The futility of modern atheism

[Quag]

Your claim is there's no evidence for God - yes? as an atheist you believe that claim do you not?

Not an atheist for the nth time.
You claim to have evidence of God, OK try again present some evidence that doesnt require the belief in God to be accepted as evidence.
I eagerly await your diversion because we all know thats all you got on this

 

[Quag]

Why are you an atheist? what is the reason you describe yourself as an atheist?

Do you have a reading disability?

 

[Quag]

This is hilarious!

This is atheism, confusion, bewilderment, tied up in knots, utter joke.

yes watching you make a fool of yourself is rather amusing my illogical friend

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not an atheist for the nth time.
You claim to have evidence of God, OK try again present some evidence that doesnt require the belief in God to be accepted as evidence.
I eagerly await your diversion because we all know thats all you got on this

If I wrote something down and placed it in a sealed envelope and claimed "In this envelope is evidence for God" would you accept the envelope?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're confused Quag, it is obvious you are confused.

The reason though is that you haven't really thought about this issue, you've never really studied the epistemological depths of this entire question, because of this you're soft underbelly is exposed and I can toy with you, you are utterly lost in a sea of confusion.

 

[Quag]

If I wrote something down and placed it in a sealed envelope and claimed "In this envelope is evidence for God" would you accept the envelope?

Yes. Unless I found out you were a terrorist who liked to send nerve agents in letters, why wouldn't I?

 

[Quag]

You're confused Quag, it is obvious you are confused.

The reason though is that you haven't really thought about this issue, you've never really studied the epistemological depths of this entire question, because of this you're soft underbelly is exposed and I can toy with you, you are utterly lost in a sea of confusion.

I am not the confused person here

 

[watsup]

No, its based on the belief that it doesn't matter what anyone shows you, it can't be evidence for God, period - that's your position else you'd be able to articulate how you'd distinguish evidence from not-evidence, you don't have a clue, this is blindingly obvious.

You are superb at repetition!

 

[watsup]

This is hilarious!

This is atheism, confusion, bewilderment, tied up in knots, utter joke.

22 pages so far and not a single atheist has any idea whatsoever how to assess something as evidence for God or not, yet their entire position rests on this being possible !

No, it doesn’t.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. Unless I found out you were a terrorist who liked to send nerve agents in letters, why wouldn't I?

Very well and then what would you do with the envelope?

 

[Quag]

Very well and then what would you do with the envelope?

Open it and read it. But we can save time and a stamp if you just post it here.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Open it and read it. But we can save time and a stamp if you just post it here.

Would you be able to tell if the claim on the envelope was or was not true?

 

[Quag]

Would you be able to tell if the claim on the envelope was or was not true?

If it doesn't first require belief in what they claim is trying to prove then it can be true
How would you determine what you wrote is true?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If it doesn't first require belief in what they claim is trying to prove then it can be true.

It requires nothing from you, only that you examine the contents and either confirm or deny that it is evidence for God, would you be able to do that?

How would you determine what you wrote is true?

Because I have a process to ascertain if something is or is not evidence of God.

 

[watsup]

It requires nothing from you, only that you examine the contents and either confirm or deny that it is evidence for God, would you be able to do that?



Because I have a process to ascertain if something is or is not evidence of God.

Share.

 

[Quag]

It requires nothing from you, only that you examine the contents and either confirm or deny that it is evidence for God, would you be able to do that?

Either you must provide the reason it is evidence for god or it must be already understood that we both understand why it is.

Take the hoofprints on the prairies example. If we both live on the prairies and clearly already know what hoofprints look like no further explanation is required if not then you must include photos or links to photos of known hoofprints or provide some other means of showing that your evidence it what you claim. Afte that we can move on to discussing is it evidence of Horses or Zebras. It still however will not be evidence of unicorns

Because I have a process to ascertain if something is or is not evidence of God.

Which should be included with your evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Either you must provide the reason it is evidence for god or it must be already understood that we both understand why it is.

