Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Allandavid]

Not at all, but the analogy is weak because there is evidence for a spheroid earth, but there atheists claim is different: *mere* lack of belief, and hence unsupported, ungrounded etc.

And then, what-ya-know as if by magic, it the "default option" or the "most rational position" needing no further debate....? The magic card... almost?

What ever happened to the "no claim made" assertion?

And then the arrows start to fly as with any other debate topic.

See. There is implicit support for this lack of belief. Its arrived at after ruminaiton. I think Anthony Flew compared lacking belief in God to lacking belief in a certain garden. There was no evidence, hence no support for it, although he couldnt rule it out absolutely.

Insofar as hes right, or poterntially right, hes at least making the claim he knows how to play a credible language game with the terms "reasonable" "evidence" "existence" "belief" "support" and probably "parsimony" etc. And so there is some epietsmology and metaphysics going on, not to mention an implicit claim to using logic.

After all, I dont think a weak atheism supporter would say that a lack of belief is logically indefensible. Or is it? Is the the point of claiming "weakness"?

Just like if you mention a flat earth, its probably understood to be understoood to be a witty analogy for outmoded faith i.e any and every aspect of religion has been supplanted by Newton Darwnin and co and their atheist followers. So the analogy only makes sense in the context of a partisan raitonal progress 101, and some knowldege of the history of cosmology etc, and therefore likewise its not mentioned in a contextual vaccuum.

If there is no actual or attainable rational support for "weak atheism" couldnt we therefore automatically conclude the opposite to be the more reasonable position i.e. by reducito ad absurdum, God exists QED? Or at least that non-"lack of belief" of some sort is philosophically superior?

Would you like some dressing on that word salad...?

Don’t like the analogy? Fine...let’s try one closer to home...

I’m going to assume that, like me, you don’t accept the claims made about the gods of the Hindus? How about the Muslim god? The Great Spirit of the Native Americans? The Rainbow Serpent of the indigenous Australians...?

Why not.....are you “naive”...?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That's lots of words to try to get to the idea that we should believe in stuff there's no good reason to believe

Define "good reason".

When has being "philosophically superior" in this way led to a better understanding of the world around us?

Science. But science as a method doesn't prove weak atheism to be universally valid. Science, i.e. natural science, more or less (or absolutely) rules our theistic explanations a priori. Because theyre non-natural.

If you're doing science, then using "God" as a variable in an experiment is impossible, or bad form.

Science only looks at the natural, and it works with regards to the natural, and natural understanding is useful yes. But narrowing ontology down to the natural for all purposes in life doesn't necessarily follow from that utility.

If you only look in cupboard A for medicine etc, that doesn't prove that cupboard B isn't real or doesnt have stock of sorts. "Stock that doesnt work!" you'll likely say, and then insist we have to analyse things via a positivistic method whick narrows down all legitimacy to natural analysis, a priori, as already discussed???

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Let me see if I have this correct. Your position is that because we had to think about theists claims this somehow undermines our position?

Well if you're claiming that its a neutral or a basic stance, without groundwork and presuppositions, then yes. People will say atheism is "default" for instance, and the burden of proof in on believers if they want to make a cliam. But some believers believe a "spiritual world" is evidenced in a non-natural way. They experience the supernatural - most commonly God - as an evident aspect of reality. In that context, a theist can claim that the burden will be met, and is in fact met by a normal approach to life for which natural science isnt the full story, if only you would stop suppressing and repressing religious attitudes the cosmos and taking up a positivistic epistemological stance.

This doesnt mean you have to believe all supernatural claims, of course, just as a naturalist doesn't have to believe all claims about natural processes and reality. The "touchstone" of the supernatural, thats a big issue. Yes, people have varying experinces and beliefs. Yet there is some kind of spiritual "with-world" of sorts, common features to spiritual life that many faiths actually do share...

So there is a chance of post modern metaphysics and epistemology, which rejects scientism as sufficiently adequate.

 

[KCfromNC]

Define "good reason".

Consistent with a process which has a track record of producing accurate data about reality.

Science. But science as a method doesn't prove weak atheism to be universally valid. Science, i.e. natural science, more or less (or absolutely) rules our theistic explanations a priori. Because theyre non-natural.

No, because no one can propose a testable method to determine if these explanations are accurate or not.

