Positive proof?

[Forty Two]

I was not aware that he was whining about it.

Anyone who condemns people to an intinity of burny torture for not believing in them is a pretty whiny cunt in my book.

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

Atheists don't know that, and don't believe that. But, some Christians say that is what they know or believe God does.

And you accept them at their word? How credulous of you.

Oh, no. I expressly doubt them. I'm an atheist after all. If I took them at their word, I'd believe in god, and that would make me credulous

I accept their claims as they are made. I don't "take Einstein at his word" about claims of General and Special Relativity. I simply read what he claimed to be true, and I accept what that what he said is what he said.

Likewise, when I read the published dogmas of certain churches, many of which have concepts of hell and damnation, where the unsaved go to lakes of fire or other types of unpleasant locales after death, then I don't take them at their word. I merely accept that the claims made are the claims made. Some Christians don't even believe in Hell, like some Jews and other religious groups. I think the Church of England did away with the hellish dogma. So, it of course depends on the religion and denomination.

Or how fallaciously dishonest. You made a direct claim about God and what God does to non-believers.

Never did. You are thinking of someone else. I never make any claims, direct or otherwise, about God, as I don't think such a being exists. Others make direct claims, and when they make those claims I try to understand what claims they are making. Their claims are what they are. And, some make claims about casting folks into lakes of fire and whatnot. Concepts of hell vary, but one common concept advanced by many Christians is that if you don't believe in God and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, you will go to hell after death, which is a place of torment. Admittedly, I have heard others suggest that hell is mere "absence from God" and not torment, although being absent from God is sometimes asserted to be the worst torment ever. Others suggest that it will be annihilation and oblivion for the nonbeliever, and eternal life for the believer. Others advance, like the general, traditional, old school, Catholic belief, that one must be part of the Church to be saved, and excommunication would damn a person to hell, and that even those in the church have to attend church, repent, do penance and confess sins in order to be saved -- Catholic Church traditional dogma has different definitions for redemption vs. salvation and all that.

These claims can be quite involved. But, don't pretend these are my claims. These are claims of religious people, including mainstream religious denominations, which have published materials saying precisely what their concepts of hell and damnation are.

You admit basing this claim on what "some Christians" say. Therefore, your claim is fallacious because you are basing your logical analysis (God is a pretty whiny cunt because he condemns non believers to an eternity of "burny torture) on a false premise, which is that what "some Christians say" about God is an expression of facts about how God acts. That's the very essence of the Atheist's Fallacy.

I didn't call God a whiny cunt. But, many Christian denominations do believe that nonbelievers are destined for an eternity of burny torture.

This is not a fallacy. The fact that there are many denominations with many differing dogmas, on hell and other matters, doesn't make the comment a fallacy anyway. A fallacy is a flaw in logic. No flaw in logic was made.

Also, when talking about gods, we can't have a conversation if every sentence we make must encompass all possible god-concepts and all possible hell-concepts. We all know that some religions have no gods, some have many, some have one, and among all the different religions, there are hundreds of different god and hell concepts, and factions have fought wars over who is right about these things.

You simply cannot draw a rational conclusion about the nature, character or actions of God based on what "some Christians" say because they could be wrong.

This is 100% accurate. It is irrational to base any belief or conclusions about God, or its nature, character, or actions, or even its existence, based on what Christians say. Not only could they be wrong, but I very strongly suspect they are. Every one of them.

However, you are missing the point that atheists don't generally "draw conclusions about the nature of God based on what Christians say," -- what's happening is that Christians make claims, and those claims are evaluated. If the claims don't stand up to the available evidence, or are not supported by persuasive evidence, then the claims are rejected.

Also, the whiny cunt comment is not an argument anyway -- it's a value judgment -- he's saying that any god that would sentence folks to burny torture is a whiny cunt. That's a matter of opinion, and not a logical fallacy. I too have issues with the quality of a deity that would do that. I.e. -- were such a deity extant, I would be rather doubtful as to that deity's goodness. I would strongly suspect that deity of being a whiny cunt.

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

There can be none, since there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) showing that a god, or God, exists in the first place.

And you know that there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) how, exactly?

The same way way I know there isn't any scientific evidence of an invisible dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage....http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

When someone presents some scientific evidence in support of a claim, then I'll evaluate it. Until then, I've nothing to evaluate.

