Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Tinker Grey]

am much, much happier now than when I was Christian. Also, I'm much more functional as a person, and much more motivated to improve myself.

Agreed.

 

[Jade Margery]

Gabe, I am curious--do you have me set on 'Ignore' or do my posts just have too many words for you? Three posts in (and even your first reply) and you've not addressed any of my points.

 

[rjc34]

And if you define an agnostic as a weak atheist, what then is an atheist but a strong atheist?

No, I'm simply define somebody who calls themselves an agnostic is in fact a weak atheist. The same definition applies to almost everyone who calls themselves 'atheist'.

 

[rjc34]

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

Can I get an example of an 'unhappy atheist'? Statistics show we're happier and have longer marriages than our theist counterparts.

That old canard? When do we get the flying spaghetti monter routine?

No rebuttal? Just a red herring? I expected more.

Wrong. It takes a whole lot of faith in being the follower of the guys that tell you atheism is sensible. Pure faith founded on emotionalism. Pessimism is hardly logic.

I love listening to theists try to describe atheism. You're hilarious

Many "religious people" came from out of the atheist herd mentality to making achoice based on sound reality. Dirt does not look like an accident bumping into other things in the dark making the situation that makes dirt. But alas atheism tells us just that.

Atheism tells you nothing, just as not believing in Santa or leprechauns tells you nothing. It's not a belief, but it's funny when theists claim it is, to try to rationalize their belief as requiring less faith.

= nothing as its cause? Absurdity fashioned into the ancient cult of atheism.

You were funny, but you're almost slipping into the laughable (and not in the good way).

Try making something in a lab by first creating the universe that the making of a lab can be accomplished.

So basically when we say 'we don't yet know' it's just absolutely unacceptable to you and you must therefore insert God? Good logic.

"Faith" as in biblical "faith" is far better defined as trust.

Trust that your church leaders aren't just as misled as you are?

As in trusting that dirt just didn't happen as a long process of nothing interacting with nothing.

Oh the straw men, so beautiful. How they sway in the wind.

To believe something comes from nothing causing it is pure faith-based guesswork. No logic need apply.

And who ever said that 'something' came from 'nothing'? How exactly did you god get there?

Ahh, cliche replacing logic. Been there done that.

Actually watch the videos, and rebut all the points made, then you can be free to make your snarky replies.

 

[Jade Margery]

RJC made a good rebuttal before I could, but if I may elaborate on his points..

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

I'm happy! Genuinely, totally, completely happy. My life is good. People love me, and I love them, and I get to do a job that is interesting and live in a place that is nice and waste my time poking stupid people on the internet.

But I'd have to be stupid myself not to see that there's a lot wrong with the world, and that maybe some complaining needs to be done, and some attention needs to be paid to it.

That old canard? When do we get the flying spaghetti monter routine?

Actually that was a new canard, in response to the hilarious oxymoron "Historical Gospel". The point being that the bible is not a legitimate historical document any more than the Odyssey is. I haven't seen this particular argument anywhere else, so I think I'll name it "Jade's Canard". There, now it's a thing.

Wrong. It takes a whole lot of faith in being the follower of the guys that tell you atheism is sensible. Pure faith founded on emotionalism. Pessimism is hardly logic.

....aaaaand who am I following? I was an atheist before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins or even Darwin. I was an atheist because no one told me to be anything else.

Many "religious people" came from out of the atheist herd mentality to making achoice based on sound reality. Dirt does not look like an accident bumping into other things in the dark making the situation that makes dirt. But alas atheism tells us just that.

Atheism doesn't tell us anything. (See above.)

= nothing as its cause? Absurdity fashioned into the ancient cult of atheism.

We're an ancient cult now...? Okay, what are you smoking and where can I get some?

"Faith" as in biblical "faith" is far better defined as trust. As in trusting that dirt just didn't happen as a long process of nothing interacting with nothing. To believe something comes from nothing causing it is pure faith-based guesswork. No logic need apply.

I never said something came from nothing. I said there wasn't enough evidence to support the idea that something came from *your* god. BIG difference.

Ahh, cliche replacing logic. Been there done that.

Despite the low production values, I must point out that the videos are actually quite good and should correct some misconceptions about atheism and faith. If you watch them, rather than put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la cliche la la la".

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I don't even get the atheists being happy/unhappy angle anyway. Personal, temporary emotional states have no bearing on the factuality of something.

 

[Gabe7]

Gabe, I am curious--do you have me set on 'Ignore' or do my posts just have too many words for you? Three posts in (and even your first reply) and you've not addressed any of my points.

You give me too much credit if you think I actually am inclined to wade through 15 pages of discussion. Right now I simply don't have the time or attention span after the amount of work I do to put food on the table. But since I found this post I'll go look and respond.

