Atheist billboards!

[Mersenne]

More than that, it would be the first time in history that anyone has proven a negative universal. The fact that this is a logical impossibility should give us pause.

How is it logically impossible?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You keep saying this, but you keep ignoring the clearly presented proof.

I don’t think it’s completely clear what proof you’re referring to. Would it be possible for you to say which post(s) you presented your proof in?

 

[Mersenne]

Could you state more explicitly exactly what you see as proof that God does not exist? Your previous posts in this thread would at most show that there are no good reasons for believing in God. But I don’t think they even do that since it’s always possible that there’s an argument for the existence of God that you haven’t yet heard of.

It’s always possible that there is a good argument for the existence of God I haven’t heard of, but the definition of proof has never required the inability to be mistaken. Even if you demonstrate the logically contradictory nature of an idea, it is possible that you made an error in your logic. A court of law requires guilt to be proven. This doesn’t mean that someone has to stand up and demonstrate a mathematical calculation that excludes the possibility of innocence 100%. You have to demonstrate there is no reasonable doubt. A claim that space aliens framed you, that president Obama used voodoo magic to hypnotize you, are not enough to avoid a proclamation that you are guilty. God falls into that category straight out of the starting gate, and thus the claim falls flat on it’s face immediately. It does not require complex logical deduction, it is enough to laugh and move on. In fact, this is how all people, theists and atheists alike, treat most claims of the existence of a god. Some few people, because of brainwashing in their youth or traumatic experiences, make an unjustified exception for a particular brand of theistic claim.

 

[Mersenne]

With that statement, you’ve denied the existence of consciousness. How am I supposed to take your comments seriously?

How is consciousness not capable of being studied by science? Tons of work is being done on studying consciousness.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Atheists can do whatever there misguided hearts want to do but i just feel for any body who believes these billboards

 

[AntiTheist]

I have found that there are some atheists who accept that their belief is based, at the core, on faith, an unproven sense of how the world works, how it is. And then there are other atheists who do just about anything, claim just about anything, to deny that their belief is founded on faith. That is a reality they are simply not willing to accept.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. The lack of a belief, by definition, requires no faith. The reason that I lack belief in any gods is that there is zero evidence for any gods. I’ll happily change my position if I’m presented with some actual evidence.

The burden of proof, when attempting to establish the existence of anything, is always on the party claiming that the entity under discussion exists. If I were to claim that fairies exist, the burden of proof would be on me, not on the people saying, “I don’t believe you, Antitheist!” And I had better come up with some pretty convincing evidence if I want any reasonable people to agree with me.

If I don’t come up with any evidence, those people who don’t believe me are justified in continuing in their lack of belief (their a-fairy-ism, if you will).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It’s always possible that there is a good argument for the existence of God I haven’t heard of, but the definition of proof has never required the inability to be mistaken. Even if you demonstrate the logically contradictory nature of an idea, it is possible that you made an error in your logic. A court of law requires guilt to be proven. This doesn’t mean that someone has to stand up and demonstrate a mathematical calculation that excludes the possibility of innocence 100%. You have to demonstrate there is no reasonable doubt.

But this is still far from proof. I would avoid using the word ‘proof’ if what you are talking about is not actually a proof. No matter how certain a jury feels about a man’s guilt, it may later turn out that they were wrong. I am confident that God does not exist, but do not claim to have proof.

A claim that space aliens framed you, that president Obama used voodoo magic to hypnotize you, are not enough to avoid a proclamation that you are guilty. God falls into that category straight out of the starting gate, and thus the claim falls flat on it’s face immediately. It does not require complex logical deduction, it is enough to laugh and move on.

It is perhaps an equally incredible claim, but if billions of people think they have good evidence of something, I’ll usually examine their evidence before laughing it off.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. The lack of a belief, by definition, requires no faith. The reason that I lack belief in any gods is that there is zero evidence for any gods. I’ll happily change my position if I’m presented with some actual evidence.

