Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[theseoafs]

Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.

Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.

Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.

I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."

Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.

At the intersection of Main Street and Cornell Place in South Park, Colorado, there is a large rock. Or perhaps there isn't. If you ask Jimmy, he'll tell you the rock is there. It's invisible, and he's never heard anybody else talking about it, but he knows it's there. He makes sure not to drive through that particular intersection, because he doesn't want to hit the rock. He doesn't even walk near that intersection, because he's not sure how big the rock is and he doesn't want to stub his toe.

Mark, however, doesn't think the rock is there. The thought has never crossed his mind, because he goes through that intersection daily and has never encountered so much as a small bump.

One day Jimmy met Mark and Jimmy brought up the rock. Mark thought the claim that there was a large rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell was outrageous. Mark contradicted Jimmy's claim, saying that there was no rock at that intersection; Jimmy said he knows the rock is there, so maybe only people who believe in the rock will feel it.

On that day, Jimmy had to provide evidence for his claim, because to endorse something that is outrageous and unprovable requires some evidence. Jimmy takes the long way to work every day because he wants to avoid the rock; surely he has some logical explanation for this. Failing to support this belief with some evidence is at best naivety and at worst insanity.

Mark, however, did not have to provide any evidence for his claim. Not believing in the rock is a statement of no difference. Mark has not yet encountered any evidence that there may be a large, invisible rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell, so it seems unusual to make Mark prove that there is no rock there. Mark does not need to prove there is no invisible rock at the corner because if he did, he would then have to prove that there is no invisible turtle or no invisible can of cream soda, etc. Mark is justified in not believing in a rock he has no reason to believe in. You make these same kinds of judgments every day -- for example, when you walk down the street in your hometown, you are never worried about there being invisible obstacles. With each step forward, you make a judgment about whether something invisible is there -- you take a stance on the invisible obstacle issue. If you did have to rigorously prove the nonexistence of any number of invisible obstacles, life would be extremely difficult. Unlike with belief in the rock, disbelief in the rock without evidence is not a mark of naivety or insanity. However, if Jimmy offered some incontrovertible evidence that the rock did exist, and Mark still ran through that intersection with reckless abandon, the burden of proof would fall to Mark to explain why he is making his claim. This is because his claim contradicts something that has been rigorously proven, and is therefore outrageous.

[jammindude]

It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on.  You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith.  You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever.  There is 0% proof that God exists. 

<snip>

There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true.   There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you.   Fair enough.  I respect your opinion.

I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn.   Plain and simple.   I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.   

Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof.    All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction.   The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance.   Your mileage may vary...more power to you.   I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.     

[jammindude]

Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.

Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.

Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.

I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."

Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.

At the intersection of Main Street and Cornell Place in South Park, Colorado, there is a large rock. Or perhaps there isn't. If you ask Jimmy, he'll tell you the rock is there. It's invisible, and he's never heard anybody else talking about it, but he knows it's there. He makes sure not to drive through that particular intersection, because he doesn't want to hit the rock. He doesn't even walk near that intersection, because he's not sure how big the rock is and he doesn't want to stub his toe.

Mark, however, doesn't think the rock is there. The thought has never crossed his mind, because he goes through that intersection daily and has never encountered so much as a small bump.

One day Jimmy met Mark and Jimmy brought up the rock. Mark thought the claim that there was a large rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell was outrageous. Mark contradicted Jimmy's claim, saying that there was no rock at that intersection; Jimmy said he knows the rock is there, so maybe only people who believe in the rock will feel it.

On that day, Jimmy had to provide evidence for his claim, because to endorse something that is outrageous and unprovable requires some evidence. Jimmy takes the long way to work every day because he wants to avoid the rock; surely he has some logical explanation for this. Failing to support this belief with some evidence is at best naivety and at worst insanity.

Mark, however, did not have to provide any evidence for his claim. Not believing in the rock is a statement of no difference. Mark has not yet encountered any evidence that there may be a large, invisible rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell, so it seems unusual to make Mark prove that there is no rock there. Mark does not need to prove there is no invisible rock at the corner because if he did, he would then have to prove that there is no invisible turtle or no invisible can of cream soda, etc. Mark is justified in not believing in a rock he has no reason to believe in. You make these same kinds of judgments every day -- for example, when you walk down the street in your hometown, you are never worried about there being invisible obstacles. With each step forward, you make a judgment about whether something invisible is there -- you take a stance on the invisible obstacle issue. If you did have to rigorously prove the nonexistence of any number of invisible obstacles, life would be extremely difficult. Unlike with belief in the rock, disbelief in the rock without evidence is not a mark of naivety or insanity. However, if Jimmy offered some incontrovertible evidence that the rock did exist, and Mark still ran through that intersection with reckless abandon, the burden of proof would fall to Mark to explain why he is making his claim. This is because his claim contradicts something that has been rigorously proven, and is therefore outrageous.