Now, the lack of scientific evidence doesn't mean that there isn't a dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, of course. Just as the lack of evidence for gods doesn't mean they're not there. But, if belief is to come from reason, then we have to have the evidence first and then the belief comes after. Yes, "I don't know" is an accurate answer to the question "does God exist." I certainly don't know, I just don't have any evidence or reason to believe he does exist, so I don't believe. Might someone come along with proof of God or dragons in Sagan's garage -- sure, they might. If they do, I'll change my mind. Until then, I don't believe in gods or dragons in Sagan's garage. Why would I?

Saying one doesn't believe in X is not the same thing as saying that X has been proven to be impossible under any set of circumstances, assumptions or discovered proof.

What's your rigorous scientific evidence that there is no rigorous scientific evidence?

I would tell you, but then again, I don't have rigorous scientific evidence to support that I haved rigorous scientific evidence that there is no rigorous scientific evidence. It's turtles all the way down.

Are you a qualified expert on scientific evidence for the existence of God?

Yes. Everyone is qualified to evaluate the available evidennce.

Have you examined all evidence for or against the existence of God that exists?

Yes, as far as I know. If I've missed something, I'm unaware of it. If you have something to share, please do. I keep looking, and I am open to new information, because I recognize that in all things, I can be wrong. Even my most deeply held beliefs are up for grabs -- I hold nothing sacred, nothing as conclusively proved.

Have you drawn a rational scientific conclusion based on your review of this evidence? Have you published this report and submitted it for peer review, as Science demands?

Science does not demand that. By your logic, we can't conclude anything ever about any claim, simply because there may be evidence out there of which we are unaware or which may later be discovered. Science doesn't demand that at all. And, peer reviewed articles are still subject to disproof and other new evidence.

Somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think you are simply engaging in ex-recto irrationality because you've been caught in a cleft stick of your own devising.

What's your rigorous scientific evidence for this belief of yours?

Of course I haven't published peer reviewed articles, and your suggestion that science requires this in order for conclusions to be rationally drawn is ridiculous. Peer review publication wouldn't even meet your criteria -- what if I did have 10 articles published in peer reviewed journals about the nonexistence of gods. How would that possible demonstrate that all possible evidence has been examined from all possible sources? Of course it wouldn't. And, peer reviewed articles are often wrong.

I've never said the god claims can't be proven. I've merely said I don't believe in gods, and the reason I don't is that I've not seen any evidence (rigorous or otherwise) that supports the proposition. Maybe someday someone will come along who can do that. If you can, please do.

Therefore, your statement "There can be none" is both false and irrational, because there certainly can be scientific evidence of the existence of God that you are either unaware of or reject based on your personal religious Atheist bias.

You are misstating what I said. I did not say there can be no evidence of the existence of God. There certainly "can" be. I can imagine what that evidence might be. My "there can be none" comment, however, was in reference to a slightly different assertion.

[rainbow]

Oh, no. I expressly doubt them. I'm an atheist after all.

How do we know that?

If I took them at their word, I'd believe in god, and that would make me credulous

If I were to take your word for being an Atheist, that would make me credulous.

[Forty Two]

Oh, no. I expressly doubt them. I'm an atheist after all.

How do we know that?

If I took them at their word, I'd believe in god, and that would make me credulous

If I were to take your word for being an Atheist, that would make me credulous.

Well, if you didn't take my word, you'd be incredulous.

I have rigorous scientific evidence that I am an atheist. The problem is that I don't have rigorous scientific proof for my allegation that I have rigorous scientific proof that I am an atheist. So, all I can say is that I don't know whether I'm an atheist. I might be. But, there might be some evidence out there to prove that I'm not an atheist. I haven't published any peer reviewed scientific journal articles on the topic, so I really can't say one way or the other.

[Blind groper]

As I said before, you cannot prove a negative. Sometimes proving a positive does the job. Like, how do you prove that ulcers are not caused by stress. Answer, you prove they are caused by bacteria, which has been done.

But when you have something so all encompassing as the idea of deity, that is not sufficient. You can prove that something like the Big Bang happened. You can prove biological evolution. But plenty of Christians and Muslims, etc., say it was all due to Big Daddy in the Sky anyway.

So what do you do? The only other rational approach is to slowly whittle away the foundations of theism by showing that each and every little thing ascribed to The God actually did not need him/her or it.

