Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[cvanwey]

No proof or evidence for atheism.

The most common or notable definition of 'atheism' is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Your reply suggests a major non sequitur, in the sense that your perceived conclusion does not logically follow.

How might one provide evidence of their lack in belief? Atheism is not a belief system or structure; it is the antithesis.

Now if the atheist states 'there absolutely is no god, and I have proof as to why there is absolutely no god', now the burden of proof challenge has been placed upon such a specific claim.

Think of it like this....

I currently lack a belief in extra terrestrials, even though countless 'eyewitness' testimonial accounts are in existence; even past mass sightings globally. Since I still lack a belief they saw what they said they saw, am (I) required to present my evidence? No. This would be an absurd request. Do such claimed sightings need to justify their position? Yes. It does not mean I state 'there are no extra terrestrials'. It just means I lack evidence or proof of such claims. Hence, I lack belief in such claims.

 

[Holoman]

That facts based on made up assumptions are a lot different than facts based on observation of reality.

You do know that science is full of improbable assumptions don't you? For example, the theory of relativity is based on the assumption the speed of light is constant between any two points in a vacuum.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Multitudes of mankind die because of multiple assumptions..... (unbelief)....

 

[Holoman]

I've never met another solipsist.

But I have to ask - how is it a fact that the external world exists and isn't a product of your mind? How have you proven this to be a fact?



But mathematics is an abstract concept. Numbers and shapes don't actually exist in reality. We only have representations of them.

Shapes don't exist? So maths has never been used to design a building? Maths is built into the fabric of the universe, its laws, its workings. mathematical truths are the only ones proven to 100% accuracy, a bar unobtainable by any scientific theory.

 

[Abraxos]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Shapes don't exist? So maths has never been used to design a building? Maths is built into the fabric of the universe, its laws, its workings. mathematical truths are the only ones proven to 100% accuracy, a bar unobtainable by any scientific theory.

Yet there are some healers , natural godly ones, who (cannot be publicized) obtained 100% healing of some diseases, and over 97% for other diseases, without using any drugs at all..... simply testing as appropriate and correcting what the problem/ cause is.

Then corporations step in, and end up causing worse things instead of helping !
"scientifically"!?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is that true? Just for you or everyone?
You get my point, relative truth is self defeating.

Truth is relative in the sense that there is no neutral, presuppositionless access to the world. Stricly speaking, there are all kinds of sceptical alternatives to scientific realism which are - although strange - valid.

I could be dreaming. I may be in a computer simulation etc. Science may be illusory. These things are not directly testable. So, we have some assumptions about the world we live in - and its the same for religion. There are no direct tests of articles of faith like "God exists" or "there are angels". But we can utilise them.

In this sense, we each have our own truth about reality because The Truth (i.e. which is utterly beyond question) is beyond scope. Human rationality is limited.

So in some sense its a matter of attitude. Attitudes are tested in the trenches, not in the lab.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Feeling something that is attributed to being the holy spirit or some other deity and then claiming that this is evidence isn't really very good evidence, is it?

Do you think that people who feel the presence of Ganesh after they pray counts as evidence that Ganesh is real?

Yes, it counts to them. There being no in the lab proof that it is OR that its not an illusion or a revelation.

I am thinking of epistemological holism, where AFAICT its not isolated beliefs that are tested, but whole models and paradigms of reality. Eg a Hindu perspective. Faiths, theories etc. along with their presuppositions etc. are tested in experience.

Just like a "metaphysical" toothpaste, theres not test for its (e.g. a reliance on Ganesh) reality scientifically speaking, but still it either makes your smile brighter or it doesn't. And that's another form of test. A sign, maybe?

If you reject Ganesh, it will have consequences. I do so, I m a Mulsim. And that has observable consequences too, which count , to me, as signs.

"Indeed, within the heavens and the earth are signs (ayat) for the believers." (Qur'an 45: 3)

If you can treat phenomenal experience as a *sign* of an independent reality, why cant I?