This is frankly rather absurd. Your remark proves my point I think.

The point of course is that you have no logical process to ascertain true evidence for God, you have a precondition that involves other people.

By definition, as written above, you require a person to present a reason why they regard the evidence as evidence in addition to said evidence.

Very clearly - if God does actually exist and if there is evidence for that, you would never be able to independently discover that because you need some prior individual to provide a "reason".

I'm satisfied that you are logically adrift here, this should be clear after my numerous replies but if not then you have a true problem with epistemology and once again make a very poor case for atheism.

Take the hoofprints on the prairies example. If we both live on the prairies and clearly already know what hoofprints look like no further explanation is required if not then you must include photos or links to photos of known hoofprints or provide some other means of showing that your evidence it what you claim.

After that we can move on to discussing is it evidence of Horses or Zebras. It still however will not be evidence of unicorns

Which should be included with your evidence.

What if you were alone and had never seen hoof prints before and had never seen an animal capable of making them, how would you interpret what you saw on the ground?

By definition - based on everything you've just said - you are incapable of recognizing the evidence because you have no test you can apply, this is exactly what I said at the outset.

Perhaps we should be discussing two separate questions:

1. How does the atheist decide if something they personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?
2. How does the atheist decide if a person claiming something is evidence for God is telling the truth?

This is perhaps a better approach if we are to continue this, we've covered 2. I think, so what of 1.?

(I know that Hitchens would have struggled had I confronted him like this, so don't feel too bad if your head is swimming)

 

[Quag]

This is frankly rather absurd. Your remark proves my point I think.

The point of course is that you have no logical process to ascertain true evidence for God, you have a precondition that involves other people.

By definition, as written above, you require a person to present a reason why they regard the evidence as evidence in addition to said evidence.

Very clearly - if God does actually exist and if there is evidence for that, you would never be able to independently discover that because you need some prior individual to provide a "reason".

I'm satisfied that you are logically adrift here, this should be clear after my numerous replies but if not then you have a true problem with epistemology and once again make a very poor case for atheism.

You seem unclear on what evidence is unless you can explain why it is evidence without needing God to exist first then you have none

What if you were alone and had never seen hoof prints before and had never seen an animal capable of making them, how would you interpret what you saw on the ground?

By definition - based on everything you've just said - you are incapable of recognizing the evidence because you have no test you can apply, this is exactly what I said at the outset.

Perhaps we should be discussing two separate questions:

1. How does the atheist decide if something they personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?
2. How does the atheist decide if a person claiming something is evidence for God is telling the truth?

This is perhaps a better approach if we are to continue this, we've covered 2. I think, so what of 1.?

Again the hoof prints if you have no clue what any animal track marks will remain a mystery to you. Now if you had seen paw prints and knew they came from wolves but never hoof prints you could say this is evidence of some unknown animal. Following them you may eventually find the horses and have proof of what animal it is.
There is only one question of any relevance do you have any evidence of God that does not first require belief in God?

(I know that Hitchens would have struggled had I confronted him like this, so don't feel too bad if your head is swimming)

You vastly overestimate yourself here as I have not struggled in the least. What you have struggled with is the ability to provide any evidence that doesn't first require belief in God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You seem unclear on what evidence is unless you can explain why it is evidence without needing God to exist first then you have none.

This is simply naive, to claim that evidence is not evidence unless someone else can convince you its evidence is actually a statement of personal incompetence, your inability to comprehend the world around you.

Also I do not need to "be clear" on what evidence is you do, because you - the atheist - is the one asserting "I've seen no evidence for God" - why would you say that if you can't explain what evidence for God is?

Again the hoof prints if you have no clue what any animal track marks will remain a mystery to you. Now if you had seen paw prints and knew they came from wolves but never hoof prints you could say this is evidence of some unknown animal. Following them you may eventually find the horses and have proof of what animal it is.
There is only one question of any relevance do you have any evidence of God that does not first require belief in God?

