Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Grinseed
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.
"The atheist request for objective evidence for your god is not a faulty question, its quite a valid query.
The curious issue here is that most atheists I know would, I think, agree that the answer to this question and its corollary version gets the same answer -"no"."
I whole heartily agree! That is the point I have been trying to get to.
I have started regularly asking the corollary because I am so frequently asked the antecedent from Atheists.
It seems like anytime a Theist comes on AR, one or more Atheists ask for objective evidence for God.
I must however ask, why do think Atheists ask it if they know the answer to both sides of the question is no?
I had the impression they were implying that it is evidence of no God.
I do disagree somewhat that a negative claim cannot be proven. I think proven is the wrong word.
Evidenced or shown may be a better word.
Jo is not a female could be shown by his X Y chromosomes, or a Doctors attestation to his physical traits.
We could use Cognostics Bear Cave Test to show there are no bears in the cave or on the moon.
There is of course the famous maggots do not spontaneous generate.
"If you want to prove your god exists you need a different approach. I can only suggest living exemplary christian lives to impress and challenge us, rather than asking incessantly repeated, impossible questions that have no real answers of value."
I wholeheartedly agree with this also.
I would like to remind you that my incessantly repeating the question was in response to so many Atheist frequently asking it of me, and other Theists.
"So is my rejection of the theism a belief? Of course it is."
I appreciate your transparency and frankness.
I do think that most Atheist would disagree, but I agree.
I think most Atheists have trouble admitting it.
There arguments betray it, but they refrain from directly admitting it.
I think it goes against there dogma and doctrines. (Sarcasm and humor, but also somewhat true)
"My personal belief system is built on tangible, measurable, repeatable and even falsifiable experiences. It is nothing like the faith of a theist, who, yes I understand, can be as firmly convinced of their spiritual, innate experiences, which remain nonetheless intangible and largely unevidenced."
This statement seems at odds with your previous statements.
Can empiricism answer the God question?
I also consider myself an empiricist, and a Christian.
I see them as complementary and I would be incomplete or lame without either.
If the Doctor tells me compound X will cure my disease.
I look at the double blind Phase 3 test.
If it shows a 99% cure rate, I take the medicine.
I don't consult the Bible or any Church leader.
If I need to get from point A to point B, I consult a map and not the Bible.
If I want to know why I and the universe are here, I consult the Bible.
The same for questions on the purpose and meaning of life and the hereafter.
I do not consult a science text book for those questions.
Can empiricism answer all questions?
How can it or does it answer the God question?
Is there any question or situation where you would not use it?
"As an empiricist I have chosen a faith in tangible, evidenced, experience as my path to something called truth and along that path I have revised and altered, and reassessed things I really thought true, and either modified them or rejected them because of things I have learned or intuitively assessed as a result of amassed information. It is not a perfect life, I have gleaned no perfect answers, but it is in essence, an honest, earnest, if messy exploration of it."
By in large, I agree and have walked a very similiar path.
Why don't you give an example of you proving a negative?
@Jo Re: "I do disagree somewhat that a negative claim cannot be proven."
Hey, Jo, here's a simple example for you. Let's say you have a desk you want built and you want me to build it for you. But for whatever reason, I do not want to build it for you, so I tell you I don't know how to do that. Please prove to me I am just lying to you and that I really DO know how to build a desk.
@ Tin-Man
I don't see your point but I could show that you have built desks before and you have written books on the subject.
@Jo Re: "I don't see your point but I could show that you have built desks before and you have written books on the subject."
One, I have never written any books at all. Much less about building desks. And, two, maybe I forgot how to build a desk, even if I had built desks in the past. The mind is a funny thing sometimes. Sure, maybe I KNEW how to build a desk, but at the moment you ask me to build one I have totally forgotten how. Prove that I DO know how.
Notice the difference? Basically, if I tell you, "Hey, Jo, I know how to build desks if you want one," it is pretty simple to determine if that is true or not. Just tell me, "Cool. Yes, please build me a desk." And when I present you with the finished product, you will be able to inspect it and determine if I was telling the truth or just making an empty boast. Better yet, just to be certain, you would actually supervise me during the entire building process to make sure I actually had the knowledge and skill to make it.
On the flip side, though, if I claim I DO NOT know how to build a desk, how are you going to prove me wrong? Can you read my mind and know I might be lying to you? Tell me, "Really? Then show me you don't know how." How well do you think that would work? I will simply bring you a fence post with a doorknob attached to it. "Here's your new desk, Jo!" In other words, you cannot prove the negative I am telling you.
Please prove invisible unicorns don't exist.
