1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

If proving nonexistence is a logical impossibility, than how can you prove the non existence pf God?

[shadowhawk]

Can you prove only physical matter exists?

[Vardarac]

Can you prove only physical matter exists?

No. Do you deem anything that could do this as the evidence necessary to support atheism as most atheists understand atheism?

[shadowhawk]

Can you prove only physical matter exists?

No. Do you deem anything that could do this as the evidence necessary to support atheism as most atheists understand atheism?

Most Atheists believe (have faith) that the only thing that exists is the material world. Our topic asks for evidence. Is that not comprehensive?

[shadowhawk]

Most atheists criticize God for allowing evil but do they want to be autonomous beings? How can God allow us to be free but not allow us the freedom to do evil?

[platypus]

God is also free to not to torture or kill anyone, right?

[shadowhawk]

platypus: "God is also free to not to torture or kill anyone, right?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, you didn't answer any of my questions. Why?

To stay on topic, in the World View of Atheists, killing and torture is neither good or bad, right? Upon what basis do we say a basic aspect of evolution is right or wrong? Torture and killing is basic to the naturalistic world view. Condemn torture and killing and you condemn reality and reason.

If you are a theist, God does not want us to kill anyone without just reason. Torture is evil.

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 March 2014 - 09:48 PM.

[Vardarac]

Most atheists criticize God for allowing evil but do they want to be autonomous beings? How can God allow us to be free but not allow us the freedom to do evil?

Free will does not necessitate the desire to do or capability for evil. As an example, I believe it is said by Christians that God is free to do anything that is in his nature, and his nature never includes what is evil. (It apparently, however, includes the stipulation that he is free to create something that can do evil).

To stay on topic, in the World View of Atheists, killing and torture is neither good or bad, right?

From my point of view, and from many others' point of view, these things are almost always, if not always wrong. To others, these things may be conditionally wrong, while for others still, the morality of torture may not even come into question.

Upon what basis do we say a basic aspect of evolution is right or wrong?

Moral rightness and wrongness are to me fundamentally subjective. From a subjective point of view follow objective components. For example, if I am to say, "it is wrong for anyone to be tortured," it follows, objectively, that I should support laws illegalizing torture in recognition.

So why should this point of view be valid to anyone else? The short answer is that it needn't be, but often turns out to be. I like to think that my morality and ethics are grounded in an empathy humanity largely shares and that, as a result, became part of a self-reinforcing set of social norms imposed on us from an early age. It is not that there is a basis that all will or even should recognize, but that we simply do, perhaps as an artifact of evolution.

Torture and killing is basic to the naturalistic world view.

How?

Condemn torture and killing and you condemn reality and reason.

If it is reasonable to torture or kill, then I will happily behave unreasonably, for is it not also reasonable to act in accordance with one's desires given their consequences? What is "more reasonable", and why?

Most Atheists believe (have faith) that the only thing that exists is the material world. Our topic asks for evidence. Is that not comprehensive?

I think I would be best described as a skeptic of theism rather than someone who insists that gods cannot, do not, and could never exist, full stop. Would you consider me an atheist? Would you argue that my viewpoint necessitates materialism? I don't think it does.

[shadowhawk]

Vardarac: Free will does not necessitate the desire to do or capability for evil. As an example, I believe it is said by Christians that God is free to do anything that is in his nature, and his nature never includes what is evil. (It apparently, however, includes the stipulation that he is free to create something that can do evil).

Given atheism. Does free will exist? Materialism is deterministic. There is no moral choice. This is not about god. It is about Atheism. This is therefore off topic. God is free to do anything He wants to do. He chose to create free moral beings.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Definition of terms:
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://www.longecity...300#entry635604

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

APPLYING MORAL VIEWS
““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811
http://www.longecity...330#entry637241

SLAVERY
http://www.longecity...300#entry635846

From my point of view, and from many others' point of view, these things are almost always, if not always wrong. To others, these things may be conditionally wrong, while for others still, the morality of torture may not even come into question.

So un your view it is up to the individual and subjective. Nothing new here.

Moral rightness and wrongness are to me fundamentally subjective. From a subjective point of view follow objective components. For example, if I am to say, "it is wrong for anyone to be tortured," it follows, objectively, that I should support laws illegalizing torture in recognition.