Science only looks at the natural, and it works with regards to the natural, and natural understanding is useful yes. But narrowing ontology down to the natural for all purposes in life doesn't necessarily follow from that utility.

I'd be open to other approaches if any actually worked. But the fact that they don't is as good a reason as any to ignore them until they start.

If you only look in cupboard A for medicine etc, that doesn't prove that cupboard B isn't real or doesnt have stock of sorts. "Stock that doesnt work!" you'll likely say, and then insist we have to analyse things via a positivistic method whick narrows down all legitimacy to natural analysis, a priori, as already discussed???

If someone asks you to look in cupboard B for evidence but can't tell you what cupboard B is, where it is located, how big it is, how to open it, what to look for, and so on, then it seems reasonable to ignore it until cupboard B proponents can get their act together.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well if you're claiming that its a neutral or a basic stance, without groundwork and presuppositions, then yes. People will say atheism is "default" for instance, and the burden of proof in on believers if they want to make a cliam. But some believers believe a "spiritual world" is evidenced in a non-natural way. They experience the supernatural - most commonly God - as an evident aspect of reality. In that context, a theist can claim that the burden will be met, and is in fact met by a normal approach to life for which natural science isnt the full story, if only you would stop suppressing and repressing religious attitudes the cosmos and taking up a positivistic epistemological stance.

Others might believe in a super-spiritual world as the explanation for the believer's experiences. Nothing to do with gods, it is all super-gods and super-supernatural beings. In that context, a super-theist can claim that the burden will be met, and is in fact met by a normal approach to life for which the supernatural isnt the full story, if only you would stop suppressing and repressing religious attitudes the cosmos and taking up a supernatural epistemological stance.

[So there is a chance of post modern metaphysics and epistemology, which rejects scientism as sufficiently adequate.

Are you going to explain how, or just assert that it might possibly exist?

 

[Belk]

Well if you're claiming that its a neutral or a basic stance, without groundwork and presuppositions, then yes.

I fail to see how. What is the significant difference between "I have no knowledge of this concept therefore I do not believe it" and "I understand this concept but do not see enough evidence that I believe in it"? Simply understanding a concept does not change the fact that both are about a lack of belief. Simply having heard of a concept does not alter the fact that prior to understanding a concept I did not believe in it.

People will say atheism is "default" for instance, and the burden of proof in on believers if they want to make a cliam. But some believers believe a "spiritual world" is evidenced in a non-natural way. They experience the supernatural - most commonly God - as an evident aspect of reality. In that context, a theist can claim that the burden will be met, and is in fact met by a normal approach to life for which natural science isnt the full story, if only you would stop suppressing and repressing religious attitudes the cosmos and taking up a positivistic epistemological stance.

That does not in any way change that they have the burden of proof for the concept. In fact it seems you explicitly admit this as you go on to state where the evidence can be located so I'm uncertain what you are trying to state here?

This doesnt mean you have to believe all supernatural claims, of course, just as a naturalist doesn't have to believe all claims about natural processes and reality. The "touchstone" of the supernatural, thats a big issue. Yes, people have varying experinces and beliefs. Yet there is some kind of spiritual "with-world" of sorts, common features to spiritual life that many faiths actually do share...

I don't have to believe ANY supernatural claims. All claims of something existing outside of nature are lacking in evidence. There is no way to show any of the claims to be true or false and quit frankly I think they are all due to the various quirks in our brains that are becoming well documented.

So there is a chance of post modern metaphysics and epistemology, which rejects scientism as sufficiently adequate.

There is a chance the universe was sneezed into existence by a giant space goat but I'm not holding my breath awaiting the coming of the great hanky.

Simply because there is a chance of something does not mean we should lend it credence. At least not until we have evidence of it being correct.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

KCfromNC and Belk. The matter of evidence seems crucial to your positions, and you are asking specifically for "hard" empirical data I am presuming. Something testable in a lab, or on weighing scales. I can provide that.

Now you tell me, where is the hard data that only hard data provides good reason to believe.


Where *is* the hard data that my foundational, underived intuintion "God exists" is flawed, or unreliable at least? It can't be done afaik. There isn't any. Therefore scientism is incomplete.

Wittgenstein would maybe have said of such mysticism "whereof we cannot speak, there you ought to remain silent". Language pictures facts, hard facts, and there in are its limits.

But if I have this intuition, and a concept of God based on it, why should a lack of belief be automatically appropriate?