This has been done, and over 90% of scientists of Ph.D. level world wide are atheists (or some other variant on non believer in deity).

[Seth]

Atheism is not a system of religious belief.

Yes, it is. Or at least it can be and is in many cases.

No, it isn't.

However, if you claim it to be, please identify the system in some way other than referring to or capitalizing the generic term "atheism." For example, we don't just call "Theism" a system of religious belief, because it's not. Some theisms are systems of religious belief, and those systems have names. Even some atheisms are systems of religious belief, like some Buddhisms are atheistic. Jainism is atheistic. That doesn't mean Atheism is a system of religious belief.

Atheism is not a system of religious belief. Theism is not a system of religious belief. Some systems of religious belief are atheistic, and some are theistic, etc.

"atheism" is not necessarily a religious belief. "Atheism" however, is. That's why it's capitalized like Buddhism or Jainism. Big-A Atheism is a religious belief system that happens to have atheism (small-a) as it's central belief.

However, I note that you have capitalized the term. If you would define it, such that we can know the attributes of the system of religious belief which you denote as Atheism, then we can evaluate whether we agree or disagree with you.

Small "a" atheism is certainly not a system of religious belief.

I have discussed this in detail many times, but I'll hit the high points for you. There are only two types of small-a atheists, also known as implicit atheists. These two groups are comprised of persons who have either never, in any way, been exposed to any sort of theistic concept and are thus ignorant of the meaning of the word "theism", and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending theistic concepts at all, meaning the mentally deficient and children too young to understand the concepts.

Those are the only two kinds of atheists?

Wrong. There are only two kinds of atheists,implicit and explicit.

Of those two kinds, there are two categories of implicit atheists: Those with no knowledge or understanding of theistic concepts and those who are incapable of understanding theistic concepts.

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further. Source: ibid.

Those that have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concept (a rather small minority of people, I should say -- as I can't think of a single atheist that fits that description), and then those who are mentally incapable of comprehending theistic concepts? That's a rather ham handed insult, right there. While there may well be some people who have "never been exposed to ANY sort of theistic concept" -- and while there may well be some people who are mentally incapable, that is certainly not the "only two" kinds of atheists. Some comprehend theist concepts very well, are well-versed in theism, and even previously were theists -- but have consciously found them unpersuasive, or irrational, or wrong on the facts, etc.

You misconstrue. See above.

s

Everyone else, which is to say anyone who has been exposed to the concept of God (theism) is an "explicit atheist" or, as I define a sub-group of them, big-A Atheists, who are quite often members of the group of religious believers called Atheists because they act and argue in ways that are consistent with at least one standard definition of "religion." In most cases the applicable definition from among several is highlighted in red below, and to a lesser extent definitions 2 and 3 below.

[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

Source: religion. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: June 23, 2015).

Well, that would be the rub -- have you an example of these big-A Atheists? A denomination of sorts? Can you list one of the big-A Atheist groups "sets of religious beliefs?"We can do that for religious groups -- there are many religions and denominations, and sects, and factions and subsets, etc. -- and if you pick one, you can outline their basic tenets and dogmas and beliefs. Can you do that for a sect of Atheists?

Rationalia

RDF

Atheist Alliance International

Freedom from Religion Foundation

American Atheists

American Humanists Association

...among other less organized groups of like-minded individuals.

You can review the various doctrines at the applicable websites. What is common among them is that atheism, and the advancing of atheism in society, is clearly a point or matter of ethics or conscience that they follow devotedly. Therefore they qualify as religious organizations and individuals.

[Seth]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

Not entirely true, since it depends on the definition we apply to the deity being tested. For example, if one posits a Zeus who lives atop Mt. Olympus, then we can test that, and prove the negative, that Zeus does not exist, by going to the top of Mt. Olympus and seeing that Zeus is not there.

Not quite. That argument is predicated on the premises that the "Mt. Olympus" referred to is the same one we know as Mt. Olympus and also that Zeus and his residence are detectable and quantifiable to human science. If Zeus lives in a residence on top of the mountain we call Olympus, but in another dimension, we may not be able to observe any evidence of his existence, but that does not prove that Zeus does not exist.

Science is all about proving negatives. We never prove theories, we disprove them, or they stand up to proof.

