1712 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

But if I'm honest with myself then I recognize that all of those storyland beings are categorically different. They're used in a tired fashion to mock the search for meaning in an apparently indifferent universe. Citing storyland characters aren't really useful in progressing an honest conversation.

But in the view of an atheist, gods are equally categorized as "storyland" beings. God's story book, the Bible, is so clearly a work of flawed fiction, that the more you study it, the less likely the veil of faith can remain over a person's eyes. This is why it's estimated that ~10% of church ministers are closet atheists. The BS is so thick in the Bible that it destroys faith.

[ms95]

the evidence is the lack of proof of god.

[sthira]

But in the view of an atheist, gods are equally categorized as "storyland" beings. God's story book, the Bible, is so clearly a work of flawed fiction, that the more you study it, the less likely the veil of faith can remain over a person's eyes. This is why it's estimated that ~10% of church ministers are closet atheists. The BS is so thick in the Bible that it destroys faith.

I agree with what you've written above. But you seem to be arguing against Christianity. That's fine. But "spirituality" (our search for cosmological meaning) transcends Christianity. Christians and their bible -- indeed most organized religions -- do not contain the final words on anything beyond their own violent, ugly political movements.

[shadowhawk]

Notice the last few posts continue to follow the rest of the posts from the beginning. No evidence for atheism, only attack theists. Most of this nonsense I have already answered before. See the below discussions.

Can you prove a negative? We do it all the time. See #3. In fact you could not even function in the world without proving negatives.

Ockham’s Razor, Proof of Atheism?
# 5.

We even evolved to believe in a God who is not there. Atheists didn’t evolve, they reason.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

Lets try again for evidence for Atheism.

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504306

6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

7. Summary of some of my arguments for lack of evidence of atheism..
http://www.longecity...post__p__504785

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 October 2013 - 12:58 AM.

[sthira]

Notice the last few posts continue to follow the rest of the posts from the beginning. No evidence for atheism, only attack theists. Most of this nonsense I have already answered before.

Yes but you're not convincing, and you've moved no one. Is anyone moved by Shadowhawk's eloquence? Any atheists now turned to theism? Step forward, all ye god-deniers to the baptismal shadows and flames of dear Chordeiles minor.

[shadowhawk]

Notice the last few posts continue to follow the rest of the posts from the beginning. No evidence for atheism, only attack theists. Most of this nonsense I have already answered before.

Yes but you're not convincing, and you've moved no one. Is anyone moved by Shadowhawk's eloquence? Any atheists now turned to theism? Step forward, all ye god-deniers to the baptismal shadows and flames of dear Chordeiles minor.

No evidence here. Typical from the start of the topic..

[DukeNukem]

Off-topic-ish, but too good not to post...

One of the best commentaries showing how dangerous it is to have elected people of power who strongly believe outdated religious myths, like Christianity. Four minutes or pure awesomeness, and much laughter.

[shadowhawk]

Off-topic-ish, but too good not to post...

One of the best commentaries showing how dangerous it is to have elected people of power who strongly believe outdated religious myths, like Christianity. Four minutes or pure awesomeness, and much laughter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbJ4ETvBwbg

Finally we have the first bit of evidence for Atheism.

[Sciencyst]

Organized religion, indeed, can be good in that it enforces morals, which many people would otherwise not have. Morals have little if anything to do with religion, though, and should be globally recognized as important without the motivator of eternal damnation. It may have been necessary when the general population was much less intelligent, but now it seems that people are able to understand and live by morals/virtue without such an intense motivation as hell.

....

Atheism is adhered to religiously by some who 'follow' it, and in those ways it is just another factor in the divide of humanity- "us" vs "them." Others simply have concluded logically that there is no evidence for God.

I must say there is really only personal evidence for atheism, only things one can understand from their own viewpoint.

As far as scientifc, empirical evidence, it cannot really exist because of the abstract qualities of God vs no-God.

There is only evidence for atheism in so far as there is evidence for the color purple. Some will argue it clearly exists because they experience it that way, and some will say it does not exist because it is not in the color spectrum, others will say it doesn't exist because it is subjective and created solely by the mind. Whereas a color blind perosn may have a different argument.

