How atheists can say, "There is no God"

[shanek]

A couple of posters on the Skeptics Society forum like this article I wrote last month, so I thought I'd post it here:

How Atheists Can Say, "There Is No God"

I think I do a pretty good job of showing that this is not the religiously-held position believers like to pretend it is. Let me know what you think!

 

[Katana]

{gasp}

There are no mermaids? Damn.



Seriously, that was nicely done.

 

[chriswl]

I'm now waiting for the indignant agnostic response that this argument only really refutes naive "fundmentalist" mermaidism and that we have no clear idea of what a mermaid is so it would be wrong in principle to rule them out...

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmm.

Well written.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh no! Not again!

 

[madmonk76]

Very nice.
What's taking the dissenters so long to get here?

 

[Tricky]

What I find interesting are the "Related Articles"

Healthy summertime snacks to prepare in 15 minutes
Who sells the best fast food?
What would you order for your last meal
How to know which side dish to serve
How to make good choices with fast food
Cooking for a week on a budget

Is this to imply that Mermaids are edible? Should they be fried or broiled? Who serves the better Mermaid, Long John Silver or Captain D? Tarter sauce or red sauce?

 

[Beth]

A couple of posters on the Skeptics Society forum like this article I wrote last month, so I thought I'd post it here:

How Atheists Can Say, "There Is No God"

I think I do a pretty good job of showing that this is not the religiously-held position believers like to pretend it is. Let me know what you think!

If you aren't trying to convince others but only to explain your position, I think it works well. You believe that god, if such a being exists, would leave some sort of objective physical evidence demonstrating his presence and finding none, you don't believe in him.

Just don't expect others to share your conviction that if god exists, objective evidence of it would be available to us. I think that most people who believe in god do not believe he is a physical entity, so they don't expect to find objective evidence that can be examined.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Just don't expect others to share your conviction that if god exists, objective evidence of it would be available to us. I think that most people who believe in god do not believe he is a physical entity, so they don't expect to find objective evidence that can be examined.

I'd say Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus consider their God(s) to have at least some physical characteristics so your not a "physical entity" I think is too broad a generalisation.

 

[madmonk76]

What I find interesting are the "Related Articles"



Is this to imply that Mermaids are edible? Should they be fried or broiled? Who serves the better Mermaid, Long John Silver or Captain D? Tarter sauce or red sauce?

I think butter and lemon pepper, personally...

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you aren't trying to convince others but only to explain your position, I think it works well. You believe that god, if such a being exists, would leave some sort of objective physical evidence demonstrating his presence and finding none, you don't believe in him.

Just don't expect others to share your conviction that if god exists, objective evidence of it would be available to us. I think that most people who believe in god do not believe he is a physical entity, so they don't expect to find objective evidence that can be examined.

But the fact that God is hypothesised to be non-physical doesn't mean that his existence would have no observable consequences.

What do you call something which is completely indistinguishable from an elephat? An elephant, of course. So what do you call something which is completely indistinguishable from nothing at all?

 

[Beerina]

What I find interesting are the "Related Articles"

Healthy summertime snacks to prepare in 15 minutes
Who sells the best fast food?
What would you order for your last meal
How to know which side dish to serve
How to make good choices with fast food
Cooking for a week on a budget

Is this to imply that Mermaids are edible? Should they be fried or broiled? Who serves the better Mermaid, Long John Silver or Captain D? Tarter sauce or red sauce?

Here's your guilty party:

if I were to hypothesize, "Eating french fries gives you the ability to fly," then the null hypothesis would be "French fries don't help you to fly one bit."

 

[Darat]

Here's your guilty party:

And that's why we've shied away from "ad words" for this Forum....

 

[shanek]

What I find interesting are the "Related Articles"

Is this to imply that Mermaids are edible? Should they be fried or broiled? Who serves the better Mermaid, Long John Silver or Captain D? Tarter sauce or red sauce?

I think that was probably my "french fries make you fly" example that triggered those.

Thanks for all the positive comments!

 

[shanek]

If you aren't trying to convince others but only to explain your position, I think it works well. You believe that god, if such a being exists, would leave some sort of objective physical evidence demonstrating his presence and finding none, you don't believe in him.

Yes, that's the purpose. It's solely to refute the idea that "There is no God" is just as religious as believing in God.