So why should this point of view be valid to anyone else? The short answer is that it needn't be, but often turns out to be. I like to think that my morality and ethics are grounded in an empathy humanity largely shares and that, as a result, became part of a self-reinforcing set of social norms imposed on us from an early age. It is not that there is a basis that all will or even should recognize, but that we simply do, perhaps as an artifact of evolution.

From subjective points of view come subjectivism, not objective values. I think you are talking about the TAO..

Torture and killing is basic to the naturalistic world view.

How?
If it is reasonable to torture or kill, then I will happily behave unreasonably, for is it not also reasonable to act in accordance with one's desires given their consequences? What is "more reasonable", and why?

Survival of the fittest. Natural selection.
Even a cat playing with a live mouse is part of a naturalistic world view. Do you really need more examples? In your behaving unreasonably, you may be suffering a Christian error.

I think I would be best described as a skeptic of theism rather than someone who insists that gods cannot, do not, and could never exist, full stop. Would you consider me an atheist? Would you argue that my viewpoint necessitates materialism? I don't think it does.

So you are not an atheist at all. Ok, we are looking for evidence for Atheism and you have given none. Perhaps you are not a skeptic of Atheism sense you don’t mention it and that would make you an Atheist. Let me hear you say something skeptical about Atheism.

[Vardarac]

Given atheism. Does free will exist? Materialism is deterministic. There is no moral choice.

And?

(I'm going to pretend for the sake of argument that atheism necessarily implies materialism.)

This is not about god. It is about Atheism. This is therefore off topic. God is free to do anything He wants to do. He chose to create free moral beings.

I am not trying to divert the discussion by bringing up God. I am responding to something you said earlier. You asked,

Most atheists criticize God for allowing evil but do they want to be autonomous beings? How can God allow us to be free but not allow us the freedom to do evil?

In my previous post, I used God as a hypothetical example to show that your logic contradicts itself. If God has free will, yet naturally prefers to avoid all evil, then it cannot follow that humans can only have free will if they are created such that they may prefer to do evil.

To maintain that, you either must concede that your conception of God does not actually possess free will, or you must concede that humans could have been created with a preference to never do evil and yet still have free will analogous to God's, but that God deliberately chose to create them with the ability and preference to do evil.

This is on topic as part of a larger discussion of atheist criticisms of the nature of God. Moreover, it is a subject you broached in this thread.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

The logic in this argument is poorly constructed. It takes the form,

1. If not A, then not B.
2. B.
3. Therefore A.

But this doesn't make sense:

1. If dogs are not walked by the fire hydrant, the fire hydrant will not be peed on.
2. The fire hydrant has pee on it.
3. Therefore dogs were walked by the fire hydrant.

An immature example, but it illustrates my point. There could be many hypothetical sources for objective morals and imperatives, or pee, as it were, that are not God (or dogs). The conclusion is therefore invalid.

Further criticism:

Premise 1: Why would the existence of objective morals or imperatives imply that God was responsible? Why couldn't they be inherent or emergent properties of the universe (as you seem to believe an atheistic worldview entails, and that in a very specific way), or why couldn't multiple gods be the arbiters?

Premise 2: How do you know that objective moral values and imperatives even exist?

From subjective points of view come subjectivism, not objective values. I think you are talking about the TAO..

Please clarify what you mean. I am not aware of any atheist that sees the absence of knowable objective morals or imperatives as a logical problem.

Survival of the fittest. Natural selection.
Even a cat playing with a live mouse is part of a naturalistic world view.

Let's have a quick look at the dictionary.

nat·u·ral·ism

2. a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

"Everything." Does that include objective moral laws or imperatives? Not necessarily. But let's say for the sake of argument that they exist in some fashion in our hypothetical materialistic universe. Does that then mean that Social Darwinism is the universe's Prime Directive for humanity?

There's no reason to assume that. Why are we to assume that natural selection, evolution, or survivability always (necessarily) correspond to what is "objectively good"? Why are we to assume that observations we make in nature are telling us something about what is right or best to do?

Do you really need more examples? In your behaving unreasonably, you may be suffering a Christian error.

I am an advocate of doing what makes one happy, provided it doesn't hurt anyone. I have no problem with Christians, or any theists, keeping their personal beliefs, well, personal.