I am aware of evidence for God yes, I've told you that before, but I refuse to show that to you because you will reject it.

You'll reject it because you believe that nothing is evidence for God, so no matter is shown to you, you'll jut say "Nah".

You give me no reason to believe that you're intellectually capable of recognizing actual evidence so why should I waste my time showing you any?

You vastly overestimate yourself here as I have not struggled in the least. What you have struggled with is the ability to provide any evidence that doesn't first require belief in God.

Of course your struggling, this is why you refuse to answer the question: How does the atheist decide if something they personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?

All you keep doing is saying that I need to do this and that, but this isn't about me, it's about you - if you assert that "I've never seen any evidence for God" but don't actually know how to recognize evidence then you are very much, struggling.

 

[Quag]

This is simply naive, to claim that evidence is not evidence unless someone else can convince you its evidence is actually a statement of personal incompetence, your inability to comprehend the world around you.

Also I do not need to "be clear" on what evidence is you do, because you - the atheist - is the one asserting "I've seen no evidence for God" - why would you say that if you can't explain what evidence for God is?

No your claim your burden of proof.

I am aware of evidence for God yes, I've told you that before, but I refuse to show that to you because you will reject it.

You'll reject it because you believe that nothing is evidence for God, so no matter is shown to you, you'll jut say "Nah".

You give me no reason to believe that you'll recognize evidence so why should I waste my time showing you any?

You clearly know your so called evidence is not actual evidence or you would have produced it by now.
Being afraid to present your evidence is not in any way making me look naïve.

Of course your struggling, this is why you refuse to answer the question: How does the atheist decide if something they personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?

All you keep doing is saying that I need to do this and that, but this isn't about me, it's about you - if you assert that "I've never seen any evidence for God" but don't actually know how to recognize evidence then you are very much, struggling.

Not struggling at all I m just here pointing out all you are doing is using circular logic and attempting to reverse the burden of proof.
You are struggling because you have nothing else.

 

[watsup]

This is simply naive, to claim that evidence is not evidence unless someone else can convince you its evidence is actually a statement of personal incompetence, your inability to comprehend the world around you.

Also I do not need to "be clear" on what evidence is you do, because you - the atheist - is the one asserting "I've seen no evidence for God" - why would you say that if you can't explain what evidence for God is?



I am aware of evidence for God yes, I've told you that before, but I refuse to show that to you because you will reject it.

You'll reject it because you believe that nothing is evidence for God, so no matter is shown to you, you'll jut say "Nah".

You give me no reason to believe that you're intellectually capable of recognizing actual evidence so why should I waste my time showing you any?



Of course your struggling, this is why you refuse to answer the question: How does the atheist decide if something they personally encounter is or is not evidence for God?

All you keep doing is saying that I need to do this and that, but this isn't about me, it's about you - if you assert that "I've never seen any evidence for God" but don't actually know how to recognize evidence then you are very much, struggling.

“Simply naive”. *L*

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No your claim your burden of proof.

So you make no claims about the absence of evidence for God? Is that your position? do you actually have a position then?

You clearly know your so called evidence is not actual evidence or you would have produced it by now.
Being afraid to present your evidence is not in any way making me look naïve.

Alright if you want, I assert that the presence of the universe is evidence for God, of course, you'll reject that claim because that's your logic, you have no criteria so you can't evaluate the claim only reject it, that's all I've managed to get out of you so far.

Not struggling at all I m just here pointing out all you are doing is using circular logic and attempting to reverse the burden of proof.
You are struggling because you have nothing else.

I'm puzzled why you feel your position (which I hope you'll clearly state for us) does not need to be supported by evidence, perhaps your content with simple belief?

 

[roughdraft274]

There's been a tendency among atheists to use a recent definition of the term, one from Anthony Flew.

This is presented as a legitimate intellectual position, it is "the absence of a belief in God".

This is preferred over the more traditional definition "the belief there is no God" which is the definition you'll find in most historic philosophical books on the subject.

