The simplemindedness of an atheist discussing the "God" concept

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
79,901
50,417
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Again, what kind of evidence qualifies? The law of inertia isn't evidence? What about the laws of causation? Or the principle of sufficient reason?
None of those things is any kind of evidence. Physical or philosophical laws are not evidence; they are theories and/or hypotheses based on evidence. The hypothesis that an uncaused supreme being exists is its own hypothesis that requires its own observed evidence.
Your atheism still isn't saying anything.
Aside from the fact that it is not "my atheism" (i.e., I am not an atheist), atheism says there is no evidence. That is saying something, but it is not a hypothesis that needs evidence or proof. It is theism that requires those things.
And an absence of something has NO PRACTICAL MERIT.
Whether it has merit or not is an opinion and is therefore irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panzareta

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
53,308
40,888
Pennsylvania, USA
Some people like movies or books about unicorns. To enjoy them, they suspend their disbelief. So yes, some people believe unicorns -- at least for the duration of the movie or book.

Your analogy is meaningless because you cannot even say what kind of belief you are talking about.
I enjoy novels that employ technologies or magics that don't exist. I do not "suspend my beliefs" in order to enable or facilitate my enjoyment of the book. I recognize that the story takes place in a fictional world that operates on a different set of rules than ours.

The existence of unicorns do not bear on epistemology, one way or the other. I don't disbelieve it. I simply do not have an opinion on the matter.
The existence of the first cause, however, has a bearing on our understanding. It is an epistemological truth without which your understanding of the real, common-sense world, is meaningless. The 'philosophical difficulty' here is either infinite regress or objects moving by themselves. And your only recourse is, I don't know yet.[/quote]

However, the "first cause" is not "unknowable." It's a purely technological limitation that will most likely be surmounted within the next thousand years, which (in the 200,000 year scale of our species), is practically tomorrow.

Then define [atheism] already.
Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
 
Jan 2007
7,859
523
Irrelevant
You obviously don't, since I spelled it out for you in small words on the preceding page. A- theism is a specific non-belief in gods. That's all. Your pathetic attempts to make it a belief system despite the absence of evidence are noted but discarded.
And I gave you an aphorism as a hint. AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. If you do not accept the evidence, then you still can't logically conclude god doesn't exist.

For the second time -- do you understand?
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
14,323
16,648
Work
You obviously don't, since I spelled it out for you in small words on the preceding page. A- theism is a specific non-belief in gods. That's all. Your pathetic attempts to make it a belief system despite the absence of evidence are noted but discarded.
As someone once told me, "Atheism is not a belief system, in the same way that not collecting stamps is not a hobby."
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
14,323
16,648
Work
And I gave you an aphorism as a hint. AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. If you do not accept the evidence, then you still can't logically conclude god doesn't exist.

For the second time -- do you understand?
We get that absence of evidence of a magical godlike teapot orbiting Neptune does not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Neptune. But do you believe there is a teapot orbiting Neptune?

If you don't, then you are "atheist" regarding the teapot. We know you understand. Atheism doesn't attempt to "prove" the non existence of a God. It simply doesn't believe in one.
 
Jan 2007
7,859
523
Irrelevant
None of those things is any kind of evidence. Physical or philosophical laws are not evidence; they are theories and/or hypotheses based on evidence. The hypothesis that an uncaused supreme being exists is its own hypothesis that requires its own observed evidence.
Oh, for heaven's sake! Don't you understand the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory????

A scientific law is a statement of fact through repeated observation. A scientific theory is a proposed explanation of such a fact.

Understand?

Aside from the fact that it is not "my atheism" (i.e., I am not an atheist), atheism says there is no evidence.
Correct.

Atheism is saying that there is no evidence. But you cannot say something does not exist simply because there is no evidence. As the aphorism goes -- an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So, the atheist conclusion (god does not exist) has no basis in sound logic. At best, the only reasonable thing an atheist can say is that he is uncertain.

That is saying something, but it is not a hypothesis that needs evidence or proof. It is theism that requires those things.
Again, you are seriously misunderstanding the meanings of evidence, hypothesis and proof.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation based on limited evidence and is the starting point of an investigation. It is an incomplete theory.

Evidence, is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Proof is sufficient evidence. (Note that I am using the word 'sufficient' in the context of logic and mathematics.)

The existence of god is the conclusion (not the hypothesis) from the arguments from motion, causation and sufficient reason. It is now up to you to show that the evidences in the arguments are not sufficient.

Whether it has merit or not is an opinion and is therefore irrelevant.
The atheist claim has no merit. If the only reasonable thing an atheist can claim is that he is uncertain (as explained above), then he isn't saying anything at all.

That isn't even a form of agnosticism. At least, the agnostic is saying something -- that the answer is unknowable.
 
Jan 2007
7,859
523
Irrelevant
I enjoy novels that employ technologies or magics that don't exist. I do not "suspend my beliefs" in order to enable or facilitate my enjoyment of the book. I recognize that the story takes place in a fictional world that operates on a different set of rules than ours.
You recognize fiction form the book itself? Not from the fact that you got it from the fiction section of the book store? Not from the publisher's note that the characters and events portrayed therein are fictional and that similarities with actual people and events are unintentional?

The truth is, you accept the premise of the book or movie. Acceptance of this premise requires suspension of disbelief.

However, the "first cause" is not "unknowable." It's a purely technological limitation that will most likely be surmounted within the next thousand years, which (in the 200,000 year scale of our species), is practically tomorrow.
Seriously???? Have you not heard of the uncertainty principle or cosmological horizons????

There are physical limits to what can be measured or observed in science. That is a scientific FACT.

And even if what you are saying is possible, then it is merely that, a possibility. It is NOT a certainty and to claim that it is a certainty has NO BASIS on facts nor logic.

Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

From that aphorism alone, it is already clear that the claims of atheism is unreasonable.[/QUOTE]
 
Jan 2007
7,859
523
Irrelevant
As someone once told me, "Atheism is not a belief system, in the same way that not collecting stamps is not a hobby."
But we have a word for this 'not a belief system' -- atheism. What do you call not collecting stamps, hmmm?

You know what's common with atheism and not collecting stamps? It's saying nothing.
 
Feb 2010
31,808
35,960
Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
You recognize fiction form the book itself? Not from the fact that you got it from the fiction section of the book store? Not from the publisher's note that the characters and events portrayed therein are fictional and that similarities with actual people and events are unintentional?

The truth is, you accept the premise of the book or movie. Acceptance of this premise requires suspension of disbelief.



Seriously???? Have you not heard of the uncertainty principle or cosmological horizons????

There are physical limits to what can be measured or observed in science. That is a scientific FACT.

And even if what you are saying is possible, then it is merely that, a possibility. It is NOT a certainty and to claim that it is a certainty has NO BASIS on facts nor logic.



Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

From that aphorism alone, it is already clear that the claims of atheism is unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]

That aphorism alone has shored up countless cockamamie speculations. It appears and is a logical statement. Misapplied it justifies inanity. The way it is presented here seeks to beg the question, essentially saying, "If there is no evidence against it then my claim is true", which is obviously a fallacy.