An act of faith had opened up for me? Not scientifically, but phenomenologically.


The possibility of:

A religious life.

Should I really be restricted to putting a stone on the weighing scales, or noting cloud formation in a neutral manner, when looking for an answer? I can see a creation, if I have faith in God. Why is this to be tested in a physics lab?

Please answer:

"Scientism" is the result of which experiment?*

*please provide a reputable journal as a source.

 

[KCfromNC]

KCfromNC and Belk. The matter of evidence seems crucial to your positions

No, the first problem is a coherent definition of and a way to know about the supernatural. One which has been shown to work.

and you are asking specifically for "hard" empirical data I am presuming. Something testable in a lab, or on weighing scales. I can provide that.

Any time you want to start.

Now you tell me, where is the hard data that only hard data provides good reason to believe.

The consistent failure of other options.

But if I have this intuition, and a concept of God based on it, why should a lack of belief be automatically appropriate?

You're welcome to believe that imagination makes stuff real. I wouldn't use that epistemological framework to figure out when to cross the street, though. But for something like religion it seems harmless enough.

"Scientism" is the result of which experiment?*

Who knows? You're the only one talking about scientism here, whatever that might be.

 

[JGG]

Seeing this thread still active is like seeing Betty White on screen. I'm surprised to see both still going.

 

[Belk]

KCfromNC and Belk. The matter of evidence seems crucial to your positions, and you are asking specifically for "hard" empirical data I am presuming. Something testable in a lab, or on weighing scales. I can provide that.

No, I am not asking for that. I'm asking for any data from which one can make a reasonable inference that a god exists. So far I have not seen any data that does not have a more parsimonious explanation.

Now you tell me, where is the hard data that only hard data provides good reason to believe.

I have made no claims that such is the case.

Where *is* the hard data that my foundational, underived intuintion "God exists" is flawed, or unreliable at least?

That would be the complete lack of any data that points to a God.

It can't be done afaik. There isn't any. Therefore scientism is incomplete.

I do not think your conclusion follows from your premise but I don't really care since I have not been discussing "scientism"

Wittgenstein would maybe have said of such mysticism "whereof we cannot speak, there you ought to remain silent".

Goody for Wittgenstein.

Language pictures facts, hard facts, and there in are its limits.

No, language pictures human concepts. There are many concepts we are able to discuss that are not facts.

But if I have this intuition, and a concept of God based on it, why should a lack of belief be automatically appropriate?

Who claimed it was "automatically appropriate"?

An act of faith had opened up for me? Not scientifically, but phenomenologically.


The possibility of:

A religious life.

Should I really be restricted to putting a stone on the weighing scales, or noting cloud formation in a neutral manner, when looking for an answer? I can see a creation, if I have faith in God. Why is this to be tested in a physics lab?

The only way to see if our ideas are true is to test them. If you do not care about the truth of your ideas then don't test them.

Please answer:

"Scientism" is the result of which experiment?*

*please provide a reputable journal as a source.

No clue and I don't care. The only one talking about "scientism" is you.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

KCfromNC a typo, I cant provide hard evidence.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have an idea, the life world of the faithful, lets compare it to "right handedness" and the atheist world view, to "left handedness". I don't mean to be derisory in any way, just use an analogy.

The intuitions of God, unto the faithful provide confirmation without objective evidence. Its like she or he is suddenly dextrous in knowing God.

The "left hand" atheist on the other hand, isn't dextrous like that. He or she experiences a lack of God, and I think that absence of belief - from that starting point - may in fact be a rational perspective.

My point is as a matter of existentialism and phenomenology, the "world" each gathers data from is different.

What is "dextrous" to the believer in that Gods truth is a presence to mind to be related to like any other aspect of reality, the same is "clumsy" to the atheist.

Unbelievers use another "limb" or "hand" so to speak, which has different receptors on it, or at least focuses its receptor neurology in another fashion.

Reminds me of "What its like to be a bat" the famous a Nagel essay.

The usual presumption is that atheists and theists deal with the same "basic neutral data" but I am contesting that presupposition. And hence, if I am right, that may help explain why "lack of belief" is apt to one (in an atheistic world) and inept to another (in a theistic world).