The burden of proof, when attempting to establish the existence of anything, is always on the party claiming that the entity under discussion exists. If I were to claim that fairies exist, the burden of proof would be on me, not on the people saying, “I don’t believe you, Antitheist!” And I had better come up with some pretty convincing evidence if I want any reasonable people to agree with me.

If I don’t come up with any evidence, those people who don’t believe me are justified in continuing in their lack of belief (their a-fairy-ism, if you will).

To play devil’s/angel’s advocate, do you believe that the external world exists AntiTheist?

 

[Mersenne]

Define “coherence.” Different things can be coherent to different people. Telling an insane person that he’s insane might not be coherent to the insane person. In fact, he would often have a hard time realizing he’s insane.

Non-contradictory.

Here are some extremely simple definitions of magic:

1. The power to influence events mysteriously

That is certainly simple, but not a definition that comes close to what people understand to be magic. By that definition hiding behind a bush and poking people who walk by with a stick is “magic”

1. A quality that is out of the ordinary and gives delight

Again, simple yes, magic no. By that definition weird fetishes would be “magic”

1. Something wonderful and exciting
2. Something that effectively produces a desired result

Why not cut to the chase and just define magic as “a peanut” Peanuts exist, therefore magic is real! And fairies are made out of peanut butter! Yummy! Do you actually think you’re making some sort of point here? Yes, if I define fairy as “a spare tire” then I’ve got a fairy in my trunk. But that definition is stupid, and really doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about

These are all from my dictionary. Obviously one definition of “magic” is “supernatural power” or something, but that’s not the word’s sole usage. If a fairy does anything that falls under any of these four things, then you could call it magic, and I don’t see how there’s any complication.

Usage is dependent on context. Those definitions are for things like “this icecream tastes magical” not “this fairy cast a magic spell on me” You know what else is in the dictionary for the definition of magic “the U.S. code name for information from decrypting machine-enciphered Japanese wireless messages before and during World War II.” But that has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about, and neither does any of your definitions. I’m aghast that I even have to bother to point this out, I’m starting to think you’re making bad arguments on purpose.

And I don’t know what dictionary you’re using, they’re not in any of the 3 I checked.

Not always … at one point Platypuses were discovered for the first time by Westerners. Those things are quite out of the ordinary. In fact, every kind of animal species were eventually discovered for the first time. There is nothing unreasonable to assume we might discover something like fairies sometime in the future. It’s needlessly narrow-minded to necessarily deny their existence.

Back when there were vast tracks of the earth unexplored by westerners, that made sense. And yes, there is nothing unreasonable about the possibility that we might find something similar to fairies. I said as much, multiples times. Do you even remember what we are talking about? Are you reading my posts at all? Is there a point you’re driving at or do you just like to post random responses to people?

So, unless something is verified by a lot of scientists, you should not believe in something, right? We should run everything by them? We should never trust personal experience but had off everything to the laboratory? Is this what you’re saying?

No, I never said anything like that. What I said was that it’s a question of which explanation is more complex. I don’t know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth I obviously never said, when the words I did say work just as well.

 

[Mersenne]

But this is still far from proof.

No, it is not. It is called proof. You prove guilt. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this point. Courts require you to PROVE guilt. It’s a proof. It’s proof.

I would avoid using the word ‘proof’ if what you are talking about is not actually a proof. No matter how certain a jury feels about a man’s guilt, it may later turn out that they were wrong.

That’s true, but that’s always true, of anything, even a mathematical proof, as I pointed out already. That’s not and has never been what proof requires. Look it up in the dictionary if you have to. Looking in 3 different dictionaries and 36 different definitions, none of them define proof the way you are. That’s not what proof means, if it were, the word would be meaningless.

I am confident that God does not exist, but do not claim to have proof.

I realize that, perhaps you should claim to have proof, for the reasons I outlined in my last post.

It is perhaps an equally incredible claim, but if billions of people think they have good evidence of something, I’ll usually examine their evidence before laughing it off.

