Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[RoyLennigan]

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.

I am not so sure. It would be a much greater leap of faith to say that there are things that are immaterial and wholly unable to be observed (at all, infinitely) in this universe. I would agree with you if you added the clause that they are only unable to be observed because of our limited perception as humans. But to say that the immaterial has absolutely no evidence in this universe is to say that the immaterial has absolutely no effect, nor ever had any effect, on this universe. And that would contradict the definition of god.

 

[RoyLennigan]

I think there might be a 4th option as well:

4) There might be things that are immaterial, but we are unaware that we are constantly aware of them--we take them for granted and so we rule them out without even thinking about it.

I am thinking of relationships between things here, like mathematical constants and such.

 

[Roman]

Because religion has been around longer than science? :shrug:

I thought it was man's (slightly) rational nature that led to religion. You know, when we first looked up at the stars and asked "Why?"

 

[RoyLennigan]

I thought it was man's (slightly) rational nature that led to religion. You know, when we first looked up at the stars and asked "Why?"

If we were any smarter we would have just kept our mouths shut.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Surely it is therefore the THEIST that is intellectually dishonest to come up with a notion that is so beyond scrutibility?

What do you mean by "come up with"?
The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.

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.

What is it you are seeking evidence of? This is the question.
Also what would you regard as evidence?
Again, it boils down to personal choice of belief, nothing more.

Please indicate the evidence of design. Noone has yet been able to do it. But feel free.

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?
If yes, can you explain how the scientific method can conclude 'no design', or 'design'.
If no, then you only have to observe nature.

How does this lead to it being intellectually dishonest to claim that one is an atheist because of a lack of evidence?

The only way you can be truly honest in the question regarding God existence, is to say, i don't believe he exists.

Do you think they are merely choosing not to see something as evidence? Out of obstinate choice?
Pathetic reasoning on your part.

Why is it pathetic?
What else could it be?
Every (if not most) theist in this forum, is so because they understand (in v arying degrees) Gods nature, not that we make it up as we go along. You also know this, so whats with the silly question of scientific evidence, if not to put a spanner in the works. If I'm mistaken, and you think that God can be observed in a lab, then go read any scripture then get back to us.

I await your evidence.

Life comes from life, as far as anybody, past, present has observed. If life comes from non life, then prove it.

Why? Explain your reasoning for disregarding an analogy. To dismiss it out of hand IS intellectually dishonest.

My advice is to go and read a scripture properly, then you may understand why the two types of beliefs are completely different.

Weak? What other reasons for "not believing" are there?

Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........

"Oh, I have evidence of God's existence but I choose not to believe in his existence"?

No, you just choose not to believe, for whatever reason.

If there is no evidence for something then it is akin to non-existence.

You seem to conveniently forget what it is your asking evidence for, and insist on what is currently an inferior method
to present such conclusive evidence.
You're better off saying, I don't believe God exists, and leave it there. That is the honest thing to do.

That is not to say that it definitely doesn't exist - merely that it has the same level of evidence for its existence as something that doesn't exist - i.e. none.

No one has evidence either way, it all boils down to choice of belief. Can't you understand that?

I "believe" based on evidence: I "believe" that I can cross a road safely. I "believe" that my brother would help me out in a financial crisis.
But this is based on vast swathes of evidence - and is nothing but a vague, subconcsious assessment of probability.

I'm not gonna repeat myself. Read above or not.

Jan.

 

[Roman]

If we were any smarter we would have just kept our mouths shut.

Do you like to kill things?

 

[RoyLennigan]

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?
If yes, can you explain how the scientific method can conclude 'no design', or 'design'.
If no, then you only have to observe nature.

People often forget that the scientific method was built upon the basic tried and tested most efficient methods of figuring something out. A method modified by millions of humans over thousands of years to reach the state it is now. The scientific method is a specified outline of the natural human method of figuring anything out. It is all based upon a balance between likeliness and faith. Likeliness because we can never know for sure, but there are probabilities which point to a specific cause which is independantly observable. Faith, because at some point we have to say to ourselves "okay, this seems most likely from what I have seen, so I will believe in it until I observe something that contradicts it. We all go through this, even if we don't realize it. At the most drastic, if we continue with a faith even after observation has contradicted it, then we die.

For me, I say that if life and the universe were designed, then the process of that design would be no different than what science observes as evolution, or natural process. It just agrees with the very nature of how the universe appears to operate.

Weak? What other reasons for "not believing" are there?

Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........

There is also the reason that one disagrees with the general lifestyle (and effects of that lifestyle) of the people who believe in said god. In fact, the main reason I see in most atheists for dis-believing in god is that they are inherently disgusted with how theists live and the effects of how they live. It has little to do with the actual idea of god.

To "not believe" through lack of evidence is both intellectually honest and entirely rational.

Intellectual honesty and rationality are subjective to your values and intents. I would say that it is more rational to make no general decision about it at all. The agnostic is usually more aware because he is not blinded by the limits of either perspective.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Do you like to kill things?

No, on the contrary I am inherently upset by the killing or maiming of anything, even a tiny insect.

I was implying that perhaps if we took things as they were, then we wouldn't be at each others' throats arguing what exactly such and such is, especially when such and such is just a word that we made up to describe something we can't even pinpoint anymore.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Roy, what do you do if termites infest your house, sing kum ba ya?

 

[Roman]

No, on the contrary I am inherently upset by the killing or maiming of anything, even a tiny insect.

I was implying that perhaps if we took things as they were, then we wouldn't be at each others' throats arguing what exactly such and such is, especially when such and such is just a word that we made up to describe something we can't even pinpoint anymore.