So you are not an atheist at all. Ok, we are looking for evidence for Atheism and you have given none. Perhaps you are not a skeptic of Atheism sense you don’t mention it and that would make you an Atheist. Let me hear you say something skeptical about Atheism.

I consider myself an atheist in the same way you consider yourself a non-believer in other religions. You find the ideas that have thus far been presented either illogical or not in evidence. The difference between you and me is that I also apply this reasoning to the God you believe in.

I also admit to the possibility that I might be wrong. This might be more difficult for you, given your personal experience.

I will also repeat, in case it was not clear, that I think it is impossible to provide evidence that will say that gods absolutely do not and cannot exist. This is no different for any hypothetical intangible entity. Intangible fifth-dimension gnomes haunting your flower pot cannot be disproven or evidenced against.

In other words, the fundamental answer to your topic is no (pat yourself on the back), but it should come with the hefty asterisk that it is often more reasonable to not adopt theism than to adopt it unless you are an individual who finds themselves better able to function in a theistic worldview or who thinks they have actually experienced (and could not reasonably say that it was not) the work of God or of gods.

[shadowhawk]

This is not about Atheism and a massive so I will pass.

[Vardarac]

If nothing else, my final paragraph is all about atheism. You're missing the wider picture. You'd rather insist on the straw man picture of atheism as abject denial of even the faintest possibility of theism and the acceptance of materialism/naturalism than try to understand the perspective of nonbelievers in general and the reasoning behind their beliefs (or rejections of belief).

"Is there evidence for atheism?" is a title that looks to non-theists like a frame questioning the viability of a worldview without a god rather than the arguably healthy assertion that you can't disprove the intangible vampire the priest insists is living in your fridge. Perhaps this was intentional, but if it wasn't, then surely you see the uselessness to everyone in saying that "there is no evidence for atheism"?

Edited by Vardarac, 01 April 2014 - 02:19 AM.

[shadowhawk]

If nothing else, my final paragraph is all about atheism. You're missing the wider picture. You'd rather insist on the straw man picture of atheism as abject denial of even the faintest possibility of theism and the acceptance of materialism/naturalism than try to understand the perspective of nonbelievers in general and the reasoning behind their beliefs (or rejections of belief).

"Is there evidence for atheism?" is a title that looks to non-theists like a frame questioning the viability of a worldview without a god rather than the arguably healthy assertion that you can't disprove the intangible vampire the priest insists is living in your fridge. Perhaps this was intentional, but if it wasn't, then surely you see the uselessness to everyone in saying that "there is no evidence for atheism"?

The subject is evidence for Atheism not proclamation for Atheism which you claim you are skeptical of. I am the one who started this topic looking for evidence have read many atheist books, listened to many tapes and debates and have read everything in this topic. You are the one with the straw man.

If you can’t handle the topic, don’t. When Atheists and skeptics say there is no evidence for God, they then accuse us of being irrational. What does that then make them when they have no evidence?

[Vardarac]

You're missing my point, which is that your topic is effectively pointless. You're asking for evidence of a position that falsifies an unfalsifiable proposition. You will not find evidence that would show that theism is not true, because mental gymnastics can be applied to any facts or logic presented suggesting that gods are man-made that would allow it to go on being true. It would be like me asking you, "is there any evidence that we are not in the Matrix?"

I think you know this, but for some reason you persist in asking it as though you've made some sort of rhetorical victory.

[shadowhawk]

You're missing my point, which is that your topic is effectively pointless. You're asking for evidence of a position that falsifies an unfalsifiable proposition. You will not find evidence that would show that theism is not true, because mental gymnastics can be applied to any facts or logic presented suggesting that gods are man-made that would allow it to go on being true. It would be like me asking you, "is there any evidence that we are not in the Matrix?"

I think you know this, but for some reason you persist in asking it as though you've made some sort of rhetorical victory.

We have heard this all before. You should read what has already been said.
You don’t like the topic because there is no evidence for atheism. Do you have evidence for that claim?
http://www.longecity...570#entry650668
http://en.wikipedia....ving_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 April 2014 - 07:35 PM.

[Vardarac]

You don’t like the topic because there is no evidence for atheism. Do you have evidence for that claim?

I don't like the topic because your fundamental question is absurd. Things could be deemed "evidence for atheism" that would never meet the burden of proof because the goalposts could be shifted ad infinitum. I and others have explained why, but having read back you have yet to respond to that explanation. Here, simple logic.

