On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[JimC]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

You're the one claiming that atheist aren't justified in excluding certain types of evidence, so what do you think constitutes the type of 'good evidence' that atheists are dismissing, squire?

metaevidence...

[pErvinalia]

So, Seth, I imagine you would say that the only rational statement that can be made about the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden is "I don't know"...

Well, one can rationally say "I don't believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but I have no objective scientific evidence pointing either way" which is the long version of "I don't know.

So, when an atheist says the same thing about god, why do you start screaming about capital A atheists and calling us all fucking liars?

I've said exactly that in every conversation we've had on the subject since you joined here!

Because he's a dishonest mendacious cunt.

[Seth]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Quotemining much!?

I went on to say that I have never used the word disbelief except as a shorthand for "lack of belief"! You are AGAIN insisting that I actively disbelieve (or, put another way, believe in god's non-existence). As I told Seth, I simply don't fucking know. But, faced with nothing whatsoever that convinces me in the likelihood of any deity, I choose the null hypothesis until such time (if ever) that such convincement should occur. The alternative would be to believe in ALL deities and supernatural entities until I have proof of their non-existence - a nonsensical position!

Perhaps this is true. However, you have made no consistent attempt to portray your thoughts in this manner that give me the overall impression that you're anything other than a run-of-the-mill Atheist. You are of course free to profess this holding of a "null hypothesis" as your position, but I would expect you to make a point of expounding the distinction between atheism and Atheism, as I do. What's more likely is that you hold definite beliefs but want to avoid the cleft-stick conundrum of the...let's call it the Atheist's Dilemma...I like that.

The Atheist's Dilemma is that one who professes to be an atheist cannot admit that rationally they can say nothing pro or con about the existence of God other than "I don't know" without joining the Church of Atheism by the simple action of declaring one's atheism in a devoted and public manner...such as joining an Atheist internet forum.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

Don't disrupt his fantasy with your inconvenient facts, Jim!

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

A distinction without a difference and irrational to boot. Just because there is no objective scientific evidence that you are aware of and understand doesn't mean that such evidence does not exist, therefore your dismissal of the concept is irrational. It's also a strawman argument because nobody expects you to behave as if God exists as part of a rational discussion of the subject. It's also pettifoggery and you damned well know it. I've been around you guys and gals long enough to understand clearly exactly how you feel about the subject of theism, and it's anything but scientifically objective and neutral. Which is exactly why I take pains to point it out at every opportunity.

I find the hypocrisy and unreason inherent in almost every discussion of theism by so-called "persons of no beliefs" to be pathetic and laughable at the same time.

You can't admit the fact that you loathe religion and everything associated with it because that makes you a religious zealot, and yet that's exactly what Atheists do all the time when they attack and demean people of faith in the most ugly and disgusting ways. And you've done it too and you know it.

So, I choose to call Atheists out on their hypocrisy, unreason, irrationality and intellectual pygmyism.

I figure if you dish it out, you ought to be able to take it.

[pErvinalia]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

Reality? Have you given any thought to what that is, for you? Descartes knew, and so have many others. The truth is that your entire reality is reducible to a series of personal experiences. At least, that's the foundation of what you can know about reality. This world that you believe in exists entirely within your mind. You cannot prove that it has an existence of its own, beyond that. To believe in a world existing independently of the mind/experience, is to give life to something for which there cannot ever be any proof. Therefore, you'd be wise not to describe the world as your 'reality', because the only reality you can be sure of is that of oneself... whatever that may be. From that point, your atheism has nowhere to go. It is kaput.

And you'd be wise to take your own advice and stop being irrational by professing that you have some understanding of what underlying reality actually is.

[Seth]

Get a fucking room and wank each other silly with your pet definitions and incapacity to consider that we don't all conform to them! Blinkered, the both of you!

My, my, aren't you just the poor little sensitive wilting flower who becomes offended when his religious beliefs are challenged and demeaned. Poor baby. My heart bleeds for you.

[Seth]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

I'd say its far more likely that your perceptions are faulty. You, after all, are French...and presumably a human being, and therefore your understanding of the universe is paltry and incomplete. You're like the blind guy with the other blind guys who are touching an elephant and are describing it differently, except that you aren't even touching the elephant, but instead you're just stubbornly denying that such a thing exists at all because it's outside of your personal physical experience.

I don't find that to be a particularly "scientific" sort of mindset.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

For a start, you can't prove that something doesn't exist in an infinite universe. And secondly God is usually described as supervening on the physical. Which is the realm of science. So, yes actually, science can provide evidence against the notion of that God (i.e. lack of evidence of it's existence).

And you're still missing the point, which is that you are a hypocrite for accusing atheists of being irrational for allegedly claiming to know something about the underlying reality of the world, while you yourself claim to know something about the underlying reality of the world because... fee fees, or some bollocks. Tell us why we should give the opinion of a self-identified irrationalist any weight whatsoever?