 

[cvanwey]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

Is a non-stamp collector 'reliant' upon stamp collecting?
Is a non believer in aliens 'reliant' upon aliens?

But I think I may understand your position... Without claims of asserted theism, there becomes no need to state a lack of a belief in such an assertion.

My point is that to ask for evidence for a lack in such beliefs does not logically follow.

 

[Kylie]

Shapes don't exist? So maths has never been used to design a building? Maths is built into the fabric of the universe, its laws, its workings. mathematical truths are the only ones proven to 100% accuracy, a bar unobtainable by any scientific theory.

Very well. Please show me a 3.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, it counts to them. There being no in the lab proof that it is OR that its not an illusion or a revelation.

First, if it only applies to them, how can it be representative of anything in the universe other than them?

Secondly, if you agree that the religious experiences of other people can't be proven to NOT be something from God, why are you not considering that maybe they have it right and you do not?

I am thinking of epistemological holism, where AFAICT its not isolated beliefs that are tested, but whole models and paradigms of reality. Eg a Hindu perspective. Faiths, theories etc. along with their presuppositions etc. are tested in experience.

Just like a "metaphysical" toothpaste, theres not test for its (e.g. a reliance on Ganesh) reality scientifically speaking, but still it either makes your smile brighter or it doesn't. And that's another form of test. A sign, maybe?

How happy it makes you is not a good way to tell if something is true. Lots of people have been comforted by lies.

If you reject Ganesh, it will have consequences. I do so, I m a Mulsim. And that has observable consequences too, which count , to me, as signs.

And are these positive or negative consequences? Are these consequences caused by Ganesh? If so, why do you not believe?

"Indeed, within the heavens and the earth are signs (ayat) for the believers." (Qur'an 45: 3)

There's nothing in that book that I can see to suggest that by signs it means "things that will happen to you as a result of not believing in the deities of other religions."

If you can treat phenomenal experience as a *sign* of an independent reality, why cant I?

Sure, go ahead. But if you want your evidence and signs to be convincing, you'd better make sure this phenomenon can be checked.

 

[Holoman]

Very well. Please show me a 3.

I can show you $3, 3 apples, 3 people. It sounds like you arguing for empiricism but haven't articulated. That's a self defeating philosophy

 

[KCfromNC]

You do know that science is full of improbable assumptions don't you?

Nope, sure don't.

For example, the theory of relativity is based on the assumption the speed of light is constant between any two points in a vacuum.

Speed between two points? Speed is a property of lengths? Since when?

 

[Ken-1122]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

Why does that make it illogical?

 

[Kylie]

I can show you $3, 3 apples, 3 people. It sounds like you arguing for empiricism but haven't articulated. That's a self defeating philosophy

Three dollars is not a three. It is a collection of dollars. Likewise, showing me three apples is not showing me three. It is showing me a representation of three, using apples.

The number three is an abstract concept.

 

[Kylie]

Apparently atheism is reliant on theism. Therefore there is no atheism if there is no theism.

Interesting how illogical atheism is.

Apparently, it's also illogical to disbelieve in little pixies that live in your coffee cup unless there were actually such pixies.

So the fact that you don't believe in the coffee cup pixies means that coffee cup pixies exist.

 

[Belk]

Math and logic are abstract concepts that do not describe things that exist in reality.

Math very much describes things that exist in reality.

And I don't think that religion has ever provided a reliable way to learn about our universe.

While I agree that science is the most accurate method we have there have been other tools used in the past. Just like science we slowly become more and more accurate over time.

 

[Belk]

Nope, sure don't.



Speed between two points? Speed is a property of lengths? Since when?

Since forever? Speed is distance over time.

 

[Kylie]

Math very much describes things that exist in reality.

My point is that numbers don't exist in reality. They are abstract concepts. And mathematics is a language that science uses.