And science is always limited in its ability to prove or disprove something by it's own ignorance of the true nature of the universe. Newton "discovered" gravity but could not explain it. We still can't explain it. Copernicus was unaware of muons, yet the absence of knowledge of muons by the scientific community of Copernicus' time did not mean that muons did not exist at that time and only come into existence as our ability to detect and quantify them advanced. The same is true of God. Just because human science is presently incapable of "testing" the god hypothesis does not say anything at all about the existence of God or gods. That is simple logic. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Like, the theory that two objects of different mass dropped from a height will nevertheless fall at the same rate. We can never prove that theory right in all instances -- we can only test the theory to see if it is wrong by going up the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and dropping two different sized cannonballs to the ground. If the two balls fall at different rates, then we would prove the negative: we would prove that two bodies of different masses will fall at different rates of speed. If they fall at the same rate, then the theory has survived the test and is supported by the evidence, but we can never prove that they will always fall at the same rate. We can only improve our confidence. i.e. scientific method.

But a feather falls to the ground more slowly than a cannonball does, does it not...in Earth's atmosphere. We didn't really prove this hypothesis until two different masses were dropped at the same time in a vacuum, in order to eliminate air resistance as a factor.

You see, science doesn't know what it doesn't know and therefore science cannot draw rational conclusions about things of which it has no evidence from which a conclusion can rationally be drawn.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

What is common among them is that atheism, and the advancing of atheism in society, is clearly a point or matter of ethics or conscience that they follow devotedly. Therefore they qualify as religious organizations and individuals.

As usual, what utter bullshit. For a start, the atheism they espouse has many, varied interpretations, and a sizeable majority are not espousing or working for "the advancing of atheism in society", but simply chatting to those who share a similar lack of belief. To use the word "devout" in this context is laughably absurd.

[Seth]

Seth's comment, if taken as true, proves that theists cannot even recognize their fundamental failures in logic and reason -- which they commit when they say anything other than "I don't know" in response to a theistic god claim. In other words, theists who say they believe, rather than say "i don't know," under Seth's logic, would be committing a fundamental failure of logic and reason.

Of course, unless they know something Atheist's don't know. Then again "belief" is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" and amounts to an opinion and not a statement of fact. So religious belief is not actually a claim of the truth of the proposition, it's an expression of opinion and philosophical position which may legitimately be based on something less than rigid scientific proofs.

I think we atheists can all agree that "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to many questions, even the gods question. Are there any gods? I don't know, which is precisely why I don't believe. I don't believe in things I don't know, and I only know things for which I have good reason to think are true.

Correct, and for the first time ever I might add...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What is common among them is that atheism, and the advancing of atheism in society, is clearly a point or matter of ethics or conscience that they follow devotedly. Therefore they qualify as religious organizations and individuals.

As usual, what utter bullshit. For a start, the atheism they espouse has many, varied interpretations, and a sizeable majority are not espousing or working for "the advancing of atheism in society", but simply chatting to those who share a similar lack of belief. To use the word "devout" in this context is laughably absurd.

Observer bias. It's perfectly clear to me, and to many others, that any atheistic person who bothers to debate the subject to the extent that you and other members here do, or who use it as a basis for political activity, as in the Freedom From Religion Foundation, devoutly believe in Atheist doctrine (which may differ from sect to sect) and follow it as a matter of ethics or conscience. The FFRF explicitly follows Atheist doctrine as a matter of ethics and conscience as shown by their stated purpose of existence.

You just can't stand admitting that you are as deeply mired in irrational religious belief as any theist.

[Seth]

Oh, no. I expressly doubt them. I'm an atheist after all. If I took them at their word, I'd believe in god, and that would make me credulous

I accept their claims as they are made. I don't "take Einstein at his word" about claims of General and Special Relativity. I simply read what he claimed to be true, and I accept what that what he said is what he said.

Likewise, when I read the published dogmas of certain churches, many of which have concepts of hell and damnation, where the unsaved go to lakes of fire or other types of unpleasant locales after death, then I don't take them at their word. I merely accept that the claims made are the claims made. Some Christians don't even believe in Hell, like some Jews and other religious groups. I think the Church of England did away with the hellish dogma. So, it of course depends on the religion and denomination.