[Seth]

I too think the "Scientific" bit is a conflation of terms. I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles that I have any awareness or understanding of.

[pErvinalia]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

Get fucked. Tell us what "metaphysical evidence" is first. You've still yet to explain that.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

I quite agree that science provides no evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form.

Therefore I ignore it.

Like ignoring gravity, such a blindered attitude can have unpleasant consequences.

Of course your entire statement is a circular strawman you erect so you can demolish it. You define anything that you don't have acceptable "scientific" evidence that supports it as "supernatural" and then claim that science provides no such evidence.

The logical failure (well, one of them) is the simple fact that you are not omniscient and therefore cannot say with any rational accuracy what "science" provides evidence of...or does not.

[Seth]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

evidence that is:

1. Repeatable, and thus not deriving from a one off freak event.

2. Available to, and able to convince a wide range of disparate people.

3. Not based on internal personal experience or emotional conviction.

So my saying that I just shouted out "FUCK ATHEISTS" to the alarm of the patrons of the diner I'm having dinner at is a "supernatural" event because it's a) not repeatable (unless I want it to be); it's not available to YOU; and is the product of an emotional conviction?

You're sleeping in your bed one night when you are awakened by a shadowy figure standing at the foot of your bed who says, "JimC, you are a sinner and you're going to hell" and then disappears without a trace.

Did that event happen? Was it real?

It's a) not repeatable, in that you cannot set up an experiment that compels the figure to appear and speak; b) not available to anyone but you; and c) it's based on a personal experience. Not an "internal" one, whatever the hell that means, but you're the only witness to the event.

Can you rationally claim that the event did not happen? No, you cannot.

God, you see, (if he/she/it exists) is not a "natural phenomenon" like the expansion of water when it freezes or nuclear fission. One cannot put God in a test tube and subject God to chemical analysis. One cannot create an identical set of circumstances of being in bed and expect the apparition to appear as a feature of physics. God, if God exists, is an intelligent being who can choose to appear or not appear, or do this or that more than once, whenever he/she/it darned well pleases. It may please God not to allow Atheists to gather physical evidence of his existence such as protoplasm or DNA samples or video recordings or anything else that might constitute objective scientific proof of God's existence. Why God might do so is not really relevant. What's relevant is that as a necessarily sentient being of whatever nature, God can do as God pleases with respect to providing YOU with objective scientific evidence of his/her/its existence without it being even rationally arguable that he/she/it does not exist!

[piscator]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

Get fucked. Tell us what "metaphysical evidence" is first. You've still yet to explain that.

Jesus couldn't be arsed to explain what truth is, so...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Wrong.

What most of us say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no point in behaving as if there is one."

You're missing the all-important point, which is that science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

And?

If no experiment you can perform can provide evidence against god, then neither can any experiment provide evidence for god.

You misunderstand "beyond experience/observation I think. In my view, and jamest correct me if I'm misstating your argument, it's not "beyond" so much as "outside of" in the sense that just because you, or any other scientist today or in the past, cannot conduct such an experiment does not mean that such an experiment is not possible, merely that you are too ignorant to construct one.

We are left in the same situation that we start from. Nobody can tell.

That's where you're wrong. According to some 80 percent of the planet's population, they can "tell" that God or gods exist. Just because their personal experience with a/the deity doesn't meet your standards of scientific proof doesn't mean those experiences did not happen. And that's the hubris of trying to quantify and explain God using the false "science" argument. God (indeed nothing that exists) is under compulsion to be available to your supposed powers of scientific observation. You won't know the Ninja is there until he slits your throat, but he sure as hell exists.

So, you either go with the evidence of your senses and act as if this universe was exactly as it appears to be, or you treat everything as questionable and potentially false and do what exactly?

False dilemma. Those are not the only options available, and therefor you state a fallacy.

In most cases, I would imagine, you still act as if this universe was exactly as it appears, because the alternative to that is a whole lot of pain - which, real or not, fucking hurts.

Another false dilemma fallacy. Billions of people believe in God/gods and are better off for the experience. One of the reasons that religion persists in human culture over thousands of years is that it is helpful to people and it gives them comfort and solace, not pain.

In neither scenario does it make any sense whatsoever to believe in anything without evidence that is convincing to you. In my case, that includes god.

You can't be convinced of anything when you refuse to be open to the possibility of it's truth or existence. You want the proof before you exhibit the faith, but in my experience Christians in particular will tell you that you have to exhibit the faith before you get to see the proofs. Why God might choose to do it that way is ineffable, but that doesn't mean that isn't how it works. The experience of billions of people over centuries of time who claim to have a "personal relationship" with God is at least persuasive empirical evidence that there's something more than mere psychological delusion going on.

Just because you're in denial of the evidence that exists pointing towards the existence of God doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist or that God does not exist.

It may just mean that you are setting your skeptical standards so high that God doesn't care to bother trying to form a relationship with you, and therefore you don't experience what other people who claim such a relationship get to experience.