Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evidence For Atheism

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

God either exists or He does not exist (the logic law of the excluded middle). My question: Should the atheist (or the agnostic) sit in his highchair and spit out all arguments for God fed to him by theists on this thread? In the very least, shouldn't he tell us why he doesn't think God exists by presenting proof for atheism? My experience with atheists thus far is arguments as to why our proof for God "is not compelling," but never giving us arguments as to why atheism is true. So, I think the OP is a real challenge to atheists. Here is your chance, atheists! Let us hear why atheism is true? In order to prove theism false, don't you have to prove atheism true? Time to get out of the highchair.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athiests / agonostics or whatever don't see evidence to support the claim of God.
Why is this an issue?

If one was born on a dessert island and raised by, I dunno, peccaries, this individual would have no clue about any religion.

So if when rescued, this peccary man was asked if he believed in Christ, (never mind that he would only know "swine language"), he would have to say no, because he would have no clue of what you were talking about.

It is the default position, not trying to be on a high horse or anything.

To my knowledge there are no missionaries going to other countries convincing people not to believe something.

I hate to use the following example, and do not intend to be disrespectful, but what is your proof for not believing in leprechauns?

Since you cannot disprove their existence, it is a futile exercise.

That is basically what the OP is asking and why I have stayed away from this discussion, it is asking to prove a negative.

So if you want, I will concede that I cannot prove atheism, since I cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You win!

Go ahead and post the "cigar smoking smile icon" if you want. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athiests / agonostics or whatever don't see evidence to support the claim of God.

Why is this an issue?

If one was born on a dessert island and raised by, I dunno, peccaries, this individual would have no clue about any religion.

So if when rescued, this peccary man was asked if he believed in Christ, (never mind that he would only know "swine language"), he would have to say no, because he would have no clue of what you were talking about.

It is the default position, not trying to be on a high horse or anything.

To my knowledge there are no missionaries going to other countries convincing people not to believe something.

I hate to use the following example, and do not intend to be disrespectful, but what is your proof for not believing in leprechauns?

Since you cannot disprove their existence, it is a futile exercise.

That is basically what the OP is asking and why I have stayed away from this discussion, it is asking to prove a negative.

So if you want, I will concede that I cannot prove atheism, since I cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You win!

Go ahead and post the "cigar smoking smile icon" if you want. smile.png

Non,

 

We all know that you reject the existence of God. But do you have any evidence to support your atheist/evolutionist position? It's not enough just to sit and wait for theists to feed you evidence for God that you always reject with statements like, "I don't find your argument compelling or persuasive.". In the absence of God in your worldview, should you not ;have some evidence for atheist to present to us? Is atheism true? If so, why?

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non,

 

We all know that you reject the existence of God.

Honestly, I can't say that I do.

There are many, many unanswered questions.

Some things are just hard to fathom.

But I will say that in the past many of those unfathomable questions are now considered common knowledge.

The need for a God explanation has been and is being pushed backed further and further.

Lets just say that I consider it a possibility, but I do not consider it to be the only possibility.

As of yet we have no real proof of either possibility.

I never claim to know that there is no God, and certainly can't maintain any position claiming such.

So again I say, you win.

Take the victory, and chalk one up for your side. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jambo, if I were so inclined, I'd be willing to bet that I could argue just like an atheist and nobody would be the wiser. The problem you may not be appreciating is that our "atheist" versus your "atheist" is about looking at things a little closer. Since car analogies are a recent theme, let me use one...

 

You are trying to sell us a sports car. You want us to see how nice it looks and how it almost looks like it's speeding just sitting there on the pavement. What we're doing is looking under the hood to discover there's no engine but you don't want us to do that. Therefore you are trying to convince us that looking under the hood violates your rules of car buying.

I see it more a case that we're both looking at the car but before looking under the bonnet it's worthwhile us both understanding what that car is. Otherwise you might think you're inspecting an Audi when in fact you're inspecting a BMW. Does that help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come so often atheists agree on the definition of atheism, but theists never agree on that?

If all atheists here are the type Jambo and I described several times, why do theists insist on fixating on something we are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't spend a lot of time 'peddling' my 'calling'. I occasionally post when I get a chance and feel like it. If that's my 'calling' then I should probably spend more time doing it...