@ Nyarlathotep
"Why don't you give an example of you proving a negative?" I did in my post.
"I think proven is the wrong word. Evidenced or shown may be a better word.
Jo is not a female could be shown by his X Y chromosomes, or a Doctors attestation to his physical traits.
We could use Cognostics Bear Cave Test to show there are no bears in the cave or on the moon.
There is of course the famous maggots do not spontaneous generate."
@Jo
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
And almost no other circumstance is this more true then the "god" ideas.
Millions, (billions?) of people for thousands of years have been trying very hard to evidence their god idea. All those people all that time and zero, real actual evidence outside of human ideas, fiction, etc.
When you have an idea with zero evidence behind it, it should remain just that; an idea. There should be no actual action, let alone entire, enormous, very wealthy religious organizations that demand hours a week of dedication to as well as lots of time and resources.
To drive home the importance of evidence, realize you demand it for just about everything else in your life, (hopefully!)
I have an idea: you owe me 1 million dollars. Pay me unless you can prove to me you do not owe me 1 million dollars.
Realize yet you can't prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? Does that mean my idea that you owe me 1 million dollars is valid? That you should pay me 1 million dollars? Of course not, that is ridiculous!
Just like all the god ideas.
Shed the prison that is the god idea placed on you strictly and only by other humans. I know it is scary, but you will be happier and a more free person on the other side of this journey towards freedom.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
"Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence."
That is a fallacy of logic called an Argument from Ignorance.
"It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Here is a couple of good examples.
In 10,000 years of humans trying to disprove God, they have not succeeded, therefore God exists.
Millions of Atheists have tried to disprove God, they have not succeeded, therefore God exists.
"I have an idea: you owe me 1 million dollars. Pay me unless you can prove to me you do not owe me 1 million dollars.
Realize yet you can't prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? Does that mean my idea that you owe me 1 million dollars is valid? That you should pay me 1 million dollars? Of course not, that is ridiculous! Just like all the god ideas."
I can prove it to you by referencing your post as above.
It is proof that I don't owe you 1 million dollars, because you admit that it is just an idea.
"Shed the prison that is the god idea placed on you strictly and only by other humans."
Can you provide evidence that the God idea was "placed on you strictly and only by other humans."
Is it a faith claim or do you have some special knowledge?
I'm late to this party, but better late than never (the diligent will be aware that I've been heavily involved elsewhere) ...
BZZZTTTT! Thats three errors straight out of the gate.
Error #1 : Unlike supernaturalists, we don't "base our entire lives" upon a small collection of assertions. That's your first error.
Error #2: Atheism doesn't involve "belief" full stop. This is because, in its rigorous formulation, atheism is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It doesn't involve presenting any assertions itself, it leaves that to supernaturalists, and as a corollary of these two basic facts, it is the antithesis of "belief". Indeed, because all too often, belief, as practised by supernaturalists, involves uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, we actively reject the fatuous notion that this constitutes a purportedly 'reliable' means of acquiring knowledge. Not least because it demonstrably doesn't.
Error #3: The moment scientific research establishes that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant from that point on. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions of interest. In short, merely asserted mythological magic men aren't needed, and in accordance with Occam's Razor, may safely be deleted from the picture as long as the requisite precedent continues to hold.
Indeed, a nice exposition of my own view, which I am told is widely shared here, can be found presented in detail here.
As a corollary of all the above, your assertion is null and void.
And here's your next error. Namely, assuming, with typical supernaturalist hubris, that not treating your assertions about your magic man uncritically as true the way you do, constitutes affirming the contrary assertion. WRONG. It's entirely possible to be suspicious of both assertions simultaneously.
What those of us who paid attention in class actually think on the matter, is that the existence of a god type entity is an unanswered question. One that, whilst remaining unanswered, permits us to operate safely as if such an entity does not exist, until evidence points in a different direction. Just as we were able to operate safely as if electrons didn't exist, until evidence for said entities was alighted upon by scientists. Which was sought precisely because the observational data in the run-up to the requisite discovery, pointed to the need for such particles to be a part of the observable universe, in order to make sense of that data. No such requirement exists with respect to a god-type entity of any sort at the moment. Therefore, we can provisionally continue as if such an entity does not exist, because no requirement for such an entity is demanded by extant observational data.
But I'm used to the manner in which supernaturalists either [1] cannot understand the distinction between a provisional modus operandi and adherence to an assertion as if that assertion constituted an axiom, or [2] choose wilfully to ignore that distinction for duplicitous apologetic purposes. Frequently, [2] is observed to be the case.