The existence of a God is impossible to prove, it's so abstract, every person defines God just a little bit differently. Some say he is a bearded sky-daddy, others say God is consciousness, or time, or the universe, or that we are all God.

As far as God creating beings as they are, without evolution, and God creating the universe, that will never ever be proved, there will only be mountains of evidence stacked against it.

Creationists will always find something retarded like bananas, or peanut butter, or the human eye as "proof" for God, but this is an extremely futile effort, as it has no absolute link saying the biblical God created it.

In the end, reductio ad absurdum always wins. Theism and atheism, and agnosticism for that matter, can always be reduced to absurdity.

Edited by katuskoti, 27 October 2013 - 12:33 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Organized religion, indeed, can be good in that it enforces morals, which many people would otherwise not have. Morals have little if anything to do with religion, though, and should be globally recognized as important without the motivator of eternal damnation. It may have been necessary when the general population was much less intelligent, but now it seems that people are able to understand and live by morals/virtue without such an intense motivation as hell.

....

Atheism is adhered to religiously by some who 'follow' it, and in those ways it is just another factor in the divide of humanity- "us" vs "them." Others simply have concluded logically that there is no evidence for God.

I must say there is really only personal evidence for atheism, only things one can understand from their own viewpoint.

As far as scientifc, empirical evidence, it cannot really exist because of the abstract qualities of God vs no-God.

There is only evidence for atheism in so far as there is evidence for the color purple. Some will argue it clearly exists because they experience it that way, and some will say it does not exist because it is not in the color spectrum, others will say it doesn't exist because it is subjective and created solely by the mind. Whereas a color blind perosn may have a different argument.

The existence of a God is impossible to prove, it's so abstract, every person defines God just a little bit differently. Some say he is a bearded sky-daddy, others say God is consciousness, or time, or the universe, or that we are all God.

As far as God creating beings as they are, without evolution, and God creating the universe, that will never ever be proved, there will only be mountains of evidence stacked against it.

Creationists will always find something retarded like bananas, or peanut butter, or the human eye as "proof" for God, but this is an extremely futile effort, as it has no absolute link saying the biblical God created it.

In the end, reductio ad absurdum always wins. Theism and atheism, and agnosticism for that matter, can always be reduced to absurdity.

THE topic is evidence for Atheism and you have done what so many have, addressed the existence of God which is not the topic. There is evidence for the color purple which can also be experienced. However that is also not the topic. Nothing except abstract objects such as math can be absolutely proven, however that does not mean there is no evidence. Everything isn’t absurd. Give some evidence for your statements.

[shadowhawk]

WHICH ONE IS IT?

1. There is no good evidence to demonstrate there is a God. See is there evidence for Christianity? http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614862
2. There is good reason to demonstrate there is no God. See is there evidence for
Atheism? http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885

Stop trying to answer #2 by attacking only #1.

[N.T.M.]

WHICH ONE IS IT?

1. There is no good evidence to demonstrate there is a God. See is there evidence for Christianity? http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614862
2. There is good reason to demonstrate there is no God. See is there evidence for
Atheism? http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885

Stop trying to answer #2 by attacking only #1.

To be clear, if there are only two options, discrediting one does support the other, albeit indirectly. If a god exists, he must be very complex, so if it can be shown that he's superfluous or that accounting for him requires more effort than the difference in the explanations he offers, then that would constitute evidence for atheism.

If, for example, you define value in terms of explanation, then the argument could be summarized as [(complexity necessary for God's existence) - (unanswered questions)] > (unanswered questions), the greater value of which has less evidence, given the parameters that value, and therefore likelihood, comes from explanations offered.

If you really want to get technical, likelihood expressed as an inequality would take the form of the reciprocals of each side above. On a completely separate note, I only slept two hours last night, so I'm surprised that I'm able to think at all. :D

[DukeNukem]

The question of this topic itself is flawed. You cannot ask for evidence of a non-thing. The task being asked is similar to asking for evidence that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Given that it doesn't actually exist, there's no direct evidence to support non-existence. Although, if the Easter Bunny was a religion, plenty of people would say it exists because there's a long-standing holiday, and Easter eggs and chocolate bunnies are sold in stores. This is the exact kind of evidence that exists for gods, 100% manufactured by humans.