 

I would argue that it's the Creationists desperate to try and shift the burden of proof (have you read this thread? The entire point is to shift the burden of proof!)

 

You can spend all the time you want arguing against what you think atheists believe but what's the point if they don't actually believe that in the first place? It is simply a straw man argument and does this forum no credit at all.

 

 

Umm no... This thread is asking atheists for evidence for their beliefs, since as a general rule atheists tell theists that their beliefs are idiotic due to not having evidence, (well we do except the atheists deny the evidence we give ;) ).

 

I am simply trying to determine if atheists hold their own beliefs to the same standard they expect from theists. The fact that you want to push the "agnostic atheism" claim demonstrates that they do not live up to these same standards since they do not have evidence for their atheism, hence I asked you why be an atheist? (I would like an answer to this question please).

 

Why be an atheist if you have no evidence for your atheism? Why not just be an agnostic?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athiests / agonostics or whatever don't see evidence to support the claim of God.

 

I hate to use the following example, and do not intend to be disrespectful, but what is your proof for not believing in leprechauns?

 

And this has what to do with leprechauns?

Well I now will expect the Santa Claus and Flying Spaghetti Monster excuse to appear later on, but this is solely talking about disproving God"s existence. I am curious to what the atheist have to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Umm no... This thread is asking atheists for evidence for their beliefs, since as a general rule atheists tell theists that their beliefs are idiotic due to not having evidence, (well we do except the atheists deny the evidence we give wink.png ).

 

I am simply trying to determine if atheists hold their own beliefs to the same standard they expect from theists. The fact that you want to push the "agnostic atheism" claim demonstrates that they do not live up to these same standards since they do not have evidence for their atheism, hence I asked you why be an atheist? (I would like an answer to this question please).

 

Why be an atheist if you have no evidence for your atheism? Why not just be an agnostic?

 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). There does not need to be the belief that they don't exist.

 

I am an atheist simply because I have never encountered an argument that has come close to convincing me that there is, needs to be, or is likely to be, god(s).

 

How can I show evidence for my non-belief other than me not believing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, I can't say that I do.


Non, I will make it multiple choice:

A. God exists.
B. God does not exist.

 

There are many, many unanswered questions.


Perhaps they could be answered if you asked them? I might add, that when you reject a Creator God, the answers as to why and how the universe and life exists are not possible to learn. The universe could not have created itself from nothing (first law of thermodynamics) and it could not have always been here (second law). So if it could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here, you are left with only one alternative: Creator God.

 

Some things are just hard to fathom.


Only if you're an atheist with a hard heart for a Creator God. The argument I give above is very simple to comprehend with your mind. It is your heart that rejects these simple truths.

 

But I will say that in the past many of those unfathomable questions are now considered common knowledge.


It would be helpful if you would present this common knowledge to us in support of your worldview. That's what this thread is about.

 

The need for a God explanation has been and is being pushed backed further and further.


Your post here is simply not true. I will give some examples: The DNA code being written information by an intelligent Mind; the complexity of the inner workings of a cell; discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs. As a Christian I celebrate science, because the more we learn about the universe and life, the more we know that there is no alternative to God.

 

Lets just say that I consider it a possibility, but I do not consider it to be the only possibility.


Please present us with these other possibilities with a "why you think they are possible."

 

As of yet we have no real proof of either possibility.


We do know that it could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here. Right? Will you admit to these simple truths?

 

I never claim to know that there is no God, and certainly can't maintain any position claiming such.


Your arguments above are contrary to this statement.

 

So again I say, you win.

Take the victory, and chalk one up for your side.



Unless I get an unbeliever to make a confession of faith IAW Romans 10:9-10), I deem it a no win for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). There does not need to be the belief that they don't exist.

 

I am an atheist simply because I have never encountered an argument that has come close to convincing me that there is, needs to be, or is likely to be, god(s).

 

How can I show evidence for my non-belief other than me not believing?

 

When you do not believe in something then you are in effect stating that the thing doesn't exist... Since if it did exist then you would believe.. OR you can sit on the fence and claim that you do not know (agnostic).

 

Lets see what the dictionary says on this

 

Atheism

1
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

 

 

Lets define that further

 

Disbelief

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief?show=0&t=1395843740

 

 

 

What evidence do you have which supports your atheism?