The latter of course cannot be sustained by an evidence based argument (something atheists demand from theists all the time) so by using the first definition the atheist is safe, their position is (apparently) easy to defend "I've seen no evidence".

Their position (which they think requires no evidence) "the absence of belief in God" is thus presented as being in no need of proof, or support, it the "default" position they say, and all the pressure can be applied to the theist who must argue and defend their presence of belief, with evidence.

But I put it to the reader that this is just trickery, by replacing the term "believe" (which is a conviction some proposition is true) with the term "absence of belief" it is claimed no evidence is now required, only belief requires evidence, no evidence is required to "not hold a belief" - but is this true?

A predicate like "God does exist" is binary, it can only have two values - true and false, it certainly cannot be both.

Now just as I cannot say "I believe God exists and I believe God does not exist" I surely cannot say "I do not hold a belief that God exists and I do not hold a belief that God does not exist"?

How could one adopt such a position? the only way is to rephrase it as "I do not know if God exists" that is certainly possible, and that is the true default, agnostic.

But many ardent atheists refuse to be described as "agnostic", not for them the soft position, not for them the admission that God might, just might exist, oh no that will not do.

So the position they adopt is "I do not hold a belief in God" but do they not grasp? this is logically indistinguishable from "I do hold a belief in not God".

For if X is true or false then to not assume it is true is the same as to assume it is false!!

(e.g. if I base some outdoor planning decisions on the position I am not going to assume it will rain, then I must, unavoidably base my decisions on the position I am going to assume it will not rain).

It cannot be any other way - to not assume God does exist is a choice (for it is either true or false) just as much a choice as to not assume God does not exist.

Call it whatever you want. Doesn't matter. There's no real actual evidence for a god. If you want to hang desperately to "but they can't prove he doesn't exist!" along with big foot and leprechaun believers, then feel free to do so. But around intelligent company you will be asked for evidence for your assertions.

No matter who you talk to, you are talking to someone who lacks belief and/or doesn't believe in certain gods because no one can believe in every god. So imagine that someone knocks on your door and tells you about a new god he discovered. What evidence would you require from him in order to believe his claims? Do you think it's your job to prove his claims false if he provides no evidence for them? Take your answers and apply them to the atheists that don't believe in your god.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Call it whatever you want. Doesn't matter. There's no real actual evidence for a god. If you want to hang desperately to "but they can't prove he doesn't exist!" along with big foot and leprechaun believers, then feel free to do so. But around intelligent company you will be asked for evidence for your assertions.

No matter who you talk to, you are talking to someone who lacks belief and/or doesn't believe in certain gods because no one can believe in every god. So imagine that someone knocks on your door and tells you about a new god he discovered. What evidence would you require from him in order to believe his claims? Do you think it's your job to prove his claims false if he provides no evidence for them? Take your answers and apply them to the atheists that don't believe in your god.

When you claim "there's no real actual evidence for a god" (which you do right above - see red) is that claim supported by evidence? can you prove the claim?

If not then I'm afraid it is really just a belief, remember the burden of proof is on the person making the claim and you just made this claim...

 

[Quag]

So you make no claims about the absence of evidence for God? Is that your position? do you actually have a position then?

I make the claim you have presented none

Alright if you want, I assert that the presence of the universe is evidence for God, of course, you'll reject that claim because that's your logic, you have no criteria so you can't evaluate the claim only reject it, that's all I've managed to get out of you so far.

Now explain why it is evidence of God.

I'm puzzled why you feel your position (which I hope you'll clearly state for us) does not need to be supported by evidence, perhaps your content with simple belief?

My position is you have presented no evidence to support he existence of God, what you have done in this post is make a claim but you have failed to provide any reason why it should be considered evidence of God.
You mentioned SETI so lets look at them. If SETI states they have evidence of extraterrestrial life it is up to them to show it and explain why it is evidence of extraterrestrial life it is not up to others to explain why it is evidence for extraterrestrial life