Well aren't you glad that all those people could open their mouths, fight and die and bleed and kill so you could live your blameless vegan life?
You are a vegan right?

 

[grover]

Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

 

[Roman]

Does anyone disagree that evidence is synonomous with "that which has been, or can be, verified by third-person means"?

No disagreement here.

 

[KennyJC]

So now you're saying no evidence means something doesn't exist? That's a bizarre claim.

Did I say that? I don't think I did. What I am saying is why should people claim (or strongly believe) that there is something that is impossible to find evidence for, as well as the odds being so vanishingly small.

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.

Because the theists will argue the point "how do you get an eye by accident" - obviously he doesn't understand evolution, but if as it was always thought that there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story (that humans were poofed) then it would surely mean there was a deliberate creation to it. You may say that doesn't apply to the 'big bang', but then, the universe evolved too - you didn't get galaxies overnight. It all seems to be simple > organised complexity... and god would be the reverse - immense complexity > simple complexity. Granted, if I create something then that is immense complexity > simple complexity, but I am the result of slow evolution... I am not god, am I?

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.

I don't think there is a 'being' at all. If consciousness is just one aspect of what we call 'life' in this universe, then is there a god of gravity? A god of clouds, a god of toenails? Why do we think the only god is one that has a lot in common with our own psyche? I think whatever happens in our brains is no different to anything, yet what happens in our brains seems to make us assume the same is true for the creation (creator?) of the universe?

 

[Jan Ardena]

RoyLennigan,

There is also the reason that one disagrees with the general lifestyle (and effects of that lifestyle) of the people who believe in said god. In fact, the main reason I see in most atheists for dis-believing in god is that they are inherently disgusted with how theists live and the effects of how they live. It has little to do with the actual idea of god.

What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?

Jan.

 

[Roman]

RoyLennigan,



What is so "disgusting" about how theists live?

Jan.

Their slavery, ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

[Sarkus]

What do you mean by "come up with"?

I have no evidence that the notion of God is anything but man-made.

The fact that it is beyond such "scrutibility" is not a real problem, at least not for the majority of everyday people going about their everyday lives.

And we call that being intellectually lazy.
The fact that it is not a problem to those that don't think too hard about it is irrelevant to the discussion.

What is it you are seeking evidence of? This is the question.

God.

Also what would you regard as evidence?

I do not know. Something that is beyond mere scientific possibility.

Do you mean scientific evidence of design?

No - I mean evidence of design.

If no, then you only have to observe nature.

I observe - I see no evidence of design - just the obeyance of a few rules of the Universe.

the only way you can be truly honest in the question regarding God existence, is to say, i don't believe he exists.

Eh? I don't believe he exists. I also don't believe he doesn't exist. All due to lack of evidence.

Life comes from life, as far as anybody, past, present has observed. If life comes from non life, then prove it.

So current lack of a scientific means of replicating abiogenesis is your evidence of design?
Lack of evidence for one thing is NOT evidence for another.
This is simple logic that you should realise by now.

My advice is to go and read a scripture properly, then you may understand why the two types of beliefs are completely different.

If you can't answer me then just say so.

Because you didn't get pamela anderson for christmas, despite ardently praying for 20 minutes.
Because you can't be arsed.
Because there seems to be too many rules and regs.
Because you don't want to.
Because you don't get it.
Because you hate God and anything to do with God.
Because you think you are smarter than that.
Because you feel embarassed among your peers.
Because mi mam won't let me.
Because mi girlfreind won't let me.
Because I can't see God with my own eyes........

And yet you call the reason of not having any evidence "weak"?

What would you call a "strong" reason?

No, you just choose not to believe, for whatever reason.

Because I have no evidence for the existence of God.

You're better off saying, I don't believe God exists, and leave it there. That is the honest thing to do.

Why is it the honest thing to do?
Surely it is more honest to explain fully the rationale for reaching the conclusion one does?

No one has evidence either way, it all boils down to choice of belief. Can't you understand that?

So you now admit you have no evidence for God????
Yet you said earlier that you see evidence of design in the Universe???
Who do you see as this designer of yours if not God???

I think you're confusing yourself and arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Sarkus]

Intellectual honesty and rationality are subjective to your values and intents. I would say that it is more rational to make no general decision about it at all. The agnostic is usually more aware because he is not blinded by the limits of either perspective.

I am an agnostic - I have no knowledge of God - either of his existence or his non-existence.
I am also an atheist - due to my lack of belief in God.

This is what I see as the only rational position - unless one claims to either have knowledge or evidence.

And then it is a matter of what that knowledge / evidence is actually knowledge / evidence of.

 

[geeser]

there's good reason to believe in things that there's currently no evidence for.....

Like lenny the Leprechaun, francis the Fairy, or elsa the Elf.

By what measure do atheists determine that God's existence is very unlikely to be true if its untestable?

the same reasoning, they'd use to determine lenny the Leprechaun's, francis the Fairies, or elsa the Elves, existence.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

 

[Hapsburg]

Why do people ask for evidence for the Loch-Ness Monster?

Hell, Nessie is probably more likely to exist than some sky bully. At least Nessie has eyewitness reports to back it up, thousands of them, stretching back hundreds of years.
A deity would just has the belief and faith of fools on its side.

 

[VitalOne]

'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?

I don't deny any of these beings you mentioned, nor do I accept them...except for Gilgamesh, I think he existed in some form and then many legends and myths were added over time into his story...

As for dismissing mine, mine is completely different from these described. God is the origin of all, therefore he cannot be a physical entity, before there was existence or non-existence God existed just the same....