 

If you cannot give any evidence then would you agree that it is hypocritical for atheists to demand evidence for a theist's beliefs?

 

 

Third time now, why be an atheist if you have no evidence for your atheism? Why not just be an agnostic?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg.

 

Gilbo - So you're saying that an atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity? Well I don't believe in the existence of a deity. By your definition I am an atheist. Excellent, now lets move on...

The evidence that supports my claim of atheism is...my lack of belief in a deity. I lack belief in a deity because I've never seen an argument that persuades me god(s) exist, need to exist or are likely to exist.

 

And why no comments from theists on Fjuri's post #31? (the quote thingy doesn't seem to want to work for me at the moment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And why no comments from theists on Fjuri's post #31? (the quote thingy doesn't seem to want to work for me at the moment)

Based on the replies, is Atheism is being equated to Agnosticism?

 

 

 

Excellent, now lets move on...

The evidence that supports my claim of atheism is...my lack of belief in a deity. I lack belief in a deity because I've never seen an argument that persuades me god(s) exist, need to exist or are likely to exist.

So Lack of Belief can be considered as evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the replies, is Atheism is being equated to Agnosticism?

 

 

So Lack of Belief can be considered as evidence?

 

Based on replies, I'm hearing that the atheists in this topic are using the oxford dictionary definition of atheism.

 

Also, I think you may have misheard Jam... he said that evidence for his CLAIM of atheism is his lack of belief

 

e.g.

 

If atheism = lack of belief (see oxford)

and he lacks belief

therefore = he is an atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Lack of Belief can be considered as evidence?

A common analogy would be if someone told you they were abducted by aliens and described all the probings etc.

Many people claim this type of thing has happened.

 

How would you view this? Do you believe this person?

If you had doubts.....

 

How would you prove your skepticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

 

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

 

Here's a collection of people's thoughts on the matter

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

 

So where is the evidence for atheism?

 

Do atheists agree that if there is no evidence for atheism then it is hypocritical for them to demand evidence from a theist?

 

(Please don't ignore this question, and dodge around it)

 

 

 

Thanks Greg.

 

Gilbo - So you're saying that an atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity? Well I don't believe in the existence of a deity. By your definition I am an atheist. Excellent, now lets move on...

The evidence that supports my claim of atheism is...my lack of belief in a deity. I lack belief in a deity because I've never seen an argument that persuades me god(s) exist, need to exist or are likely to exist.

 

And why no comments from theists on Fjuri's post #31? (the quote thingy doesn't seem to want to work for me at the moment)

 

Can you actually respond to my post and the questions I asked?

 

Do you really believe that having a "lack of belief" aka OPINION is evidence of anything?

 

As I continue to tell atheists. Your opinions don't define reality, reality should define your opinions... Therefore what evidence do you have IN REALITY which supports your atheism? If not then do you agree that demanding evidence from a theist is hypocritical since you yourself cannot hold to the same standard.

 

 

Kinda ironic that many atheists self-proclaim to be the intellectual elite of the world... When they demand standards of evidence which they themselves do not uphold to, or believe that their own opinions constitute as evidence of what occurs in reality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A common analogy would be if someone told you they were abducted by aliens and described all the probings etc.

Many people claim this type of thing has happened.

 

How would you view this? Do you believe this person?

If you had doubts.....

 

How would you prove your skepticism?

 

That is the question we are asking you? Why ask us for the answers?... (Shifting burden of proof perhaps ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where is the evidence for atheism?

 

Do atheists agree that if there is no evidence for atheism then it is hypocritical for them to demand evidence from a theist?

 

(Please don't ignore this question, and dodge around it)

 

 

 

 

 

Can you actually respond to my post and the questions I asked?

 

Do you really believe that having a "lack of belief" aka OPINION is evidence of anything?

 

As I continue to tell atheists. Your opinions don't define reality, reality should define your opinions... Therefore what evidence do you have IN REALITY which supports your atheism? If not then do you agree that demanding evidence from a theist is hypocritical since you yourself cannot hold to the same standard.

 

 

Kinda ironic that many atheists self-proclaim to be the intellectual elite of the world... When they demand standards of evidence which they themselves do not uphold to, or believe that their own opinions constitute as evidence of what occurs in reality...