This is just another take on Carl Sagan's famous "invisible dragon living my garage" argument.   And I don't buy it at all.   I believe the evidence *IS* there.   The footprints *ARE* in the powder on the floor...   But even when you look at the footprints clear as day, you attribute it to some random act of chance....like the shadow of a face found on the surface of the moon....meaningless. 

In these situations, I'm always reminded of a scripture where God actually spoke from heaven...as in *really actually spoke*....a voice...from heaven...that people heard.    Or did they?     Some heard it plain as day, others said that it had only thundered.     This scripture is the entire argument in a nutshell if you ask me.   I believe with every fiber of my being, that even if God were today speak from heaven....people would deny it and say that it had only thundered.    So there is just no winning.    There is only evidence.   Some people will interpret it one way, and some will interpret it another.

[theseoafs]

It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on.  You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith.  You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever.  There is 0% proof that God exists. 

<snip>

There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true.   There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you.   Fair enough.  I respect your opinion.

I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn.   Plain and simple.   I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.   

Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof.    All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction.   The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance.   Your mileage may vary...more power to you.   I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.   

You're working off the assumption that "proof" and "evidence" are subjective. You're assigning a level of subjectivity to science that simply isn't there.

Evolution is, in the scientific community, more or less fact. I don't think there are any credible scientists who don't believe in evolution at this point (and there are plenty of credible scientists who are religious). This is because of the high level of evidence in favor of evolution; the fossil record lines up, it's logically sound, and genetic mutations happen all the time. The evidence for evolution is objectively strong.

We don't find any objectively strong evidence for the existence of God, however. This is because, at this point, we cross from science to philosophy. Nothing will be objectively and definitively convincing to this end until we find a sheet of paper with God's signature on it. Some people can look at a natural landscape and see God there, but this is neither rigorous nor logically sound.

Also, jammindude, in response to your most recent post, you're taking me out of context again. I'm not even talking about the existence/nonexistence of God/evolution/whatever it is you're talking about here. All my anecdote said was that the burden of proof lies with the believers rather than the nonbelievers, which is the point of this thread anyway.

[jammindude]

It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on.  You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith.  You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever.  There is 0% proof that God exists. 

<snip>

There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true.   There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you.   Fair enough.  I respect your opinion.

I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn.   Plain and simple.   I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.   

Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof.    All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction.   The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance.   Your mileage may vary...more power to you.   I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.   

You're working off the assumption that "proof" and "evidence" are subjective. You're assigning a level of subjectivity to science that simply isn't there.

Evolution is, in the scientific community, more or less fact. I don't think there are any credible scientists who don't believe in evolution at this point (and there are plenty of credible scientists who are religious). This is because of the high level of evidence in favor of evolution; the fossil record lines up, it's logically sound, and genetic mutations happen all the time. The evidence for evolution is objectively strong.

We don't find any objectively strong evidence for the existence of God, however. This is because, at this point, we cross from science to philosophy. Nothing will be objectively and definitively convincing to this end until we find a sheet of paper with God's signature on it. Some people can look at a natural landscape and see God there, but this is neither rigorous nor logically sound.

Also, jammindude, in response to your most recent post, you're taking me out of context again. I'm not even talking about the existence/nonexistence of God/evolution/whatever it is you're talking about here. All my anecdote said was that the burden of proof lies with the believers rather than the nonbelievers, which is the point of this thread anyway.

I could (and have in the past) produced a string of credible references by those in the scientific community who either admit there are problems with the working theory, or just flat out say that the evidence just doesn't support the conclusions outright.   But in my experience, this simply turns into a "my scientist vs. your scientist" argument.    Which comes back to my point.   Both sides have evidence....but which do you choose to believe?   Is the majority *always* right?   I need only to look at the political forum to see an example of how the majority is not always correct.     History bears out a similar pattern.    I'm not saying the minority is ALWAYS right...but I do believe that the majority is *usually* wrong....even among the so called "wise men" of any given age.      I look at the scientific evidence...I look at the pattern of human history...I listen to both sides of the argument by those in the scientific community...some of which are in the majority, and some of which stay in the minority drawing different conclusions.   I listen to both sides of their arguments without pre-judgments....and then I draw an educated conclusion based on my research.   I think everyone should do the same...without automatically assuming that the majority is most definitely in the right.

[Ħ]

There's quite a bit to respond to (gotta get to it later), but I just want to say very quickly that this thread is not about the actual evidence for or against the existence of God. This thread is generally about whether or not saying "X is nonexistent" is a claim that needs to be just as backed up as the claim "X is existent." This thread is specifically about letting X = God.

[El JoNNo]

I think this should be pointed out.

Theism = belief in god(s)
Atheism = lack of belief in god(s)

Niether the theist nor the atheist are making a claim by default. It is only a position of belief not an assertion.

Gnostism = The position of knowledge of (blank)
Agnostism = The position of not knowing (blank)

This is just a claim of a state of knowledge. Neither gnostic or agnostic make sense on there own without theism or atheism. For some reason agnostism has become synonymous with agnostic atheism and atheism has become synonymous with gnostic atheism.

Gnostic theist = Someone who claims to know there is a god
Gnostic atheist = Someone who claims to know there is no god

Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such


So saying that atheists claim there is no god as a blanket statement is false. Some may be making that claim but many are not. Even Richard Dawkins considers himself an agnostic atheist, as he states in the book.

Another example is I am Gnostic atheist with regards to the Christian god and perhaps all other religions but I am an Agnostic atheist to the deist position.

[kirksnosehair]

The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.

Some blanket statements are valid, like this one.  I don't see how anyone can deny this.   There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with faith. 

[El JoNNo]

The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.

Some blanket statements are valid, like this one.  I don't see how anyone can deny this.   There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with faith.

I don't disagree with there being no proof but the blanket statement I mentioned was the position of knowledge of atheists. Also there is plenty wrong with faith, having belief without evidence is a foolish position. It often causes complacency in lack of knowledge which is incredibly  detrimental.

[kirksnosehair]

The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.

Some blanket statements are valid, like this one.  I don't see how anyone can deny this.   There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with faith.

I don't disagree with there being no proof but the blanket statement I mentioned was the position of knowledge of atheists. Also there is plenty wrong with faith, having belief without evidence is a foolish position. It often causes complacency in lack of knowledge which is incredibly  detrimental.

Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times. 

I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.

[7StringedBeast]

I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either.  I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god.  I get it.  But faith can become troublesome at times.  Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.

[El JoNNo]

Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times. 

I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.

I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.

Tim Minchin stated it well

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

[rumborak]

I find the biggest delusion in these kinds of threads is the notion that somehow, after enough arguing, a convincing argument for a God is made. Science and philosophy have looked into this for centuries, and unless you subscribe to one of those convenient conspiracy theories ("they're trying to destroy my religion!"), it's fairly clear it can't be made. We've seen in these kinds of threads over and over that, when pushed to the core issue, the pro-theists rely on some amount of faith. And that's fine. I think it would just be nice if those people were honest to themselves and admit there is a distinct irrational element to their belief.

rumborak

[ehra]

Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times. 

I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.

I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.

Tim Minchin stated it well

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

Convince all of humanity that is being irrational that they're being irrational and should stop being so irrational. Sounds rational.

[jammindude]

I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either.  I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god.  I get it.  But faith can become troublesome at times.  Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.

We completely agree here.   *BLIND* faith in anything is silly, and dangerous.   Faith, even as defined in scripture is not a blind faith...blind faith is a creation of people...not God.

[rumborak]

Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?

rumborak

[jammindude]

Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?

rumborak

In what way?   Because I rely on empirical evidence as opposed to blind faith?   THAT makes me a "cult believer"??   Seems a bit of an odd conclusion...

[7StringedBeast]

There is no empirical evidence that god exists though.

[Adami]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

While I agree with you, this statement alone just created 2-3 pages at least of "But the universe can't have existed by chance" "yes it could" "nuh huh" etc.

[jammindude]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

I disagree.   As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched.  And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity.   But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe.   The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.     


Additional: Adami's right.   It just goes round and round from here.   I don't want to derail the thread.   I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness.   All we have is the empirical evidence.   Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning.    Same evidence....two different conclusions.    Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith.   (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no?  didn't think so)

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

I find the biggest delusion in these kinds of threads is the notion that somehow, after enough arguing, a convincing argument for a God is made. Science and philosophy have looked into this for centuries, and unless you subscribe to one of those convenient conspiracy theories ("they're trying to destroy my religion!"), it's fairly clear it can't be made. We've seen in these kinds of threads over and over that, when pushed to the core issue, the pro-theists rely on some amount of faith. And that's fine. I think it would just be nice if those people were honest to themselves and admit there is a distinct irrational element to their belief.

rumborak

Irrational?  Just because an individual has faith does not make him irrational.  I don't think it's fair to paint those of faith with such a broad brush.  It isn't as if all people of faith are somehow stupid or dense.  Some are, to be sure, but many are not.