Just don't expect others to share your conviction that if god exists, objective evidence of it would be available to us. I think that most people who believe in god do not believe he is a physical entity, so they don't expect to find objective evidence that can be examined.

Even if God doesn't exist as a physical entity, he should still leave behind his footprints (metaphorically speaking) in the physical realm. Otherwise, that means God has no effect on the Universe, the religious people are wrong, and atheism is correct anyway (well, maybe deism).

 

[Beth]

I'd say Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus consider their God(s) to have at least some physical characteristics so your not a "physical entity" I think is too broad a generalisation.

No doubt some adherents of those religious would agree. Some people believe almost anything you'd care to name. However, the only people I've heard make that claim are literalists who believe that the Bible itself along with myriad other unproven claims constitutes physical evidence of God and atheists who claim that the absence of physical evidence constitutes evidence of the absence of God. The majority of believers seem to feel that physical evidence is neither available nor necessary for belief in God.

But the fact that God is hypothesised to be non-physical doesn't mean that his existence would have no observable consequences.

What do you call something which is completely indistinguishable from an elephat? An elephant, of course. So what do you call something which is completely indistinguishable from nothing at all?

Just because we are unable to discern what the difference is doesn't mean that there isn't one. Consider the old movie "It's a wonderful life" with Jimmy Stewart. His guardian angel gives him the 'gift' of seeing what earth, or at least Pottersville would have been like if he had never been born. The two realities were very different. But how could we possibly know whether our world would be any different if there was/wasn't a God without being supernaturally transported into such an alternate universe as Mr. Stewart was in the movie?

Yes, that's the purpose. It's solely to refute the idea that "There is no God" is just as religious as believing in God.

Then you've done a good job. Congrats!

Even if God doesn't exist as a physical entity, he should still leave behind his footprints (metaphorically speaking) in the physical realm. Otherwise, that means God has no effect on the Universe, the religious people are wrong, and atheism is correct anyway (well, maybe deism).

I think what I wrote to Dr. A above addresses that. I'll only add that if you insist that your POV is the correct one and all others therefore false, then you border on having a religious conviction about the truth of what is inherently unknowable. If so, then you would be negating the main point of your essay.

 

[Darat]

No doubt some adherents of those religious would agree. Some people believe almost anything you'd care to name. However, the only people I've heard make that claim are literalists who believe that the Bible itself along with myriad other unproven claims constitutes physical evidence of God and atheists who claim that the absence of physical evidence constitutes evidence of the absence of God. The majority of believers seem to feel that physical evidence is neither available nor necessary for belief in God.

...snip...

Going to have to ask you to support this. As far as I am aware (to concentrate on the religion you've picked up on) the Roman Catholics (that is to say by far the majority of all Christians) hold that Christ actually existed, that his physical body died when he was crucified and later on was resurrected.

 

[Jimbo07]

Going to have to ask you to support this. As far as I am aware (to concentrate on the religion you've picked up on) the Roman Catholics (that is to say by far the majority of all Christians) hold that Christ actually existed, that his physical body died when he was crucified and later on was resurrected.

Of course, they'd ask you for physical evidence to disprove it. Passing the burden of evidence perhaps, but there you go.

It's funny that you should mention Catholics. They're far more into allegory than fundies, and usually do not take things as literally. As well, they have a love-hate relationship with science but in general, since Galileo have given science its due as a physical explanation. A Catholic biology teacher once boasted to me that he was allowed to teach evolution as science, whereas public school teachers were told to mention 'alternate theories.'

If you're seriously asking Beth for religious people who don't sweat the physical impact, you need to meet more religious people...

 

[Just thinking]

... What do you call something which is completely indistinguishable from an elephat? An elephant, of course.

It's close enough, eh?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

It was a good article. The article is basically shifting the burden of proof to the people who claims such-and-such exists. Unlike religion, science is designed to be adaptable when new proofs are provided.

I forget who said it (or where I read it), but I kinda agree. Atheism isn't really a belief system. It's like, is there a word for someone who doesn't believe that Elvis is still alive (other than rational) or that the tooth fairy doesn't exists?

Why are these god-boys insisting that "atheists" prove the non-exsitence of god and if they can't, then god exists ....

Charlie (I stink, therefore I am) Monoxide