Thank you for caring enough to call me out on it.

 

[rjc34]

Despite the low production values, I must point out that the videos are actually quite good and should correct some misconceptions about atheism and faith. If you watch them, rather than put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la cliche la la la".

I love QualiaSoup. First thing I do when anyone clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or misunderstanding of atheism or evolution it's the first place I direct them.

 

[rjc34]

You give me too much credit if you think I actually am inclined to wade through 15 pages of discussion. Right now I simply don't have the time or attention span after the amount of work I do to put food on the table. But since I found this post I'll go look and respond.

If you do anything at least spend a few minutes watching those videos posted in the first reply. They'll straighten out any misconceptions you might have.

 

[Gabe7]

First off, this probably belongs in Philosophy, rather than Ethics and Morality.

They're a few pages late for that.

Secondly, 'historical gospel' is not evidence any more than 'Little Red Riding Hood' is evidence for the existence of speaking, anthropomorphic wolves capable of imitating old women. Without ample physical evidence to back it up, the legitimacy of an old book as a source of truth is laughable. Even if a few parts of a story have a basis in truth, that does not mean the rest of the story does as well. For example, we know that the city of Troy existed, because we have found said city, but it would be foolish to assume that Scylla, Circe, Amazons, Cyclops, Achilles, Ares, and Athena all also existed because they are referenced in the same very, very old story.

They used that old story in part to find the lost city of Troy. As for the Bible, it is a collection of books which seem to hold much accurate historical data. I think the world accepts much of the old testament concerning how people migrated and which kings and pharaohs ruled around what times. Even the great flood of Noah seems to coincide with similar stories in other cultures around that area where it supposedly happened. There has even been physical evidence of a flood there.

Thirdly, it requires no faith to be an atheist. Religious people often seem to have trouble understanding this, and will go so far as to call any kind of assumption 'faith' in order to justify their own beliefs. I assume the sun will come up tomorrow. I assume that unicorns don't exist. I assume that ice cream will be cold, boiling water will be hot, and tides will follow a predictable pattern based on the revolution of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun. I also assume there is no god, because I haven't seen any evidence of one. I assume we have all of these things in common except one, and to single any one of them out and call it a 'faith' is to stretch the meaning of that word until it encompasses any thought or concept and is rendered meaningless.

It requires no faith to be agnostic. To admit you don't know is fine. But to say you believe there is no God is to make a statement of faith.

For more clarification in a ear-caressing english accent, please enjoy the following videos:

YouTube - Lack of belief in gods
YouTube - Putting faith in its place
YouTube - Critical Thinking

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil. Or that a tree can be from anything but the seed it was predestined from. You got me all wrong if you think throwing logic at me will make me scurry away. God makes sense.

 

[Skaloop]

Even the great flood of Noah seems to coincide with similar stories in other cultures around that area where it supposedly happened. There has even been physical evidence of a flood there.

A global flood? No. There's no evidence of that anywhere.

 

[Jade Margery]

They used that old story in part to find the lost city of Troy. As for the Bible, it is a collection of books which seem to hold much accurate historical data. I think the world accepts much of the old testament concerning how people migrated and which kings and pharaohs ruled around what times. Even the great flood of Noah seems to coincide with similar stories in other cultures around that area where it supposedly happened. There has even been physical evidence of a flood there.

Didn't the great flood "supposedly happen" all over the world?

But not to get side tracked. Just because a story includes a historical reference, doesn't mean that it's historically accurate. I could someday tell my grandchildren about the days when George Bush was the president and we used dinosaurs for cheap labor. Just because one happened doesn't mean the other happened too.

And it it totally natural to assume that when oral histories and traditions are finally recorded on paper, they will reference some things that actually did happen or some people who did exist. It is telling that all of these things and people in the bible come from the same small part of the world. There is no mention of Asia, where advanced and complex cultures were already in existence by 5000 BC. (When, as some bible scholars have figured, the tower of Babel fell no earlier than 2500 BC. Which is when everyone (according to the Bible) started speaking different languages)

Now, from your phrasing I would guess (but daren't assume) that you are not the kind of christian who holds every word of the bible to be completely and one hundred percent factually true. But if that is the case, you cannot use the 'Historical Gospel' to say your god has more evidence to support its existence than any other god, or to support its existence at all.

It requires no faith to be agnostic. To admit you don't know is fine. But to say you believe there is no God is to make a statement of faith.

Please watch the first video again, and then point to me where (in any post I have ever made) I said that I believe there is no god.

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil. Or that a tree can from anything but the seed it was predestined from. You got me all wrong if you think throwing logic at me will make me scurry away.