Meanwhile, diverting temporarily to deal with this:
Do not even THINK of venturing into this mendacious territory. You WILL regret it. Especially if you start peddling the lies of Richard Weikart here.
Moving back to the main course ...
Would this, perchance, include all those scientific discoveries that are rejected by supernaturalists, for no other reason than said discoveries happen not to genuflect before the assertions of their favourite mythologies?
Oh, and as Algebe succinctly noted, all too often, supernaturalists expend apologetic effort trying to place their various mythological magic men out of reach of scientific investigation, frequently as an evasive elision to avoid facing the awkward question of why there is zero evidence for any of their merely asserted entities. The trouble being of course, that in the next breath, the same supernaturalists then assert that their mythological magic men intervene in the physical universe in a manner that is demonstrably observable. This, of course, becomes problematic for their previous apologetics, because science is by definition the study of the observable. But I'm used to seeing supernaturalists trying to have their cake and eat it simultaneously.
Oh, and I've posted at length on the matter of how genuinely existing entities have a habit of being observable in this previous post. Along with some other comments that are apposite to this thread. A much more brief post that is also apposite here is this one.
Meanwhile, as for the search for life in places other than Earth, I've covered that one as well, namely here.
Finally, you might also like to take a peek at this exposition of the proper rules of discourse, as an example of the effort that is exerted by those of us who paid attention in class.
So despite their lies to the contrary, and their dishonest evasion of the question, we can see that neither Leper or Jo can demonstrate a shred of objective evidence that human consciousness can survive the death of the human brain.
Quelle surprise and QED. All they have offered is the usual appeal to ignorance fallacy in a dishonest attempt to reverse the burden of proof, pathetic.
@ Sheldon
Ennui...just about sums up my feeling at this constant assault of repetitive fallacies by half educated theists. Bordering on desuetude.....
But, yes, we do have to keep on keeping on as their religions of choice lose members, credibility and influence.
Re: "Atheists do not base their entire lives on a belief."
@ Leper {Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief. Of course there are those who never even think about it and we may argue about what they base their lives on on a practical level.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence for abcense so... Atheism is a religion really}.
_____________________________________________
I agree with you, Leper: "Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief", assuming that they believe that there is no god.
HOWEVER, I as an atheist do not claim that there is no god. What I claim is that I have found no convincing evidence that there is a god. Thus I live as though there is no god, because the EVIDENCE is ~ as though there is no god.
But I also live my life in the belief that I live on earth. However, that does not mean that the belief of being an earthling is a religion.
Doesn't religion or religiosity require worship of something? Denial of any god is, in and of itself, absent of something to worship. If you think that not believing something is a form of worship, and therefore a religion, that reduces religion at its base, to something pretty valueless. I mean, atheists don't go bowing down to a nothing, they don't follow rituals in deference to a nothing, they don't wear particular clothing in recognition of a nothing, they don't have any codes of practice trying to adore or appease a nothing. So where's the religion?
Atheism is a religion as just much as being bald is a colour of hair ~ it's not so at all, in either case.
_____________________________________________
IF there is(are) good reason(s) or good evidence to believe that a god actually exists . . .
• which god is it
• what are its properties
• what is that good evidence
• how can we recognise that it is good, valid evidence of which we ought to be convinced?
_____________________________________________
@Leper {Nevertheless, there is no evidence for abcense}
_____________________________________________
If there is no "something', then there WILL BE AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE in support of it. In other words, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, there will be no evidence in support of it *. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, absence of evidence is not proof of absence; it could be that there is evidence somewhere, but it hasn't been found yet.
* = https://www.dictionary.com/e/religion/flying-spaghetti-monster/
Umm, I think Leper has been banned.
Leper was banned.
Question, Why do theists always assume that atheists all share the same beliefs, principles etc.
Sure, on many grounds we likely do, but all of our outlooks and our lack of belief in a deity are not mutually exclusive.
Well I do not like the Jack Daniels whisky but the Ballantine one is good, don't know for you pals.
Evidence of God versus no evidence.
Theist beliefs vs Atheism
I am getting quite tired of some arguments especially from theists.
Who cares what one believes or does not believe. What one can prove or what one cannot prove.
Dear theists,
Does your God not repeatedly say that it's righteousness will be placed in the hearts of it's people?
Are those people not scattered throughout the world?
Therefore regardless of our beliefs and non beliefs is it not more important that righteousness is in our heart? Isn't that what makes for a better world to live in?
Preaching beliefs divides people. Teaching your children well makes for a whole new class of people on the same page. There is an entire list of what "well" is. Let each one use whatever gift they can accomplish wherever that gift comes from.