The precognitive, pre-fidistic "humming buzzing confusion" as William James might have put it, cant be accessed. The act of faith, either way, is like a bifurcation point in world formation and it determines the actual conscious "starting point" from which we come to be and form our other beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

KCfromNC a typo, I cant provide hard evidence.

If I said I didn't have hard evidence but despite that I knew your epistemology was wrong, would it make you change your mind? Seems like that's what you're trying to do here with us.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have an idea, the life world of the faithful, lets compare it to "right handedness" and the atheist world view, to "left handedness". I don't mean to be derisory in any way, just use an analogy.

The intuitions of God, unto the faithful provide confirmation without objective evidence. Its like she or he is suddenly dextrous in knowing God.

Right here the analogy fails. We have no way to know who, if anyone, is more dexterous in knowing about the supernatural. That's because despite all the claims to knowing about it, no one can seem to explain how to test that knowledge.

Unbelievers use another "limb" or "hand" so to speak, which has different receptors on it, or at least focuses its receptor neurology in another fashion.

Or they're having the exact same experiences as religious people only they're not confused into thinking that those experiences are evidence of a magical other-worldy realm.

The usual presumption is that atheists and theists deal with the same "basic neutral data" but I am contesting that presupposition. And hence, if I am right

Why would you think you are, and how would we be able to test that assumption?

 

[Ronald]

A play with words. What is your definition of belief? To me, it's an accepted, approved of understanding and possession of an idea(s) that become a part of who you are.
Making the claim that you have no belief in God is like saying you have no understanding, no knowledge of as if you never heard of or was taught anything about God, a total ignorance.
That's not true, you have learned about Jesus, you have some knowledge, may be you don't think they are facts, but you reject that information, reject Him, an historical figure, who existed and btw is God.
So contrary to your claim, you don't receive nor accept, ( you disbelieve) the information/kmowledge that has permeated the world a billion times over, is ingrained in civilization, plastered all over everywhere, practiced, celebrated, and very much a part of life that you cannot escape. This is denial. Its like saying I have no belief that trees exist, when they are all over the place and you've eaten the fruit from them.
Jesus changed the world, people believe in Him.
Just admit that you have a knowledge of God (the God of the Bible) and choose not to accept it, in other words, you disbelieve that God exists. This play with words is some sort of delusional disconnect, an abandonment of resposibility. No, you have responded, negatively over and over. If you never commented, never had a thought about God, never heard about Him, then and only then could your statement be true.
You are without excuse, given what has been revealed to you, visible and invisible in life, attributes of God, his fingerprints are all over the place. God is love, might as well deny that exists. Whatever is good comes from God, you just don't believe it.

You were misinformed what atheist means and also what agnostic means.

As an agnostic I hope I'll not spread misinformation about atheism, so correct me if I'm wrong people.

Atheist: A person that has no belief that God exists. (Quite different than: A person that believes that God does not exist.") Latter is subset of former.

Agnostic: A person that clams we can't know if God exists or not.

 

[Allandavid]

A play with words. What is your definition of belief? To me, it's an accepted, approved of understanding and possession of an idea(s) that become a part of who you are.
Making the claim that you have no belief in God is like saying you have no understanding, no knowledge of as if you never heard of or was taught anything about God, a total ignorance.
That's not true, you have learned about Jesus, you have some knowledge, may be you don't think they are facts, but you reject that information, reject Him, an historical figure, who existed and btw is God.
So contrary to your claim, you don't receive nor accept, ( you disbelieve) the information/kmowledge that has permeated the world a billion times over, is ingrained in civilization, plastered all over everywhere, practiced, celebrated, and very much a part of life that you cannot escape. This is denial. Its like saying I have no belief that trees exist, when they are all over the place and you've eaten the fruit from them.
Jesus changed the world, people believe in Him.
Just admit that you have a knowledge of God (the God of the Bible) and choose not to accept it, in other words, you disbelieve that God exists. This play with words is some sort of delusional disconnect, an abandonment of resposibility. No, you have responded, negatively over and over. If you never commented, never had a thought about God, never heard about Him, then and only then could your statement be true.
You are without excuse, given what has been revealed to you, visible and invisible in life, attributes of God, his fingerprints are all over the place. God is love, might as well deny that exists. Whatever is good comes from God, you just don't believe it.

Oh good grief.....”look at the trees”...?? Really...?

And you are conflating knowledge with belief. I can be exposed to a lot of knowledge about the concept of unicorns, but that knowledge does not oblige me to hold a belief in their existence...

