not to determine every aspect of our lives.
As a human, we can know no more about this than any individual can know about the time before their birth. Its all based on faith, even science. Science bases its faith upon one's own senses and that the processes of the universe are constant.
Humans aren't perfect
Yes, they only 'knew' so much, but they did experience all (and maybe more) the nature that we do today. Language changes over time; it is basically a set of metaphors--metaphors in which words are symbols that stand for certain subjective experiences that we assume are similar enough to each of us. What we assume today were myths and fairy tales back then might very well have been the way they just talked and relayed ideas. Their mythical gods and beasts were probably just the (frightened and awed) explanations of natural events.
But is there really good and bad? If god created all, even the devil, then there must be some overall purpose for it. It makes more sense that there is no good or bad, looking at how subjective the world really is.
I would contend that it works insofar as that person has faith enough to make them happier and cause a kind of self-fullfilling prayer. Past that, I don't know.
How? Perhaps it is that so many humans are naive enough to believe god would work by "poof"ing stuff into existence. But really he takes a more efficient and changing (as well as more interesting) method that we call evolution.
This I agree with, in a way. But, to a being much more aware than us, something like us could be inevitable in this universe--maybe not here, but somewhere.
That which is not physical must be a relationship between physical things--an inherent characteristic of the universe itself which is the motivation of natural forces. If God created the universe, then God has sent physical 'waves' through it. In fact, if God had anything to do with where and who and how we are now, then it is possible to trace it back to him. Although we probably couldn't, as limited and naive as we are.