[shadowhawk]

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM???
1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504306

6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260

7. Demands of Evidentialism, summary ?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504785
http://www.longecity..._60#entry505663

8. Both sides, top Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983

9. Presumption of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260

10. a Pilgrimage of Reason.
http://www.longecity...20#entry507260h

11. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.longecity...150#entry508469

Guidelines for the use of the forem
http://www.longecity...ad/#entry428913

[shadowhawk]

The question of this topic itself is flawed. You cannot ask for evidence of a non-thing. The task being asked is similar to asking for evidence that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Given that it doesn't actually exist, there's no direct evidence to support non-existence. Although, if the Easter Bunny was a religion, plenty of people would say it exists because there's a long-standing holiday, and Easter eggs and chocolate bunnies are sold in stores. This is the exact kind of evidence that exists for gods, 100% manufactured by humans.

I will ignore your usual personal and fallacious attacks. See subjects #7 and #2, 3, 4. http://www.longecity...360#entry621042

As usual u are not answerig the topic question but attacking theism. http://www.longecity...360#entry620993

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM???

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504306

6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260

7. Demands of Evidentialism, summary ?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504785
http://www.longecity..._60#entry505663

8. Both sides, top Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480984
http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983

9. Presumption of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260

10. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.longecity...150#entry508469

Guidelines for the use of the forem
http://www.longecity...ad/#entry428913
http://www.longecity...180#entry629606

[shadowhawk]

Why are there Atheists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN53Txg-xhk

Let’s look at some of them.

• Voltaire(1694–1778): This biting critic of religion, though not an atheist, strongly rejected his father and rejected his birth name of Francois-Marie Arouet.
• David Hume(1711–76): The father of this Scottish skeptic died when Hume was only 2 years old. Hume’s biographers mention no relatives or family friends who could have served as father figures.
• Baron d’Holbach(1723–89): This French atheist became an orphan at age 13 and lived with his uncle.
• Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72): At age 13, his father left his family and took up living with another woman in a different town.
• Karl Marx(1818–83): Marx’s father, a Jew, converted to being a Lutheran under pressure — not out of any religious conviction. Marx, therefore, did not respect his father.
• Friedrich Nietzsche(1844–1900): He was 4 when he lost his father.
• Sigmund Freud(1856–1939): His father, Jacob, was a great disappointment to him; his father was passive and weak. Freud also mentioned that his father was a sexual pervert and that his children suffered for it.
• Bertrand Russell(1872–1970): His father died when he was 4.
• Albert Camus(1913–60): His father died when he was 1 year old, and in his autobiographical novel The First Man, his father is the central figure preoccupation of his work.
• Jean-Paul Sartre(1905–80): The famous existentialist’s father died before he was born.¹²
• Madeleine Murray-O’Hair (1919–95): She hated her father and even tried to kill him with a butcher knife.
• We could throw in a few more prominent contemporary atheists not mentioned by Vitz with similar childhood challenges:
• Daniel Dennett (1942–): His father died when he was 5 years of age and had little influence on Dennett.¹³
• Christopher Hitchens (1949–): His father (“the Commander”) was a good man, according to Hitchens, but he and Hitchens “didn’t hold much converse.” Once having “a respectful distance,” their relationship took on a “definite coolness” with an “occasional thaw.” Hitchens adds: “I am rather barren of paternal recollections.”¹⁴
• Richard Dawkins (1941–): Though encouraged by his parents to study science, he mentions being molested as a child — no insignificant event, though Dawkins dismisses it as merely embarrassing.¹⁵

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 January 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[Duchykins]

This topic's primary question has never made much sense to me. It's like asking "what does blue smell like?"

"Atheism" needs a concise definition for this in order for it to be properly answered. If I'm forced to go by my own view, then asking me "is there evidence for atheism" is the same as asking "is there evidence you don't believe in gods". Huh?

You can prove a negative. It's an integral part of the scientific method as well as philosophical reasoning. You can even prove a universal negative under certain conditions.