And what conclusions about the nature or existence of God can you therefore rationally draw from these claims? If you say "none" you will be correct. If you draw any inference at all from such claims, you are committing the Atheist's Fallacy because you make the false presumption that the claims of theists are either accurate or somehow deterministic of God's existence and nature.

Or how fallaciously dishonest. You made a direct claim about God and what God does to non-believers.

Never did. You are thinking of someone else.

Quite true. It was Animavore. My apologies. Sometimes attributions get mixed up. My bad.

You admit basing this claim on what "some Christians" say. Therefore, your claim is fallacious because you are basing your logical analysis (God is a pretty whiny cunt because he condemns non believers to an eternity of "burny torture) on a false premise, which is that what "some Christians say" about God is an expression of facts about how God acts. That's the very essence of the Atheist's Fallacy.

I didn't call God a whiny cunt. But, many Christian denominations do believe that nonbelievers are destined for an eternity of burny torture.

This is not a fallacy. The fact that there are many denominations with many differing dogmas, on hell and other matters, doesn't make the comment a fallacy anyway. A fallacy is a flaw in logic. No flaw in logic was made.

Again, I apologize for my misattribution. However, what many Christian denominations (or Muslim ones for that matter) believe has nothing whatever to do with the truth or falsity of the existence of God, which is what many Atheists, including ones in this forum, insist is not the case. My point being that basing an argument about the existence or non-existence or even the nature and character of God on a theist's descriptions of their beliefs is committing a fallacy because God's existence, nature and character are neither defined by nor constrained by the beliefs of theists (or anybody else) and those beliefs may well be erroneous.

Also, when talking about gods, we can't have a conversation if every sentence we make must encompass all possible god-concepts and all possible hell-concepts. We all know that some religions have no gods, some have many, some have one, and among all the different religions, there are hundreds of different god and hell concepts, and factions have fought wars over who is right about these things.

Factions are STILL fighting wars over it. My point is that you cannot have a rational discussion about the existence, nature or character of God unless you have some critically robust claims upon which to base the discussion. We can certainly argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but it's pointless sophistry to do so if we have zero evidence that angels exist.

My whole argument here is that Atheism (big-A) routinely makes claims about God and theism in general in the absolute and complete absence of any credible, critically robust scientific evidence whatsoever, either positive or negative. This commonplace rhetoric is utterly irrational, illogical and primarily emotive and is not a demonstration of any sort of reason at all, much less some putatively superior reasoned conclusions about the subject. It's pure, unadulterated religious belief on the part of Atheists. As such, it carries exactly as much intellectual and philosophical weight and credibility as any theistic argument using the same lack of information as a premise in an argument.

I am not, nor have I ever said that theists are right or even remotely correct in their conclusions. I am merely highlighting the obvious fact that Atheists are no more rational or correct than their intellectual opponents and therefore stand in no morally or intellectually superior position to anybody else.

You simply cannot draw a rational conclusion about the nature, character or actions of God based on what "some Christians" say because they could be wrong.

This is 100% accurate. It is irrational to base any belief or conclusions about God, or its nature, character, or actions, or even its existence, based on what Christians say. Not only could they be wrong, but I very strongly suspect they are. Every one of them.

However, you are missing the point that atheists don't generally "draw conclusions about the nature of God based on what Christians say," -- what's happening is that Christians make claims, and those claims are evaluated. If the claims don't stand up to the available evidence, or are not supported by persuasive evidence, then the claims are rejected.

Not true. Atheist's like to claim that they are merely "rejecting claims" but the vast majority of the time they are doing oh so much more than that, which is why I challenge their positive claims about the non-existence of God constantly. Rare indeed is the Atheist bird that squawks out "I don't know" in response to a theistic claim. Nor are most Atheists much good at analyzing theistic claims in the first place, much less justified in rejecting them. The giant pile of evasions, obfuscations, pettifoggery and outright denial would reach from here to Jupiter.

You see, if a Christian makes a claim about the existence, nature or character of God, in the absence of any critically robust evidence of a scientific nature it is impossible to draw ANY rational conclusion, even a conclusion that there is insufficient evidence supporting such a claim. At best a rational person can only say, in response to such a claim, "you have not shown me sufficient critically robust scientific evidence which supports your claim, therefore all I can say about the claim is 'I don't know.'"