1. The Matrix by definition will not provide any signs that can be unambiguously evaluated to have originated from the Matrix and therefore cannot be disproven.
2. God is analogous to the Matrix in this respect.
3. Therefore, God cannot be disproven.

Before you pull out your off-topic card, let's take this for a test drive.

1. There exists a consilience of scientific evidence that all life shares common ancestry.
2. Equally so for evolutionary gradualism.
3. This contradicts creation narratives that would be in evidence if we were in the Matrix.
4. Therefore, we are not in the Matrix.

I think I've given you enough to work with for the moment.

[shadowhawk]

Nonsense. Don't like the topic then no one is forcing you to engage in it. I think you are trying to derail the topic by this foolishness. You are not in the matrix and you are not in this topic either. Evolution is not evidence for atheism.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 April 2014 - 01:01 AM.

[Vardarac]

You are not in the matrix and you are not in this topic either.

You are apparently incapable of reasoning by analogy or refuse to do so. Rather than address points, you dismiss them as off-topic or as red herrings even when it is clear to everyone that they are relevant to the topic being discussed.

I have laid out a very clear and very simple argument. God is analogous to the Matrix in non-falsifiability. You must either explain why this is not so or concede the point.

Evolution is not evidence for atheism.

Good. You're starting to get it. Now explain to me why it can't be evidence for atheism.

Edited by Vardarac, 02 April 2014 - 01:48 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Clear to “everyone?” Who is, “everyone?” It is unclear.

The topic is, “Is There Evidence For Atheism?” You don’t like it and claim there is something incoherent about the question. OK I will accept your answer as “no.”

You don’t understand the question. Your answer is reasoning by analogy. You are in the Matrix and don’t know if you are being controlled from the outside! Perhaps you are. There is no way of knowing, you claim. Likewise, there is no way of knowing if there is evidence for atheism. Your clear analogy. Your problem has nothing to do with the topic, which means there is no controller. You don’t know. OK, clear as can be. You don’t have a clue but you want to talk about it, even if off topic.

I am looking for evidence for atheism which it appears is an irrational belief.

Finally, you want me to start talking about evolution. Hmmm

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 April 2014 - 05:06 PM.

[johnross47]

Oh dear! I've been away for two weeks in the sun and the topic still hasn't improved. I don't suppose it ever will: SH will just go on demanding the impossible and, as was pointed out above, triumphantly maintaining his preposterous position in defiance of everybody else's demands for common sense, honesty and a coherent interpretation.

[Vardarac]

You don’t understand the question.

It's very simple. You want evidence that there are absolutely no gods.

This is impossible to provide, as I have explained, because nothing resembling evidence that can be provided will be satisfactory in proving the point. There are certainly things that might suggest theism is false, or falsify some interpretations of theism. However, and again, the goalposts for evidence can be shifted by theists to accommodate points raised.

To reiterate, there are many things a person could point out that could be construed as "evidence for atheism," and I could certainly provide them, but they could be continually dismissed or beliefs modified to continue the allowance of theism. Until you acknowledge that, there is little point in making any argument for atheism.

Your problem has nothing to do with the topic, which means there is no controller. You don’t know. OK, clear as can be. You don’t have a clue but you want to talk about it, even if off topic.

It has to do with the central premise of your topic. It is about your topic. Why do you keep insisting that it isn't?
A comparison:

Finally, you want me to start talking about evolution. Hmmm

In the hypothetical Matrix, we wouldn't expect to see signs of evolution, yet we do. Amatrixists believe that this is evidence that we are not in the Matrix. But this isn't evidence; maybe the machines programmed it in, anticipating our skepticism?

In a world created through a traditional creation narrative, we wouldn't expect to see signs of evolution, yet we do. Atheists believe that this is evidence that gods do not exist. But this isn't evidence; maybe the creation narrative is metaphorical, showing that we are narrow-minded in our interpretation?

I am looking for evidence for atheism which it appears is an irrational belief.

If someone is a strong atheist, they will probably tell you that what makes atheism less irrational than theism despite the state of evidence is that a truth claim of absence for a given hypothetical entity is more often true when there is an absence of evidence. I have provided analogies to support this thus far in an attempt to make the point clearer, but it appears I will have to omit further use of them for the time being since you will deem them off-topic.

