Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

What Evidence is There For Atheism?

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been told by atheists OTI that belief in God requires evidence, and because there is no evidence for him, belief in God should be abandoned.

Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?
Debaterpillar
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:44:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?

So, are you saying that you are a devout believer of Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and Hestia? If not, then please meet your burden of proof to show without doubt that they don't exist.
Do the same for the deities of the over 4000 religions humans have and have had - except for the ones you believe in - and post your clear, observable evidence against the existence of each of the like 40000 proposed different gods here into this thread (maybe one separate post for each :-P ).
Once you've done that, we can gladly speak about whether the burden of proof falls to those making a positive claim, or to those asking why the claim was made.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." Ralph Wiggum.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:47:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I've been told by atheists OTI that belief in God requires evidence, and because there is no evidence for him, belief in God should be abandoned.

Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?

What evidence do you have against the invisible boulder that's about to land on your house and crush it in 5 minutes? You don't have this evidence against it, yet, you still don't believe in the boulder. That is rational. However, if you believe in the boulder without evidence, that is irrational.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:47:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I've been told by atheists OTI that belief in God requires evidence, and because there is no evidence for him, belief in God should be abandoned.

Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?

What evidence do you have against the invisible boulder that's about to land on your house and crush it in 5 minutes? You don't have this evidence against it, yet, you still don't believe in the boulder. That is rational. However, if you believe in the boulder without evidence, that is irrational.

How many times must one repeat "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God to be unsound to establish that God does not exist. It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the non-existence of God to be unsound to establish that God exists. One could very well give reasons as to why a so-called "invisible boulder" does not exist (one could say that the very idea of a boulder being invisible is incoherent, etc.) all the theist is asking of the atheist is that he provide a reason -- any reason -- as to why it is the case that we have evidence to believe that God does not exist.

Moreover, this "asking for evidence of God" speak smacks of some commitment to some half-assed and self-defeating scientism. For, as I have said before, The person that believes that God is susceptible to empirical discovery either:

A.) Has a concept of God like that of a child's - believing that God is literally some white-bearded super-human who inhabits a given spatio-temporal location and who is "out there" for man to find;

B.) Cannot adequately distinguish between an empirical question and a non-empirical question;

or

C.) Has a self-defeating and trivial commitment to scientism and so believes that the question of God's existence must, on pain of irrationality, yield to empirical observation/experimentation.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I take it we're talking about disbelief in traditional Christian theism? The problems of evil, nonbelief and Hell would be good places to start.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:24:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 2:08:08 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:47:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I've been told by atheists OTI that belief in God requires evidence, and because there is no evidence for him, belief in God should be abandoned.

Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?

What evidence do you have against the invisible boulder that's about to land on your house and crush it in 5 minutes? You don't have this evidence against it, yet, you still don't believe in the boulder. That is rational. However, if you believe in the boulder without evidence, that is irrational.

How many times must one repeat "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (BTW I love how you admit the lack of evidence here yourself)? It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God to be unsound to establish that God does not exist. It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the non-existence of God to be unsound to establish that God exists. One could very well give reasons as to why a so-called "invisible boulder" does not exist (one could say that the very idea of a boulder being invisible is incoherent, etc.) all the theist is asking of the atheist is that he provide a reason -- any reason -- as to why it is the case that we have evidence to believe that God does not exist.

Moreover, this "asking for evidence of God" speak smacks of some commitment to some half-assed and self-defeating scientism. For, as I have said before, The person that believes that God is susceptible to empirical discovery either:

A.) Has a concept of God like that of a child's - believing that God is literally some white-bearded super-human who inhabits a given spatio-temporal location and who is "out there" for man to find;

B.) Cannot adequately distinguish between an empirical question and a non-empirical question;

or

C.) Has a self-defeating and trivial commitment to scientism and so believes that the question of God's existence must, on pain of irrationality, yield to empirical observation/experimentation.

"How many times must one repeat "absence of evidence is evidence of existence"? It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God to be unsound to establish that God does not exist. It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the non-existence of God to be unsound to establish that God exists. One could very well give reasons as to why a so-called "God" does not exist (one could say that the very idea of timeless and spaceless being is incoherent, etc.) all the atheist is asking of the theist is that he provide a plausible reason -- any coherent reason -- as to why it is the case that we have evidence to believe that this specific God does exist.

Moreover, this "asking for evidence of the lock of God" speak smacks of some commitment to some half-assed and self-defeating theism. For, as I have said before, The person that believes that God is insusceptible to empirical discovery either:

A.) Has a concept of God like that of a madman's - believing that God is literally some white-bearded super-human who grants happiness to those who believe;

B.) Cannot adequately distinguish between a question of empirical value and a question of no empirical value;

or

C.) Has a self-defeating and trivial commitment to theism and so believes that the question of God's existence must, on pain of irrationality, be true regardless of empirical evidence."
0x5f3759df
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 2:08:08 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:47:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:00:25 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I've been told by atheists OTI that belief in God requires evidence, and because there is no evidence for him, belief in God should be abandoned.

Are they willing to meet the same burden of proof required for their disbelief in God?

What evidence do you have against the invisible boulder that's about to land on your house and crush it in 5 minutes? You don't have this evidence against it, yet, you still don't believe in the boulder. That is rational. However, if you believe in the boulder without evidence, that is irrational.

How many times must one repeat "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

I said its rational not to believe in the boulder, not that it is rational to believe the boulder doesn't exist. Also, absence of evidence is definitely evidence of absence a lot of the time. If my friend calls me up and says "Hey dude, I just did so many doughnuts in my car out front of your place man!", and I go there 5 minutes later and there are no skid marks; that is evidence of the absence of my friend doing doughnuts (he was probably lying). So, absence of evidence is the best evidence of absence in many cases. If I reach into my pocket and there is no evidence of coins, well I'll be damned, that's pretty good evidence for the absence of coins in my pocket!

It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God to be unsound to establish that God does not exist. It is not enough for all arguments that seek to demonstrate the non-existence of God to be unsound to establish that God exists. One could very well give reasons as to why a so-called "invisible boulder" does not exist (one could say that the very idea of a boulder being invisible is incoherent, etc.)

They could say that, but without reasoning it makes no sense. The military already has technology that can make objects appear invisible, and objects that don't make it on radar. There is no logical impossibility of an invisible boulder that nobody can detect about to land on my house right now.

All the theist is asking of the atheist is that he provide a reason -- any reason -- as to why it is the case that we have evidence to believe that God does not exist.

Ummm, read the philosophical literature. There are plenty of reasons to think God doesn't exist.


Moreover, this "asking for evidence of God" speak smacks of some commitment to some half-assed and self-defeating scientism. For, as I have said before, The person that believes that God is susceptible to empirical discovery either:

A.) Has a concept of God like that of a child's - believing that God is literally some white-bearded super-human who inhabits a given spatio-temporal location and who is "out there" for man to find;

B.) Cannot adequately distinguish between an empirical question and a non-empirical question;

or

C.) Has a self-defeating and trivial commitment to scientism and so believes that the question of God's existence must, on pain of irrationality, yield to empirical observation/experimentation.

Any evidence of God will do. It doesn't have to be scientific..