Not really. No scientist will accept a totally unfounded hypothesis, even provisonally. There must be some acceptable and supporting evidence even at the beginning. Now, what is the level of sufficiently supporting evidence, that can be debated. A New Ager can propose a hypothesis for the curative powers of pyramidal structures, similarly to the Christians who propose that prayers have curative powers, but a scientist will ask for supporting data before he will entertain either hypothesis. When no supporting data is forthcoming, the hypothesis is discarded.
It is not different at all. The suggested evidence for God’s existence is insufficient in the eyes of the atheists.
Not true, though it is repeated ad nauseam. Absence of proof is not a proof of abswence, that is true. But the absence of evidence is very much an evidence of absence.
Or alternatively the scientist says “That is an interesting hypothesis, lets do some tests.” There have been various studies on the effects of prayer with no statistically significant results. I am not aware of any studies on the effects of pyramids.
The suggested evidence for Zeus’ existence is insufficient in the eyes of the azeusists. Those putting forward arguments against atheism need to bear in mind that they are also atheists with respect to a number of gods from outside their own religion. Any such argument needs to be applicable against Zeus and not against the poster’s own god or gods.
Really?
Really. Almost all Christians, for example, are atheists with regard to Shiva, Zeus, Thor, and hundreds of other gods of other religions.
Not entirely true. Atheists say there isn’t sufficient evidence of God. Christians say the gods you mentioned are simply not real.
I don’t think the catholic church teaches that. If Jesus visited Israel why would others say in Japan use the name Jesus? Yet the Church teaches all men know god through Natural Moral Law. So they call to god in their native tongue. Btw even in Israel the Jew named Jesus did not have the complete agreement of Jews, so disordered thought is always present and thus universal agreement should not be expected.
Of the many arguments from atheists this one is in my opinion the weakest. No christian will profess to a blind faith, which is what the atheist is driving at with this argument.
Actually I met some on these boards, who openly admitted that theit faith is blind. It was refreshing to see their intellectual honesty.
No. Because they believe that there was a “revelation”, which is really just an ancient legend without any external corroboration.
It is thrown away because there is no evidence for it. Just a legend, or pure myth, nothing more. All this God should do is make a real, public revelation, and everything would be well. But, of course he will not. Is he shy or something?
First of all, those Gods have not only an absence of evidence but have evidence against them and major philosophical flaws.
That’s not true, you have any idea how many well supported theories are out there? With no evidence to support the theory? Dark Matter for one…
Wow! What is the “support” for those theories, if not evidence? Evidence does not need to be direct evidence.
The “evidence” is “the big bang theory doesn’t work”. That’s something of a negative.
I have a bit of a problem here, let’s look at someone who 200 years ago said the continents were once joined, was he intellectually dishonest? Or could the problem been with the evaluator?
like 1900 year old writings? Like towns with houses. If we look at the names of the citizens in Jerusalem and their skeletons, and their clothes and pots what do we see, well 99+% is missing so should we conclude these people did not exist? Maybe one or two people built the whole town, that is why the names, clothes, skeletons are missing?
I am guessing “or something” maybe he installed into us everything we need and allows us to use it, or chose cruelty to each other.
At end of the day we live our whole life on thoughts, theories, assumptions. What proof do you have the sun will rise tomorrow, the car will start, you will live to work off your college degree? Yet you plan on the sun, the car, the college with no proof, none, so how about some intellectual honest, just a little …please
Nice irrational jab. Except for this proves your lack of integrity for those who know that their faith is not blind. Like mine and most other Catholics. If not all.
And then here is the usual attempt at claiming that people “deliberately falsified”. I have yet to see a “rational atheist” give a rational argument on claims like this.
You just walk right into these, don’t you? If only wishing were so… In any case, you make a large claim, give no evidence/argument and assume that position as true. Gee… What people do I know that accuse Christians of doing that?
Hi, cho pilo,
This is an unclear statement. Are we too assume that the evidence is found or that it is out there somewhere? For example, a cold murder case… Some cold murder cases have no evidence to investigate to close the case. The only thing they know is that someone got killed. Any evidence may even have been cleverly destroyed or hidden. But, then the evidence did exist but now does not exist. Of course, now one could say that the evidence was obviously there and therefore, there was no absence. In any case, there is still an absence of evidence. But, the event still happened. The court still cannot even begin to decide to close the case. I can see how one could say that the event of the murder still happened and the presence of the evidence is enough to prove that somebody got killed.
I disagree. Theism is defined as the belief in at least one deity. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any god (or is it the rejection of belief in any god?). With that said, how are theists atheists with respect to anything?