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you are asserting that lack of a belief is a positive belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you are asserting that lack of a belief is a positive belief?

 

Once again skipping over my post...

 

Do you agree that opinions are not evidence?

 

Do you agree that to demand evidence for theism when there is no evidence for atheism is hypocritical?

 

Again I implore you to not ignore my questions.

 

 

 

However unlike you I do reply to posts so to answer your query.. I already addressed it earlier

 

 

 

When you do not believe in something then you are in effect stating that the thing doesn't exist... Since if it did exist then you would believe.. OR you can sit on the fence and claim that you do not know (agnostic).

 

Lets see what the dictionary says on this

 

Atheism

1
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

 

 

Lets define that further

 

Disbelief

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief?show=0&t=1395843740

 

 

 

What evidence do you have which supports your atheism?

 

If you cannot give any evidence then would you agree that it is hypocritical for atheists to demand evidence for a theist's beliefs?

 

 

Third time now, why be an atheist if you have no evidence for your atheism? Why not just be an agnostic?...

 

 

When you do not believe in something then you are in effect stating that the thing doesn't exist... Since if it did exist (or had the potential to exist) then you would believe.. OR you can sit on the fence and claim that you do not know (agnostic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again skipping over my post...

 

Do you agree that opinions are not evidence?

 

Do you agree that to demand evidence for theism when there is no evidence for atheism is hypocritical?

 

Again I implore you to not ignore my questions.

 

 

 

However unlike you I do reply to posts so to answer your query.. I already addressed it earlier

 

 

 

 

 

When you do not believe in something then you are in effect stating that the thing doesn't exist... Since if it did exist (or had the potential to exist) then you would believe.. OR you can sit on the fence and claim that you do not know (agnostic).

I'm not ignoring or skipping your post. I'm addressing it when I understand your position. I would like to give a thoughtful response. Thank you.

 

Are you saying that you reject the oxford definition in favor of the webster definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not ignoring or skipping your post. I'm addressing it when I understand your position. I would like to give a thoughtful response. Thank you.

 

Are you saying that you reject the oxford definition in favor of the webster definition?

 

Greg you do this ALL the time. Rather than responding to the posts given you prefer to debate semantics and definitions... I feel that this is yet more evidence for Dig's expose on the Car Analogy thread.

 

 

gilbo, you were spot on with your reply to greg. However I do not believe that he is looking for answers but rather to try and stop the discussion. Consider the following:

 

....

 

Keep in mind that answers were provided to greg, including videos and personal testimony. One may be inclined to think that greg is not really looking for answers but rather to not answer a haunting question that he does not want to confront. But that is just my guess, you be the judge.

 

 

 

 

The questions I asked do not require knowledge of what definition is used.... So your excuse for not responding falls on its face. I will ask yet again.

 

Do you agree that opinions are not evidence?

 

Do you agree that to demand evidence for theism when there is no evidence for atheism is hypocritical?

 

Again I implore you to not ignore my questions.

 

 

 

 

Oh and to state a previous question for the fourth time.... If there is no evidence for atheism then why be an atheist? Why not be an agnostic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you and dig feel that way.

 

You're using a definition - you quoted on. So I'm hearing the definition is important. I found another definition, and I'm trying to see if I'm actually tracking you and understanding you. And I'm also trying to see if you are tracking me and understanding me.

 

You sound hostile to me right now. I'm inviting you not to be hostile, if indeed you are.

 

Either way, I'm wanting to talk about this with you.

 

That being said - Do you think there are 2 types of atheists. Do you think you could speak more to how a lack of belief is a belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you and dig feel that way.

 

You're using a definition - you quoted on. So I'm hearing the definition is important. I found another definition, and I'm trying to see if I'm actually tracking you and understanding you. And I'm also trying to see if you are tracking me and understanding me.

 

You sound hostile to me right now. I'm inviting you not to be hostile, if indeed you are.

 

Either way, I'm wanting to talk about this with you.

 

And here is the flip.... The discussion has now been twisted away from the OP and into something Greg desires...

 

I'm not hostile, I'm just not letting you dodge the issue and redirect my thread.

 

 

If you really want to talk then why not answer the questions I posed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edited before you responded. could you check my edit please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms