Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Skaloop]

So, you say I made other people sick, because I didn't get my vaccine?

How that is possible, when I myself was not sick?

If you don't get sick, fine. But if you do...

 

[Upisoft]

If you don't get sick, fine. But if you do...

Yeah, if there is no hell, fine. But if there is ...

The Pascal's wager for the vaccines.

Now you can convert officially.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yeah, if there is no hell, fine. But if there is ...

The Pascal's wager for the vaccines.

Now you can convert officially.

Well, diseases for which we have vaccines definitely exist. Hell, well, that's another story...

 

[chris4243]

So, you say I made other people sick, because I didn't get my vaccine?

How that is possible, when I myself was not sick?

Perhaps, but not all germs will make you sick. If you are strong, the disease will hardly get a toehold in your body but can still be spread to others. Many diseases occur asymptomatically in some people but can spread to others. And I'm not saying you make other people sick, just that statistically the odds are that you might make someone sick if you get a disease, and vaccinating will reduce that. You can look at it either way, you make people sick by hosting germs and transmitting them, or you save people from sickness by denying your body as a host to germs (both either statistically or you can hunt down specific cases to study after the fact), depending on whether you want to focus on individual rights or group rights.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, diseases for which we have vaccines definitely exist. Hell, well, that's another story...

Well, me being sick of such diseases exist as much as hell or even maybe less.

 

[Upisoft]

Perhaps, but not all germs will make you sick. If you are strong, the disease will hardly get a toehold in your body but can still be spread to others.

Which can happen also if I'm vaccinated.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, me being sick of such diseases exist as much as hell or even maybe less.

Yea, just wanted to point that out. I'm not hopping on the Let's Bash Upi's Bad Vaccination Choices Bandwagon. Your decisions are yours to make. I'm vaccinated (for pretty much everything, I think) so your choice to be/or not to be vaccinated doesn't really impact me.

ETA: Also, the baby in your avatar pic could possibly be one of the cutest I've ever seen.

 

[chris4243]

Perhaps, but not all germs will make you sick. If you are strong, the disease will hardly get a toehold in your body but can still be spread to others.

Which can happen also if I'm vaccinated.

And if the vaccine is effective, it is less likely to happen. But its a statistical thing and I'm not saying anyone is responsible for that; and even then it could be seen either way (your right to choose to be vaccinated or not vs others's right to not be exposed to germs). And that if you convince others not to be vaccinated because you convinced them that vaccines are dangerous, it affects not just them but other people as well. All I want is for people to realize how vaccination affects others, so they can make informed decisions. [/end of tangent]

 

[Upisoft]

ETA: Also, the baby in your avatar pic could possibly be one of the cutest I've ever seen.

This baby is now almost 5 years old and is as wild as a pack of mad elephants. Half-life of the objects in the house have dropped to average 1 month. I hope I can keep my computer safe, but who knows.

 

[AtheistSeri]

Christains are making the claim that 'God is real' so that have the have to give the prove not the atheist, the atheist just 'someone who denies the existence of god' as the definition goes. We just say we dont beileve in god, there is no claim there. So the christain has to give the evidence not the atheist.

 

[Jade Margery]

*facepalm*

You're seriously comparing a mythological place of punishment with actual, scientifically verified and medically diagnosable diseases that have killed millions of people throughout history?

The only reason you and that cute five year old of yours haven't been exposed to diptheria, polio, measles, and a host of other dangerous diseases is because of the herd immunity built up by the people around you and the generations that have gone past. Pascal's Wager deals with hypotheticals, but diseases and vaccines are real.

"Me being sick of such diseases exist as much as hell or maybe less."

Are you just being contrary to annoy people, or do you really have such a poor grasp of science and statistics?

 

[Hakan101]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

 

[selfinflikted]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

But the vast majority of Atheists make no such claim. Saying "God does not exist" is not the same thing as lacking belief in god(s).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

Atheism does not state "God is not real". Weak atheism is the position wherein a person doesn't state either "God is real" nor "God is not real". Strong atheism is the position wherein a person states "God is not real".

So you have:

Theism: I affirm the statement "God is real", and reject the statement "God is not real"
Strong atheism: I affirm the statement "God is not real", and reject the statement "God is real"
Weak atheism: I reject the statement "God is real", and reject the statement "God is not real".

Thus, atheism in general does not state "God is not real". Of all atheists, only a small minority are strong atheists - the vast majority of atheists are weak atheists.

So, no, atheists don't make the claim "God is not real" - if they did, they'd be the minority of atheists called strong atheists, and the onus of proof would indeed be upon them.

But weak atheists, which make up nearly the entire ranks of atheism, do not make any claim regarding the existence or non-existence of God. They merely, academically, shrug their shoulders and say "We don't know".

 

[CaliforniaSun]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

I think you're missing the point, and a little confused as to what atheism is. One who believes in a god/gods makes the positive claim of existence. Ok, fine. Now you're charged with the task of giving positive evidence. Positive claims require positive proofs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Would you agree so far?