"Rejecting" an unsubstantiated claim (hypothesis) is in and of itself drawing a conclusion about the truth or falsity of the claim, which amounts to nothing more or less than stating a belief, ie: expressing "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." The truth of the non-existence of God is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, therefore the common rejection, which almost always amounts to "God does not exist and here's why..." despite the common evasion that pops up when Atheists are challenged on this point, at which point they revert to the "what I meant was..." evasion claiming they have "no belief." But they always do, as evidenced by their ongoing argumentation in which they routinely assert that God does not exist as a statement of fact, based upon a complete lack of evidence of the truth of this proposition.

Also, the whiny cunt comment is not an argument anyway -- it's a value judgment -- he's saying that any god that would sentence folks to burny torture is a whiny cunt. That's a matter of opinion, and not a logical fallacy. I too have issues with the quality of a deity that would do that. I.e. -- were such a deity extant, I would be rather doubtful as to that deity's goodness. I would strongly suspect that deity of being a whiny cunt.

And should such a deity exist, Pascal pointed out that it might behoove one to avoid such punishment if possible. There is no reason at all that a deity has to be "good" after all. That doesn't mean it's not a deity however.

Also, it's a matter of opinion formed based on the Atheist's Fallacy. "Christians say God does this or that, which I think is wrong and evil, therefore God is a whiny cunt." Need I list the fallacious reasoning yet again?

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

There can be none, since there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) showing that a god, or God, exists in the first place.

And you know that there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) how, exactly?

The same way way I know there isn't any scientific evidence of an invisible dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage....http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

When someone presents some scientific evidence in support of a claim, then I'll evaluate it. Until then, I've nothing to evaluate.

Now, the lack of scientific evidence doesn't mean that there isn't a dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, of course. Just as the lack of evidence for gods doesn't mean they're not there. But, if belief is to come from reason, then we have to have the evidence first and then the belief comes after. Yes, "I don't know" is an accurate answer to the question "does God exist." I certainly don't know, I just don't have any evidence or reason to believe he does exist, so I don't believe. Might someone come along with proof of God or dragons in Sagan's garage -- sure, they might. If they do, I'll change my mind. Until then, I don't believe in gods or dragons in Sagan's garage. Why would I?

So, in the absence of any such evidence and your inability to evaluate anything you "know" nothing at all, right? You don't know that there is such evidence, and you don't know that there is not such evidence. You believe that there is no such evidence and therefore that there is no dragon, but that is a statement of faith not a statement of knowledge. It's a statement of ignorance in fact. Therefore saying that you "know" that there is no scientific evidence of God or Sagan's dragon is untrue. You merely believe. And if you believe it devotedly, and follow it as a matter of ethics or conscience, then you are engaging in religion and religious belief. You don't "not believe" you actively disbelieve, as do most others. You actively disbelieve in Sagan's dragon, and God, because of your internal bias towards "scientific" evidence as the only true metric of reality. If you "not believed" your only rational answer would be "I don't know." But by actively rejecting the claim based on a lack of evidence you are indeed drawing an irrational conclusion.

Saying one doesn't believe in X is not the same thing as saying that X has been proven to be impossible under any set of circumstances, assumptions or discovered proof.

Saying one doesn't believe in X is also most often the equivalent of saying "I disbelieve X exists/is true," which is an irrational conclusion.

What's your rigorous scientific evidence that there is no rigorous scientific evidence?

I would tell you, but then again, I don't have rigorous scientific evidence to support that I haved rigorous scientific evidence that there is no rigorous scientific evidence. It's turtles all the way down.

Precisely. Therefore your only rational position is "I don't know."

Are you a qualified expert on scientific evidence for the existence of God?

Yes. Everyone is qualified to evaluate the available evidennce.

Only if they are privy to the evidence.

Have you examined all evidence for or against the existence of God that exists?

Yes, as far as I know. If I've missed something, I'm unaware of it. If you have something to share, please do. I keep looking, and I am open to new information, because I recognize that in all things, I can be wrong. Even my most deeply held beliefs are up for grabs -- I hold nothing sacred, nothing as conclusively proved.

Glad to hear it. I have no evidence one way or another, therefore I don't know.

Have you drawn a rational scientific conclusion based on your review of this evidence? Have you published this report and submitted it for peer review, as Science demands?

Science does not demand that.

According to Atheists that's exactly what science requires.