But billions of people don’t think they have good evidence of something. Billions of people have a belief in lots of different contradictory things, which correlate only to what their culture and parents believe, not any sort of objective evidence.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No, it is not. It is called proof. You prove guilt. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this point. Courts require you to PROVE guilt. It’s a proof. It’s proof.

Right, but they don’t prove innocence. If they were trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was innocent, they would need more than a lack of evidence for guilt.

That’s true, but that’s always true, of anything, even a mathematical proof, as I pointed out already. That’s not and has never been what proof requires. Look it up in the dictionary if you have to. Looking in 3 different dictionaries and 36 different definitions, none of them define proof the way you are. That’s not what proof means, if it were, the word would be meaningless.

I didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t use the word proof unless you were incapable of being wrong. But at the very least you need very strong evidence for a proposition (such as the non-existence of God) before considering it proven, and all you’ve done is shown the lack of evidence for the claim that God does exist.

I realize that, perhaps you should claim to have proof, for the reasons I outlined in my last post.

I didn’t find any strong evidence that God does not exist in that post.

But billions of people don’t think they have good evidence of something. Billions of people have a belief in lots of different contradictory things, which correlate only to what their culture and parents believe, not any sort of objective evidence.

Yes, which is why popularity is not evidence of truth. But I find it interesting to look into extremely pervasive beliefs. Even if they seem obviously false, it can be good to try to understand why so many people believe them.

 

[pnewton]

If you did, you or someone else would have mentioned them by now.

I will not argue them with you. I prefer not to argue with atheist. However, the three arguments I find most compelling are arguements from design, from first cause and the ontological arguement. These are by far not the limit to why I believe in the existence of God, but these are three that come to mind as significant.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How is consciousness not capable of being studied by science? Tons of work is being done on studying consciousness.

Consciousness is impossible to test for with the scientific method. Imagine a researcher trying to do such a test. Their hypothesis would be “This human being experiences consciousness.” But how would they test for that?

Researcher: Are you thinking right now?
Subject: Yes.
Researcher (takes notes): Subject exhibits behavior consistent with consciousness.
Subject: Do you see and hear things?
Subject: Yes.
Researcher (takes notes): Subject exhibits behavior consistent with consciousness.
Etc…

The only scientific conclusion is that human behavior is consistent with consciousness. But this is not acceptable. The inference is to consciousness is an inference to an unobservable, and inferences to unobservables elude analysis by deductive methods. How could you ever disprove the hypothesis that a rock, for example, is conscious?

Now, is consciousness capable of being studied by science? Of course, if they *assume *certain things about it first. But, if science makes such assumptions, why do they criticize other disciplines for doing so?

Your credo, that “If it’s impossible to test with the scientific method then it doesn’t exist”, is an extreme form of rationalism. You assume, among other things, that anything that exists must be knowable. Have you considered that the very principle you’re espousing is impossible to test for?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good point, that definition is a little broad. I don’t think it makes sense to say that it takes faith to believe that someone playing peek-a-boo with you still exists. But even with that definition, atheism would not be a faith. Is there a better definition under which you think it would be?

Well, let’s look at two people:

Person A: Doesn’t think much about philosophy or religion, lacks a belief in God, doesn’t think about it much.

Person B: Vehemently protests against belief in God, as if his life depended on it. Makes a point is telling people, whenever they bring up faith or even going to church, that the idea that God exists is absurd.

Person A might be called a nontheist. At any rate, he does not have a faith in his atheism, in any sense of the term.

Person B exhibits true “creedal” behavior. He considers it his duty to “devangelize” the faithful, and he spends a great deal of his time “devoted” to the task of antiapologetics. If he isn’t espousing a faith, then why is he so faithful?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well, let’s look at two people:

Person A: Doesn’t think much about philosophy or religion, lacks a belief in God, doesn’t think about it much.

Person B: Vehemently protests against belief in God, as if his life depended on it. Makes a point is telling people, whenever they bring up faith or even going to church, that the idea that God exists is absurd.

Person A might be called a nontheist. At any rate, he does not have a faith in his atheism, in any sense of the term.