[7StringedBeast]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

I disagree.   As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched.  And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity.   But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe.   The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.     


Additional: Adami's right.   It just goes round and round from here.   I don't want to derail the thread.   I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness.   All we have is the empirical evidence.   Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning.    Same evidence....two different conclusions.    Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith.   (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no?  didn't think so)

Ummm.   I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is.  Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses.  You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god?  It doesn't.  Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it.  You see?  There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space.  There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.

[jammindude]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

I disagree.   As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched.  And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity.   But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe.   The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.     


Additional: Adami's right.   It just goes round and round from here.   I don't want to derail the thread.   I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness.   All we have is the empirical evidence.   Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning.    Same evidence....two different conclusions.    Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith.   (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no?  didn't think so)

Ummm.   I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is.  Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses.  You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god?  It doesn't.  Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it.  You see?  There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space.  There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.

And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.  Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven.    We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution.    Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith.   Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.    It requires faith to believe that.   If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you.   I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence.    I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.

[7StringedBeast]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

I disagree.   As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched.  And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity.   But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe.   The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.     


Additional: Adami's right.   It just goes round and round from here.   I don't want to derail the thread.   I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness.   All we have is the empirical evidence.   Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning.    Same evidence....two different conclusions.    Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith.   (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no?  didn't think so)

Ummm.   I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is.  Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses.  You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god?  It doesn't.  Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it.  You see?  There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space.  There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.

And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.  Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven.    We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution.    Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith.   Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.    It requires faith to believe that.   If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you.   I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence.    I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.

So then you do admit then that there is no empirical evidence for the proof of the existence of god?  Just want to make sure that's what you agreed to, because that is what you just said in this post.

Also, there is empirical evidence towards evolution.  Gene mutations and natural selection are all seen in our world and are all part of evolution.  So, yeah there is empirical evidence towards evolution.  That's why it holds water in scientific circles.

[Sigz]

Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation

[GuineaPig]

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

I disagree.   As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched.  And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity.   But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe.   The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.     


Additional: Adami's right.   It just goes round and round from here.   I don't want to derail the thread.   I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness.   All we have is the empirical evidence.   Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning.    Same evidence....two different conclusions.    Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith.   (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no?  didn't think so)

Ummm.   I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is.  Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses.  You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god?  It doesn't.  Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it.  You see?  There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space.  There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.

And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.  Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven.    We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution.    Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith.   Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.    It requires faith to believe that.   If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you.   I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence.    I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.

These are all not true. 

[Ben_Jamin]

I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either.  I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god.  I get it.  But faith can become troublesome at times.  Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.

I'd call them helpless. god gave us freewill therefore our lives are our responsibility not god. We need to live the path and follow the path.

[El JoNNo]

And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.  Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven.    We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution.    Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith.   Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.    It requires faith to believe that.   If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you.   I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence.    I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.

These are all not true. 
[/quote]

It's bullshit like the bold part above that makes me want to disappear from the forum again... ugh

[Ben_Jamin]

Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?

rumborak

I don't know how you got that, He didn't say anything that suggests that. Also Jammindude, What your saying are things I understand

[eric42434224]

I'm not saying the minority is ALWAYS right...but I do believe that the majority is *usually* wrong....even among the so called "wise men" of any given age.     

Doesnt the overwhelming majority believe in god?

[theseoafs]

Well, now we're off-topic, aren't we? I'm sorry for my part in this. I'll step out until we have a thread about this or until we get back on track, but jammindude:

Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation

Make sure to read this.

[Scheavo]

The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.

Wha?

Are you ignorant of the past 2500 years of philosophical and theological thought? In fact, if anyone is in lack of arguments to support their worldview, it would be atheists. That "Problem of Evil" argument hasn't exactly worked wonders, has it?

It really annoys me every time you try and say this.

[the Catfishman]

Especially because nobody is talking about the "Problem of Evil".

[kirksnosehair]

Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times. 

I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.

I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.

Tim Minchin stated it well

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

I agree with all of this, except I just find these kind of discussions are typically friendlier and more productive without the use of pejorative language.

Carry on 

[El JoNNo]

Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times. 

I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.

I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.

Tim Minchin stated it well

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."

I agree with all of this, except I just find these kind of discussions are typically friendlier and more productive without the use of pejorative language.

Carry on 

I see your point. Though saying faith is foolish is very different then saying a person is foolish. Many on this forum I feel are quite intelligent but we all have something foolish about us.