By your logic, we can't conclude anything ever about any claim, simply because there may be evidence out there of which we are unaware or which may later be discovered.

Indeed.

Science doesn't demand that at all. And, peer reviewed articles are still subject to disproof and other new evidence.

At least it provides support for the conclusion, something that is typically absent in Atheist argumentation.

Somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think you are simply engaging in ex-recto irrationality because you've been caught in a cleft stick of your own devising.

What's your rigorous scientific evidence for this belief of yours?

Of course I haven't published peer reviewed articles, and your suggestion that science requires this in order for conclusions to be rationally drawn is ridiculous. Peer review publication wouldn't even meet your criteria -- what if I did have 10 articles published in peer reviewed journals about the nonexistence of gods. How would that possible demonstrate that all possible evidence has been examined from all possible sources? Of course it wouldn't. And, peer reviewed articles are often wrong.

Indeed. Therefore you don't know...

I've never said the god claims can't be proven. I've merely said I don't believe in gods, and the reason I don't is that I've not seen any evidence (rigorous or otherwise) that supports the proposition. Maybe someday someone will come along who can do that. If you can, please do.

It's not whether one believe IN gods, it's what one believes ABOUT gods, and what one does with that belief, that makes one an Atheist.

Therefore, your statement "There can be none" is both false and irrational, because there certainly can be scientific evidence of the existence of God that you are either unaware of or reject based on your personal religious Atheist bias.

You are misstating what I said. I did not say there can be no evidence of the existence of God. There certainly "can" be. I can imagine what that evidence might be. My "there can be none" comment, however, was in reference to a slightly different assertion.[/quote]

What assertion was that?

[Animavore]

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

Oh my god! I just realised something! Do you think that when I talk about God, I'm talking about the actual real, living God, and not God, the character in a book God? Is that what you actually think?

Oh you silly ninny

The only gods I know are the ones in the books and tales. The gods from various cultures throughout history. I don't believe in or know of any actual gods to talk about in any real way. When I speak of any gods I'm not speaking about them like real enitities, I'm talking about the characters from the novels. When you say to me, "And you know that this is what God does how, exactly?", you might as well say, "And you know that this is what Dumbledorf does how, exactly?" I know because JK Rowling told me that's what he does. Other than that asking me anything about what Dumbledorf does is absolutely meaningless to me. I don't know of any real-life Dumbledorf to be speaking of. When you say, "Christians could be wrong about the nature of God," you might as well say, "JK Rowling could be wrong about the nature of Dumbledorf." I know of no Dumbledorf for JK Rowling to be wrong about. I only know the character as depicted in the book, portrayed on screen, and there may be some fan-fiction out there. I don't know.

Jesus Christ have you been barking up the wrong tree all this time and your so-called, universally unrecognised "Atheist Fallacy" is fallacious if you're basing it on the premise that when atheists are talking about any gods they're talking about actual gods.

[rainbow]

As I said before, you cannot prove a negative.

...and as I said before you're talking nonsense.
I can prove that my coffee cup does not contain tea at this moment.

[rainbow]

Oh, no. I expressly doubt them. I'm an atheist after all.

How do we know that?

If I took them at their word, I'd believe in god, and that would make me credulous

If I were to take your word for being an Atheist, that would make me credulous.

Well, if you didn't take my word, you'd be incredulous.

It is simply the Rationalist approach.

I have rigorous scientific evidence that I am an atheist.

Present it then, I challenge you!

The problem is that I don't have rigorous scientific proof for my allegation that I have rigorous scientific proof that I am an atheist. So, all I can say is that I don't know whether I'm an atheist. I might be. But, there might be some evidence out there to prove that I'm not an atheist. I haven't published any peer reviewed scientific journal articles on the topic, so I really can't say one way or the other.

Stop making excuses. You are clearly a crypto-cynic.

[Svartalf]

As I said before, you cannot prove a negative.

...and as I said before you're talking nonsense.
I can prove that my coffee cup does not contain tea at this moment.

but when it is empty, will you be able to prove what it contained?

[rainbow]

As I said before, you cannot prove a negative.

...and as I said before you're talking nonsense.
I can prove that my coffee cup does not contain tea at this moment.

but when it is empty, will you be able to prove what it contained?

Under duress, the chai wallah will attest to anything.