Demanding scientific evidence of god is silly and there will never ever scientific evidence of gods without first changing the standards of what is considered "science". Gods are typically designated supernatural things and science is founded on a philosophy that does not even recognize the existence of anything beyond the natural.

Thinking of this topic in terms of 'Christianity vs atheism' is an automatic mental fail and false dichotomy. Stop it.

'Atheists are smarter' - not only is this not true, it is bald-faced bigotry and even if true, it lends no weight to the truth value of an atheist's argument.

'Atheists are emotionally damaged' - Also an ugly bigotry and if true lends no weight to the truth value of a theist's argument. If anything, it is a genuine ad hominem if used to imply that the atheist's intellectual position is factually incorrect. It's not an ad hom if the topic is emotions with regards to religious belief.

[shadowhawk]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 January 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[Duchykins]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

I do not subscribe to the 'babies are atheists' nonsense.

However, it seems you have dictated that "atheist" means "one who believes there is no god". Singular god here, with no other specifying information that could be used to identify what god is, or what god of what denomination or sect of what religion, if any. It might be more appropriate and all-encompassing to say an atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", but if that is the case then I am not an atheist.

Carry on.

[sthira]

It might be more appropriate and all-encompassing to say an atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", but if that is the case then I am not an atheist.

Carry on.

We're all agnostics whether we recognize the identity or not.  Some folks are just more childlike in their thinking, or slightly slower to catch onto reality.  Others, the lost in mainstream faith tribes, well, as you say we let them "carry on."  Sometimes we involve ourselves in their "carrying on" (eg, let's make the fuckers pay their burden of federal, state and local taxes since they consume the same resources we do; abortion rights; women's health; humane world contraception; stop fighting religious tribal wars...blah blah blah

Religious freaks everywhere, man.

And when we involve ourselves in their powerful world -- giant world religions I mean -- then it seems like we always have to have these stupid "theology" debates that lead us right back to the 18th century or wherever.  Kant and Hegel and Hume...

God's lovers just need to calm down in the world.  And slowly we're seeing that calming happen.  But it takes time to heal -- especially when they keep flaring back up and wounding us again and again.  Religious terrorists.

Dear religious people everywhere: please chill the fuck out.  Go smoke a blunt and stare at some trees in the forest for a while.  Come back when you've stopped foaming at the mouth.  Smile, take a breath, try to focus on the LOVE your religion claims to seek.

[Duchykins]

I agree that we are all agnostics. But I also believe that agnosticism is complementary to theism, deism, atheism, etc as it pertains to a question of knowledge rather than a question of belief, so to me it is a category error to place agnosticism on the same spectrum as theism and atheism, as a middle ground.

And I would dearly love to see an end to the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth types that are very prejudicial and ugly in ways they don't even realize. Theists and atheists like that are merely two sides of the same coin, both make things worse for everyone. Every group has its own pretentious morons, vicious bigots, ignorant fools and such. That would also include the 'agnostics' who think they're so superior to both theists and atheists.

I still consider myself an atheist, an agnostic atheist, but as many people try to foist a position on me that they believe is 'atheist' so they can rattle off a bunch of well rehearsed arguments against 'atheist' beliefs that I do not subscribe to. It simply easier for them to do that, it requires more time and effort actually paying attention what the individual is saying and thinking about it, give greater thought to their replies. I have to spend time explaining things so that they will stop throwing straw men at me and we can finally get down to some proper, respectful discussion.

[sthira]

Atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim... To me it's a political problem first and foremost. Religion is the tool of the powerful to defend land and resources, take land and resources, and fight within the spaces between.

Very little of this has anything to do with "god". Because when we turn our focus off the political stages of nightmares that religion continues to sponsor, and when we look back into the face of god "itself" for "evidence" of any gods or goddesses out there, well, things get pretty uncomfortable. But verbal wars are at least non-violent.

[Duchykins]

Politics is definitely often involved, and makes things worse, I'll give you that. But I don't believe it to be cause of so much upset in theists that cannot tolerate the idea that there is someone around who does not believe in their god (or they believe in a god but the same one). I think the primary cause is emotion. We are all of us emotionally invested in many of our beliefs, and this goes beyond religious and spiritual beliefs. It goes into politics, in moral philosophies, in knowledge philosophies, in lifestyles, in parenting styles, and more. This is why many people get just as upset when someone says something that disagrees with their political beliefs, or parenting beliefs, rather than only religious beliefs.