So whether this gift is passed on from parents or role models or from some belief in a higher power, what difference does it make. It's that gift that is important, not any divisive belief. That's what theism should be striving for.
Theists, don't judge atheists based on what they do or don't believe without knowing what is in their hearts. You don't come out looking very good. No need to convince anyone of any deity, just the good things that make us all united and better and I can assure you that many atheists have been taught...'well' and continue to pass it on to their children.
Remember the old saying?...the devil is in the details. Let go of the details, you're just bringing out the devil
Peace out from this old hippie.
@Jo - "Hitler may have called himself a Christian but by no objective standard was he."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ------ My sides ache and I am about to piss my pants. Please demonstrate Catholics are not Christians.
LIST OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
List of Christian denominations by number of members facts for kids
CATHOLICISM - 1.2 billion. (Hitler was born and baptized Catholic and never excommunicated)
Protestantism - 600–800 million.
Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million.
Oriental Orthodoxy - 86 million.
Anglicanism - 85 million.
Restorationism and Non-Trinitarianism - 41 million.
Church of the East - 0.6 million.
Hitler had a problem with the JEWS and with the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as he followed the teachings of MARTIN LUTHER. A PROTESTANT!!!
"The evidence that Hitler was a staunch Christian is overwhelming. He banned secular education in Germany on the basis that Christian religious instruction is essential to moral development, repeatedly vilified atheism, and although he often clashed with Catholic bishops over his ill-treatment of Jews, Hitler did not perceive himself as being anti-Christian, but rather as bringing the Church back to what he saw as its proper, traditional role in persecuting the pestilent. While negotiating the Reichskonkordat, Hitler said to Bishop Berning that suppressing Jews was, “doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”
There are numerous other examples, from Mein Kampf (“only fools and criminals would think of abolishing existing religion”),
German army uniforms during the Nazi era, to the Lutheran Church in Berlin, full of carvings celebrating Hitler’s rise to power (including an exquisitely carved SA paramilitary trooper on the baptismal font), to the amended 1934 loyalty oath of the German military (“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht…”).
After the Enabling Act of 1933 delivered dictatorial powers to Hitler, one of his first actions was to outlaw atheist and freethinking groups.
The evidence is overwhelming and all you have is a "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY." Hitler Called his version of the Christian faith "POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY. Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[15] and Jewish materialism
NONE OF THIS IS A PROBLEM - Many Christian Groups deny the trinity and allocate strange roles for Jesus and of the Trinity. They are still Christian..... with Jesus being a central character in their faith. Unitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Armstrongism, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unification Church, Unity School of Christianity, and HITLER'S "POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY" among many others. Just because it is not mainstream does not mean it is not classified as Christian.
https://inference-review.com/letter/hitlers-christianity
THE NAME OF HITLER'S VERSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS 'POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY' AND IT FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF MARTIN LUTHER.
"The fierce anti-Semitism of sixteenth century church reformer Martin Luther helped creating the climate in which the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews, René Süss wrote in his recent study "Luthers theologisch testament" ("Luther's theological testament").(1) Luther's hate for Jews was not a small mistake, but rather part of the essence of his reactionary religious ideology. Today, many still see him as one of the greatest German and Christian heroes of all times.
Martin LutherLuther became famous for his struggle against the Roman Catholic church during the Reformation. His anger was especially caused by the trade in indulgences, with which the rich could get rid of their sins and buy themselves a place in heaven. He also spoke out against the celebration of saints, the cults around relics, celibacy and the papal hierarchy. He got his place in the dominant Christian history books as a fighter for emancipation and individual autonomy, and against Catholic corruption and exploitation of the poor. Because he translated the bible into German and laid the foundations of German nationalism, he is still praised as the symbol of German unity."
https://www.doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/30142v01.htm
How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?
Doesn't it frighten them?
What happens to an atheist after death if he isn't a good atheist?
_______________________________________________________________
Atheism is not a "belief" - it is a rejection of "belief"-based assertions that can be known to be false, such as in male central figure idols and/or man-made books.
"Belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good. Also, Satan requires "belief" in order that "believers" "believe" that:
i. "belief" is a virtue, and
ii. Satan is God (equiv. evil is good)
So any/all "believers" (ie. theists) are immediately in the devil's playground, so to speak. Many atheists (without trying) follow the ten commandments more closely than theists who spill blood over the worshiping of dead men (ie. Jesus, Muhammad) and man-made books (ie. Bible/Qur'an).
"Belief" is not a solution, it is a problem. Knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" is a solution. If there is no "belief" Satan has no power, because Satan requires "belief".
Pages