 

[Belk]

I have an idea, the life world of the faithful, lets compare it to "right handedness" and the atheist world view, to "left handedness". I don't mean to be derisory in any way, just use an analogy.

The intuitions of God, unto the faithful provide confirmation without objective evidence. Its like she or he is suddenly dextrous in knowing God.

The "left hand" atheist on the other hand, isn't dextrous like that. He or she experiences a lack of God, and I think that absence of belief - from that starting point - may in fact be a rational perspective.

My point is as a matter of existentialism and phenomenology, the "world" each gathers data from is different.

What is "dextrous" to the believer in that Gods truth is a presence to mind to be related to like any other aspect of reality, the same is "clumsy" to the atheist.

Unbelievers use another "limb" or "hand" so to speak, which has different receptors on it, or at least focuses its receptor neurology in another fashion.

Reminds me of "What its like to be a bat" the famous a Nagel essay.

The usual presumption is that atheists and theists deal with the same "basic neutral data" but I am contesting that presupposition. And hence, if I am right, that may help explain why "lack of belief" is apt to one (in an atheistic world) and inept to another (in a theistic world).

The precognitive, pre-fidistic "humming buzzing confusion" as William James might have put it, cant be accessed. The act of faith, either way, is like a bifurcation point in world formation and it determines the actual conscious "starting point" from which we come to be and form our other beliefs.

Does this same analogy hold true for all believers? Does the Muslim or the Hindu have this same "dextrous in knowing God"?

 

[Ronald]

Oh good grief.....”look at the trees”...?? Really...?

And you are conflating knowledge with belief. I can be exposed to a lot of knowledge about the concept of unicorns, but that knowledge does not oblige me to hold a belief in their existence...

Conflating knowledge? The beginning of knowledge and wisdom is the fear of God.
Grief? Oh boy, its not going to be good.

 

[Par5]

A play with words. What is your definition of belief? To me, it's an accepted, approved of understanding and possession of an idea(s) that become a part of who you are.
Making the claim that you have no belief in God is like saying you have no understanding, no knowledge of as if you never heard of or was taught anything about God, a total ignorance.
That's not true, you have learned about Jesus, you have some knowledge, may be you don't think they are facts, but you reject that information, reject Him, an historical figure, who existed and btw is God.
So contrary to your claim, you don't receive nor accept, ( you disbelieve) the information/kmowledge that has permeated the world a billion times over, is ingrained in civilization, plastered all over everywhere, practiced, celebrated, and very much a part of life that you cannot escape. This is denial. Its like saying I have no belief that trees exist, when they are all over the place and you've eaten the fruit from them.
Jesus changed the world, people believe in Him.
Just admit that you have a knowledge of God (the God of the Bible) and choose not to accept it, in other words, you disbelieve that God exists. This play with words is some sort of delusional disconnect, an abandonment of resposibility. No, you have responded, negatively over and over. If you never commented, never had a thought about God, never heard about Him, then and only then could your statement be true.
You are without excuse, given what has been revealed to you, visible and invisible in life, attributes of God, his fingerprints are all over the place. God is love, might as well deny that exists. Whatever is good comes from God, you just don't believe it.

Just because many people believe something does not necessarily make it true. The only information you or anyone else has about your god, or Jesus, comes from the bible and I have read the bible and as far as I'm concerned the quickest path to atheism is to read that book.
It describes a god that is egotistical and a people killing jealous psychopath. Jesus, if he existed, is like a hippy type character with no visible means of support who travels about telling stories and presumably survives by living off the generosity of others. Then there is all the supernatural stuff attributed to Jesus, like raising the dead, himself coming back from death, walking on water and other such impossibilities.
Rejecting all that is not an abandonment of responsibility. As far as I'm concerned, to believe it the only thing I would be abandoning would be my sense of reason.
My rejection is the rejection of the very knowledge you say leaves me without excuse. The arrogance you display by telling people that they are without excuse simply because they don't believe as you do is just another reason to reject your belief.
And btw, I have no trouble in believing that trees exist. I even have a few in my garden.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If I said I didn't have hard evidence but despite that I knew your epistemology was wrong, would it make you change your mind? Seems like that's what you're trying to do here with us.

No no sorry I'm trying to keep the thread on track, whilst floating a few beliefs for discussion.