Edited by Vardarac, 02 April 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

OK one vote for no evidence for the irrational belief there is no God.

[Vardarac]

OK one vote for no evidence for the irrational belief there is no God.

The belief is certainly rational, and there is evidence for it. It is based on evidence in the context of usual standards of evidence for a thing existing or happening.

Take Russell's Teapot. The proposition is reasonably assumed to be false until evidence is provided to the contrary, because:
1. No existing examples of celestial teapots can be observed.
2. Teapots have only been observed to be man-made.
3. There is no record or likelihood of someone launching a teapot into space.

There is no direct evidence for Russell's teapot not existing, as in, you cannot have searched the entirety of space to falsify the proposition, but you can make several observations that suggest that the proposition is false on the basis of what is already known. That "already known" is the evidence for the null hypothesis.

Framed the same way, an argument for atheism:
1. No existing examples of gods can be observed.
2. At least the overwhelming majority of gods are man-made because their theologies are mutually exclusive.
3. It is therefore reasonable to assume that gods are man-made until it is proven otherwise.

That is why militant atheists will call theism irrational on the basis of having no evidence. Atheists have a form of evidence, it just isn't recognized as such by theists.

Your standard of evidence works in the skeptical way for concepts like multiverses, or leprechauns - Which you yourself have stated in another thread - yet you don't accept this logic for gods. I would call this the real inconsistency.

Edited by Vardarac, 02 April 2014 - 11:37 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Teapots have been launched into space.

[shadowhawk]

You can not prove a negative. (A negative)
However, it is done all the time. I have gone over this so many times despite many protests..

http://en.wikipedia....ving_a_negative
http://rationalwiki..../Negative_proof
http://departments.b...eanegative.html
http://www.psycholog...-prove-negative
http://carm.org/athe...ws-there-no-god
http://www.catholic....burden-of-proof
http://www.reasonabl...tion-of-atheism

[shadowhawk]

SKEPTICS
There's a fine line, though, between being someone who questions and being someone who refuses to believe any answers-a true skeptic. In fact, I don't think many skeptics actually question anything. They may phrase their challenges as questions, but their heart is set on rejection and disproving, not asking. To truly question something is to query it and to ask about it for the sake of greater and deeper understanding. This may lead to evidence that disproves or to propositions worthy of rejecting, but the heart behind it is to learn, to know. And in this sense, we ought to question everything. And I do mean everything… — Barnabas Piper (from, The unskeptical questioner)

Including Atheism which claims not to have a burden of proof. Nonsense

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 April 2014 - 05:16 AM.

[johnross47]

This is not really a topic. The only things that needed saying were said at the beginning. The fact that they have been ignored by SH is neither here nor there. They were said. They were sufficient; beyond that point we are just encouraging him to play with himself.

Edited by johnross47, 03 April 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

This is not really a topic. The only things that needed saying were said at the beginning. The fact that they have been ignored by SH is neither here nor there. They were said. They were sufficient; beyond that point we are just encouraging him to play with himself.

As usual you have said absolutely nothing and persist in making nonsense. I have pointed this out many times. You can use more verbiage and not say anything...

[johnross47]

The only attempt you make at justifying your abuse of atheists and agnostics is your denial of their positions. The fantasy atheist you want to argue with, presumably because you have some sophistic arguments to use up, is not really here, so you tell people that they don't really know what they think and abuse the people you want them to be instead.
In the real world nobody springs up as a ready made atheist or christian or anything else. The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions. Most people don't ever give it much thought. For many I suspect that it is a slow process of realising that the stories you've been told are a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense. Even at that level most people don't actually consider the so-called proofs of god's existence. Most people couldn't even vaguely describe one, never mind analyse it logically. The default position of non-believers is mainly fairly casual rejection of the story told. For those of us who have thought about it the position is considered rejection; not a positive belief that no gods exist anywhere, but a denial of the stories told so far. You can reject this as much as you like but it will just result in more wasted time and pointless attempts to start a fight with a straw man.

[Vardarac]

Or a continuation of one of the longest-lived unpunished sessions of continuous and successful trolling. Seriously, this is just too perfect, I think it's an attempt at Guiness.

Edited by Vardarac, 04 April 2014 - 06:51 PM.