Person B exhibits true “creedal” behavior. He considers it his duty to “devangelize” the faithful, and he spends a great deal of his time “devoted” to the task of antiapologetics. If he isn’t espousing a faith, then why is he so faithful?

I never claimed that someone can’t make atheism into a faith. I just don’t think that atheism entails faith or that most atheists have “faith” in atheism. Additionally, I don’t think that all people like person B must necessarily have “faith”. If someone has considered the evidence and reaches the conclusion that all religion is evil (which I do not believe by the way), it wouldn’t require faith to devote oneself to trying to eliminate that evil. But I think you’re right that there are atheists out there who might not respond to evidence that contradicts their position and could be said to have faith. However, in my experience such a position is not very common among atheists.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But I think you’re right that there are atheists out there who might not respond to evidence that contradicts their position and could be said to have faith.

But if that is your definition of faith, then I don’t have faith either. You seem to be defining faith as ignorance.

Faith involves placing your trust in something you cannot verify with your senses. Thus, faith is not opposed to reason. The two concepts have nonoverlapping domains, and thus could not possibly be contradictory. When I tell my daughter to jump and I will catch her, and she does, is she being unreasonable?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But if that is your definition of faith, then I don’t have faith either. You seem to be defining faith as ignorance.

Faith involves placing your trust in something you cannot verify with your senses. Thus, faith is not opposed to reason. The two concepts have nonoverlapping domains, and thus could not possibly be contradictory. When I tell my daughter to jump and I will catch her, and she does, is she being unreasonable?

Personally, I’m not that picky about how faith is defined, although I do think that it should mean something more than mere belief. My point is that the faith that many atheists oppose is different than any kind of faith that all atheists could be said to have. Not all atheists “place their trust” in God not existing.

By the way, whether it’s reasonable for her to trust you depends on how trustworthy you have been. If you constantly lie to her than I think it would be unreasonable for her to trust you (though I’m sure this is not the case ).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Personally, I’m not that picky about how faith is defined, although I do think that it should mean something more than mere belief. My point is that the faith that many atheists oppose is different than the faith that some believers accuse all atheists of having. Not all atheists “place their trust” in God not existing.

Well, I certainly agree that we should avoid lumping all members of a group into simplistic categories! Now if we could only agree on the idea that faith in things unseen is not only a good, but also a necessary, thing…

 

[CWBetts]

Rationality dictates that one must reject the existence of god. God represents a needless complication to our explanation of how the world works, unless a good reason is presented for believing in him, the rational thing to do is to disbelieve. It’s the same reason why you would reject the notion of santa clause, fairies, geocentricism, and the like.

Refute St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs if you are so smart

 

[Mersenne]

Right, but they don’t prove innocence. If they were trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was innocent, they would need more than a lack of evidence for guilt.

We weren’t talking about establishing innocence, we were talking about establishing guilt.
And if they want to prove guilt they need more then lack of evidence of innocence as well, even more so. That doesn’t provide any sort of counterargument to the point I made at all.

I didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t use the word proof unless you were incapable of being wrong.

Yes, I know you didn’t mean to imply it, you stated it outright. You said my example of proof wasn’t proof because they could be wrong.

But at the very least you need very strong evidence for a proposition (such as the non-existence of God) before considering it proven, and all you’ve done is shown the lack of evidence for the claim that God does exist.

That’s certainly not true. I presented a number of explanations why god can be rejected outright, none of them consisted simply of “no evidence”

I didn’t find any strong evidence that God does not exist in that post.

I provided reasons why god can be considered not to exist, and justifications for my criteria. All of your claims that my criteria are invalid have so far fallen short.

Yes, which is why popularity is not evidence of truth. But I find it interesting to look into extremely pervasive beliefs. Even if they seem obviously false, it can be good to try to understand why so many people believe them.

What I stated is there was no popular opinion in regards to theism, they are all different. But it is certainly interesting to study, anyway, in the same way it’s interesting to study why people overeat, or why people self-mutilate.