I'm not saying all of us get bent out of shape when our beliefs are confronted with opposing beliefs or simply analyzed for coherence and logic. Some of us don't but that would be the minority, the minority that is confident and secure. Security plays a major role almost every time.


Then there's another thing that has bugged me for more than a decade: why do so many outspoken theists seem to delight in attempts to demoralize and dehumanize atheists? Why do so many try so hard to do this? It is one of the most morally repugnant, most telling behaviors a theist can exhibit, hinting at what kind of person they really are inside.

But I see some atheists sometimes doing the same to theists but I know it is because they think it's an effective form of payback of a lifetime of being treated or spoken to as subhuman, defective, sick and immoral creatures. That ole "let's see how you like it" mentality at work there. It doesn't work, especially against Christians, because it just reinforces their misplaced perception that they are persecuted for their beliefs, that they are somehow the oppressed minority, that they are holy aggreived victims and such. This is not right. It is infintely easier to mistreat and abuse your fellow human being when you see them as lesser than you. This is a universal truth, demonstrated again and again throughout history.


Eh. I ramble on. Some topics get away from me. Sorry.

[sthira]

It goes both ways: theists being dicks to atheists, and atheists returning rude behavior.  It's theater.  It's theater until it's not theater anymore.  And depending upon where you live in the world, the theater becomes Theater Plus.  Meaning, the religious shit can get ugly quickly.  As you obviously know alteady.  

Emotional is an easy tool.  We're emotional -- all of us except the many sociopaths amongst us.  We're all like these tribal mammals seeking and defending our territories.  We think we're so independent and free from tribe.  But push one button here, pull a stunt over there, and pow, and the shit flares up.  And the shit flares up some more.  Eventually it calms back down -- like a mean infection -- but meanwhile our little religio-wars cause all these tragedies and keep poking our ancient wounds.

Religion sucks, man.  At least that which we've inherited.  Maybe there are some good religions -- Buddhism maybe, some of the yogic paths, Rastafarianism is cool -- there are good people who believe in some far out and nice stuff that's actually positive. The Gaia people seem great to me.

[N.T.M.]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

I do not subscribe to the 'babies are atheists' nonsense.

However, it seems you have dictated that "atheist" means "one who believes there is no god". Singular god here, with no other specifying information that could be used to identify what god is, or what god of what denomination or sect of what religion, if any. It might be more appropriate and all-encompassing to say an atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", but if that is the case then I am not an atheist.

Carry on.

Following the same definition, neither am I. In fact, this would apply to a lot of--if not most--atheists. This should be expected, though, because atheism is a position that's generally reached through reasoning, and reasoning dictates that you can't prove that God doesn't exist. If somebody's going to contradict himself by asserting the contrary, that person might as well take the more palatable side and just be a theist. lol

[Deep Thought]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

Is there evidence you don't collect stamps? That you don't pick your nose? Or like the smell of feet?

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist.

[shadowhawk]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

Is there evidence you don't collect stamps? That you don't pick your nose? Or like the smell of feet?

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist.

Yes, to all the above

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 February 2014 - 08:34 PM.

[Deep Thought]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

Is there evidence you don't collect stamps? That you don't pick your nose? Or like the smell of feet?

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist.

Yes, to all the above.

Ok my friend, break.

Let me correct my post.

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist. -> Should've been goes against all reason that we must prove the absence of a belief.

Ok, please continue my friend.

[shadowhawk]

See 1. Definition of Atheism. http://www.longecity...360#entry630701

Is there evidence you don't believe in gods? Not to hard to answer. Now if you asked my dog this, does he believe?

Is there evidence you don't collect stamps? That you don't pick your nose? Or like the smell of feet?

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist.

Yes, to all the above.

Ok my friend, break.

Let me correct my post.

It goes against all reason that we must prove something doesn't exist. -> Should've been goes against all reason that we must prove the absence of a belief.

Ok, please continue my friend.

I noticed you left something out which is important.

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352