Fun fact! Not all atheists understand or support or even know about the current hypothesis of abiogenisis. I do not need to come to any conclusion about where human beings came from to not believe in your brand of explanation. As for the tree, I don't really know what you're talking about. Of course a seed is going to grow into a specific kind of tree. You don't get apple trees out of acorns. No one is denying that. Dare I say strawman?

God makes sense.

So did the idea of the sun going around the earth. (I mean, you see that every day, clear as can be!)

Just because something makes sense to you, doesn't make it true. You need to be able to either support your claims with evidence, or understand that they cannot be supported and make your peace with that.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Mythology angle.

Why, as a Christian, would you want to argue for the Noah flood story being literal anyway. All you'd really be doing is arguing that the Epic of Gilgamesh is literal. Going to start believing in Tiamat,etc?

 

[jonsun80]

So did the idea of the sun going around the earth. (I mean, you see that every day, clear as can be!)

Just because something makes sense to you, doesn't make it true. You need to be able to either support your claims with evidence, or understand that they cannot be supported and make your peace with that.

many laws of physics make no sense whatsoever. as in, they are totally counter-intuitive.

 

[Gabe7]

Mythology angle.

Why, as a Christian, would you want to argue for the Noah flood story being literal anyway. All you'd really be doing is arguing that the Epic of Gilgamesh is literal. Going to start believing in Tiamat,etc?

When you talk to a child about why they sky is blue most parents do so at a very superficial level. So it was with people long ago who didn't have a decent understanding of the properties of light like we do.

Are stories in the Bible written for people who were educated as much as you are? If they were would they have been passed down to us? You have to use some logic when looking at the way things happened throughout history.

 

[Skaloop]

You have to use some logic when looking at the way things happened throughout history.

Using said logic does not lead to the conclusion of God. It leads the other way.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

When you talk to a child about why they sky is blue most parents do so at a very superficial level. So it was with people long ago who didn't have a decent understanding of the properties of light like we do.

Are stories in the Bible written for people who were educated as much as you are? If they were would they have been passed down to us? You have to use some logic when looking at the way things happened throughout history.

For the most part I was being sarcastic and not super serious...however. The education level of other people wouldn't change that so much of Christian theology is built on older religion. Someone's education changes in the conversation but it doesn't change the proverbial facts.

 

[Skaloop]

When you talk to a child about why they sky is blue most parents do so at a very superficial level.

A superficial level, perhaps, but I'd still tell them the truth. About refraction of certain wavelengths of light. I may simplify it, but I wouldn't tell them some myth about why the sky is blue.

 

[rjc34]

As for the Bible, it is a collection of books which seem to hold much accurate historical data.

Not according to any modern historian. For example there's absolutely no evidence of the exodus.

I think the world accepts much of the old testament concerning how people migrated and which kings and pharaohs ruled around what times.

Argumentum ad populum. And would you be able to cite some sources for the rest of the claim?

Even the great flood of Noah seems to coincide with similar stories in other cultures around that area where it supposedly happened.

Because all ancient cultures built their civilizations near sources of water, and those sources happen to flood quite a bit. It's not divine intervention, it just has to do with anthropology.

There has even been physical evidence of a flood there.

Local naturally occurring floods? Yes. Supernatural global floods? Not even the slightest bit.

It requires no faith to be agnostic.

We don't use the colloquial definitions of terms here. Agnosticism refers to a knowledge claim. One who is agnostic in the context of religion is almost exclusively referring to the definition of 'unknown'. Agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they should be put together to form a more accurate definition of personal position.

To admit you don't know is fine. But to say you believe there is no God is to make a statement of faith.

No, it's not. I do not believe in any gods because nobody claiming to know of any has met their burden of proof. We hold the default position of non-belief and no knowledge claims. What you describe is 'hard atheism' or 'strong atheism' which is mostly used for very specific deities. I hold a strong atheist position against most definitions of the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh. Why? Because the traits most people ascribe to him are logically contradictory and cannot coexist. A real world example would be describing somebody as a 'married bachelor'. We know this cannot exist due to the terms being mutually exclusive and contradictory.

If you use critical thinking, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that human beings came from small chemical reactions in a sludge akin to oil. Or that a tree can be from anything but the seed it was predestined from. You got me all wrong if you think throwing logic at me will make me scurry away. God makes sense.

I love the classic argument from ignorance coupled with a beautiful straw man. You're great.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

Where are you looking, and under what circumstances? Complaints don't necessarily imply that one is unhappy.

While I don't claim to walk around in a state of pure bliss, I count as a happy atheist. I'm positive about life and its potentials, and I'm glad I was born.

Do I have complaints about the world? Sure! I wish it were a freer and more peaceful world. But my happiness isn't dependent on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark