Positive proof?

[Forty Two]

If you're undecided as to whether or not you think there is a God, then isn't it accurate to say you don't believe?

Of course it is - if you insist on a black and white world. Less primitive minds allow for shades of grey between opposites.

A less primitive mind ought to be able to puzzle out how "shades of grey" as to the confidence or lack thereof in the existence of a phenomenon is a completely different question than whether lack of a belief in X necessarily means that one doesn't believe in X.

[Forty Two]

What about "there being no evidence that a god of any type exists, I will live on the working assumption that there are no gods, until such evidence is presented"?

That's what I think, too. Therefore, I do not believe in gods.

[Forty Two]

What about "there being no evidence that a god of any type exists, I will live on the working assumption that there are no gods, until such evidence is presented"?

Irrational statement. You do not know, and have not shown that there is "no evidence."

Yours is irrational too. There is no proposition for which it can be said, in an "absolute" unrefutable sense that there is no evidence anywhere, anyhow, anytime, etc. That, of course, is not the same as saying there is or even may be evidence.

For example, the proposition that when good people die, they are rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins and other delights. Often, nonbelievers will say "there is no evidence of 72 virgins!" -- to which, you could respond "since you aren't omniscient, you can't say there is no evidence for it. You can only say that you aren't aware of any."

Which is to say, of course. When I, and many other people, say "there is no evidence," we aren't claiming omniscience. We are suggesting that we haven't been presented any, haven't found any, and haven't seen any.

Remember the concept of falsifiability. what that assumes or presumes is lack of omniscience. We can't know everything. We aren't privy to everything in the universe. But, we still draw conclusions about what does and does not exist every day, based on the information that we have.

So, let's pull back from the semantics, and understand meaning. It's not that anyone has irrefutable evidence that gods don't exist == it's that the known (to a given individual) evidence does not support the assertion that a god or gods exist. It is always possible that evidence will arise later to prove the god-hypothesis -- that's in the nature of science. What we know today will be supplemented in the future, and may change how we think of the universe.

That being the case, it's no reason to believe in a god or gods.

[Forty Two]

There is a possibility that some material being exists with God-like power, like in another galaxy????, but has no contact with humans and no interest in humans. If that is the case, in what practical way is that different to there being no deity?

What's your critically robust scientific evidence that such a being "has no contact with humans and no interest in humans?"

The absence of evidence of any contact or interest?

Dragon. Garage.

[Forty Two]

What about "there being no evidence that a god of any type exists, I will live on the working assumption that there are no gods, until such evidence is presented"?

Irrational statement. You do not know, and have not shown that there is "no evidence."

I, and all those interested in the issue, have never, ever seen any objective evidence for the existence of a god.

Your ignorance does not transform an irrational statement into a rational one.

All we can do is base our conclusions on the evidence of which we know. That's not irrational. That's the essence of reason.

Personal statements of belief based on faith do not count...

Why not? Do you have critically robust scientific evidence that these statements are merely beliefs and are not factual recitations of factual events?

Why not? Because a "personal statement of belief" is a mere assertion, until that statement is backed up by evidence. It's just an empty assertion to anyone other than the speaker. The speaker may well be right. But, it's a matter of process. Other people can't just take that person's word on it. The reason should be obvious -- there are many different personal statements of belief about the same thing, many of which are in direct conflict with other personal statements of belief. Unless one or another can be verified, we have no "reason" to choose one unverified personal statement of belief over another, and we can't believe conflicting beliefs at the same time -- because that would be the height of irrationality.

Naturally, we might find verification for one today, and later have it be disproved or superseded by another verified belief and/or disproof of what we previously thought proved. That's always possible.

[pErvinalia]

What our chief troll doesn't understand (well, one of the many things he doesn't understand) is that the scientific method of gathering evidence is designed to exclude or at least account for in some way the well known psychological biases of the human mind. But Seth's got a way to go to understand this, as he not only has to be schooled about the scientific method, he also as to somehow educate himself about human psychology. And the latter is something that he's resolutely refused to do for the entire time I've known him.

[pErvinalia]

conclusive proof! Of the devil!!

[Forty Two]

What our chief troll doesn't understand (well, one of the many things he doesn't understand) is that the scientific method of gathering evidence is designed to exclude or at least account for in some way the well known psychological biases of the human mind. But Seth's got a way to go to understand this, as he not only has to be schooled about the scientific method, he also as to somehow educate himself about human psychology. And the latter is something that he's resolutely refused to do for the entire time I've known him.

I don't think it's necessary to slam the guy personally. He has a point, albeit a semantic one.

He argues to the effect of -- "Hey, dudes, you don't know everything, man -- so...like, there might be evidence out there that refutes you and you just don't know about it yet...."

That's true. Where he goes wrong, I think, is that the people he's talking to -- in this thread -- get that. They know that. And, when they say "There ain't no evidence of no gods, man." They aren't saying "in all of the multiverse, there can not possibly be any evidence that gods exist." The phrase "there ain't no evidence" is intended to mean, basically -- "I'm unaware of any evidence of god or gods -- if you have some, show me. Until then, I don't believe in gods."

So, we can, actually, take a lesson in precision from Seth. There may be a lot of theists who use this semantic issue to discount the whole notion of atheism.

[Forty Two]

conclusive proof! Of the devil!!

Untitled.jpg

[pErvinalia]

What our chief troll doesn't understand (well, one of the many things he doesn't understand) is that the scientific method of gathering evidence is designed to exclude or at least account for in some way the well known psychological biases of the human mind. But Seth's got a way to go to understand this, as he not only has to be schooled about the scientific method, he also as to somehow educate himself about human psychology. And the latter is something that he's resolutely refused to do for the entire time I've known him.

I don't think it's necessary to slam the guy personally. He has a point, albeit a semantic one.

He argues to the effect of -- "Hey, dudes, you don't know everything, man -- so...like, there might be evidence out there that refutes you and you just don't know about it yet...."

That's true. Where he goes wrong, I think, is that the people he's talking to -- in this thread -- get that. They know that. And, when they say "There ain't no evidence of no gods, man." They aren't saying "in all of the multiverse, there can not possibly be any evidence that gods exist." The phrase "there ain't no evidence" is intended to mean, basically -- "I'm unaware of any evidence of god or gods -- if you have some, show me. Until then, I don't believe in gods."

So, we can, actually, take a lesson in precision from Seth. There may be a lot of theists who use this semantic issue to discount the whole notion of atheism.

C'mon Coit, surely you remember enough of Seth and his bollocks to know that it's a lot worse than this. He has a fatal understanding of the scientific method and thinks that calling personal fantasy "evidence" is some sort of gotcha for us. As usual, he's wronger than a wrong thing.

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

Sure, bro. Strange that your every response denying that you are Coito is EXACTLY how those of us who know you, I mean him, would expect you, I mean him, to respond.

[mistermack]

Who in their right mind would gamble on forgiveness, if they really believed in heaven and hell?

You'd have to ask someone who believes in heaven and hell.

Fallen into my trap. I said who ''in their right mind'' .

[Brian Peacock]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

[Svartalf]

thank you, I felt the same