Atheists, OTOH, feel that theists have not met their burden of proof. An atheist doesn't have to 'prove' anything. How would you prove a negative? How would I prove Bigfoot doesn't exist? Either the evidence supports the claim or it doesn't.

 

[Upisoft]

Pascal's Wager deals with hypotheticals, but diseases and vaccines are real.

Diseases and vaccines are real. Me having a contiguous disease is hypothetical. It will become more than hypothesis when I actually get such a disease.

Are you just being contrary to annoy people, or do you really have such a poor grasp of science and statistics?

False dichotomy. As if there are no other options.

 

[Upisoft]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

You got that wrong. Usually theists are those who claim God is real. After all you cannot believe in something and think it is not real in the same time. If you are sane, of course.

 

[Beechwell]

Since I find this endless discussion about who makes what kind of claim rather fruitless, let me, for the sake of discussion, make the positive claim:

I believe that no Gods exist.

Now this is a claim I can't completely prove. Such powerful and evasive beings as Gods cannot be entirely proven or disproven by their very nature.

However, there is imo sufficient evidence to make the existance of Gods (as the objects of human worship) sufficiently unlikely so as for me to be reasonably certain that these Gods do not exist:

1) The multitude of different religions whose whose existance and development is easily explainable within the cultures they exist. Nothing here points to extra-human influence, but to religion being part of cultures, and able to disappear and mutate along with them.

2)We can trace development of religious ideas from ancestor-worship, over deities of nature to homogeneous phanteons and singular deities. Nothing appears completely out of the blue.
In Judaism we can see elements of the old Phoenician phanteon, Sumerian myth Zoroastrism, and maybe even the short period of monotheism in Egypt under Echnaton. Christianity adds Greek and Roman morality and universality (in the mulitlateral Roman empire a universal salvation message makes more sense than one bound to a specific people).

3) The development of religion makes sense in both biological and social evolution. A common faith fosters identification with the community ("my brothers and sisters in faith"), creates a comon ethical ground and enforces an authority structure and common laws endorsed by the common faith.
All these are obviously helpful to a being so dependent on the community as humans are. They were probably indispensable for the creation of the first large civilizations.
(The above also nicely explains the (possible) existance of areas in the brain tha seem to support mystical and religious experience. An actual creatot-God would either make our brain so that we necessarily believe in this particular true God, or neutral to religious experience, so we are indeed completely free to believe or not)

4) Religious concepts only exist within human thought and experience. We don't see anything in nature that relates to our religious concepts. Animals don't follow the ten commandments or the the noble eightfold path. Neither do they recognice any special quality about humans who do. They don't seem to care if Adam and Eve were given dominon over them or not.
Religion and faith always only apply to humans, while the resto of the universe gets by easily without us and out religiom. So why would I assume that the source of religion goes beyond human thought and experience?

5) And no; the assumed need for a first cause outside the universe does not suggest the existance of any creator-God either.
First, causality may be consistent with common sense and the way we experience the universe, but it is not necessarily a fundamental aspect of the universe itself. In fact, many aspects of quantum mechanics seem to defy causality.
So even if the universe has a beginning (which is in no way certain), nothing says it may have appeared spontaneously or caused itself into existance. Any aspects you attribute to God to make him a possible first cause (mainly existance out of time) can more easily be attributed to aspects of the universe that aren't defined by so human attributes as intelligence, love or jealousy.

So in the end I have to return to the default atheist position. Everything about religion can be explained within the confines of humanity, and nothing in the natural world implies a divine creator. Even religious experience can be attributed to certain functions of our brain.
So why on earth would I believe that God(s) is(are) anything but human concepts?
​

 

[briareos]

With that idea I could say Atheists make the claim "God is not real" and Christians are saying we believe in God, there is no claim there. So the Atheist has to give evidence not the Christian. It depends on whether you want to argue or learn.

Other's have already effectivley responded but it is true that Christians typically do not simply state that they only believe in God simply becuase Christianity does not really foster the idea it could infact be wrong. Typically Christians know God exists and they assert that he DOES so Christians do have the burden of proof. Atheists on the other hand while often dogmatically asserting that God DOES NOT EXIST do not actually NEED to assert that in order to be an Atheist, they do not need to believe anything at all actually, they can simply not beleive, an priviledge that Christians are not afforded. So the burden of proof is on the existent belief which is typically the Christians.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Other's have already effectivley responded but it is true that Christians typically do not simply state that they only believe in God simply becuase Christianity does not really foster the idea it could infact be wrong. Typically Christians know God exists and they assert that he DOES so Christians do have the burden of proof. Atheists on the other hand while often dogmatically asserting that God DOES NOT EXIST do not actually NEED to assert that in order to be an Atheist, they do not need to believe anything at all actually, they can simply not beleive, an priviledge that Christians are not afforded. So the burden of proof is on the existent belief which is typically the Christians.