Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Eudaimonist]

Which beliefs? I have several, although none of them are related to atheism.

This^

And as I stated earlier, the universe is my evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[benglobal]

Atheism seems to lack evidence more than Christianity does. Christians have the historical gospel to point towards their truths. What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

Evidence or any belief is born of personal experience. I find the experience of the Atheist point of veiw as equally agreeable as I do the beliver in God. What I find unagreeable is blind faith that someone is right and WILL enforce that veiwpoint. You cannot look at the evidence in any situation of the past and draw a conclusion either way as you are present and that is where your evidence lies, in the present moment. Not sure there are any moral aspects to it.

 

[rjc34]

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

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.

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.

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

/Thread.

(If OP bothers to watch these fantastic videos)

 

[Gabe7]

This^

And as I stated earlier, the universe is my evidence.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Everything is your evidence that there is no creator for everything?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything is your evidence that there is no creator for everything?

No, I meant in that post that everything is my evidence for the full spectrum of my beliefs.

However, yes, it is my belief that there is no evident need for a supernatural creator to explain the universe. Since I see a "creator" as an arbitrary and needless attempt to solve a non-problem, my worldview is "godless" and naturalistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gabe7]

No, I meant in that post that everything is my evidence for the full spectrum of my beliefs.

However, yes, it is my belief that there is no evident need for a supernatural creator to explain the universe. Since I see a "creator" as an arbitrary and needless attempt to solve a non-problem, my worldview is "godless" and naturalistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?' Then you have The Big Bang but where did that come from? Being naturalistic sounds hip but once we get to the edge of where we understand nature to be things get weird. Such as with String Theory. Do you consider those other dimensions, if they exist, as part of nature? Then you have the different rules those dimensions are governed by. I don't believe in magic either but I think there is a lot more to 'it' than meets the eye.

 

[Skaloop]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?' Then you have The Big Bang but where did that come from? Being naturalistic sounds hip but once we get to the edge of where we understand nature to be things get weird. Such as with String Theory. Do you consider those other dimensions, if they exist, as part of nature? Then you have the different rules those dimensions are governed by. I don't believe in magic either but I think there is a lot more to 'it' than meets the eye.

It's no more of a problem than "where did God come from."

The difference is we say we don't know so... we don't know. Theists don't know, but they insert God for no good reason and then try to make that no good reason a good reason.

 

[Woden84]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?' Then you have The Big Bang but where did that come from? Being naturalistic sounds hip but once we get to the edge of where we understand nature to be things get weird.

Exactly, we don't understand where lightning comes from, therefore Zeus and Thor are chucking bolts down at Earth. God of the Gaps has an absolutely horrible track record. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. No need to insert a god into every gap.

 

[Gabe7]

Exactly, we don't understand where lightning comes from, therefore Zeus and Thor are chucking bolts down at Earth. God of the Gaps has an absolutely horrible track record. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. No need to insert a god into every gap.

Its not God of the Gaps. Its God of everything. Living nature is biochemicalmechanical carbon based machinery. If you think that kind of order came from chaos theory alone then I just can't meet you there.

 

[Skaloop]

Its not God of the Gaps. Its God of everything. Living nature is biochemicalmechanical carbon based machinery. If you think that kind of order came from chaos theory alone then I just can't meet you there.

Then we can meet elsewhere, because chaos theory has little, if anything, to do with it.

 

[Woden84]

Its not God of the Gaps. Its God of everything. Living nature is biochemicalmechanical carbon based machinery. If you think that kind of order came from chaos theory alone then I just can't meet you there.

In the last post you seemed to be implying that since we don't know how the Big Bang started that is was perfectly reasonable to assume a god did it. That is the very definition of God of the Gaps.

So order must come from a god? So there's a god that is handcrafting every single snowflake?

 

[Gabe7]

Then we can meet elsewhere, because chaos theory has little, if anything, to do with it.

What theory do you have to explain how simple chemicals colliding resulted in advanced biological organisms? That is where I think many deists place God, and where many others place Darwin.

 

[Skaloop]

What theory do you have to explain how simple chemicals colliding resulted in advanced biological organisms?

Well, basic chemistry for the start, and then the process of evolution.

But you were talking about the big bang, which has nothing to do with either of those.

 

[Woden84]

What theory do you have to explain how simple chemicals colliding resulted in advanced biological organisms? That is where I think many deists place God, and where many others place Darwin.

I was under the impression that there are no theories for that, just hypotheses. Like I said before, "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. If you wish to insert your God there then by all means do so, but be aware you're in the same boat as the people that said Thor is the cause of lightning, Poseiden is the cause of waves and storms at sea, and Vulcan is the cause of volcanoes etc.

 

[chris4243]

Atheism seems to lack evidence more than Christianity does. Christians have the historical gospel to point towards their truths. What do atheists have other than a blind faith that they are right? Is such blind faith morally similar to Christianity but with less evidence in support of it?

I think those who claim that there is definitely no god are a very small minority among atheists. Most atheists simply claim there is little or no evidence for a god, and that in such case their default position is that such entity is treated as not existing.

 

[chris4243]

What is the definition of an atheist?

To believe there is no God requires faith. Without evidence that faith is akin to the blind faith many Christians have. If you said you were agnostic then you would be on firmer ground as far as evidence goes. But to say there is no God when you have no evidence of such suggests faith. Faith without proof.

If you take your position as default without any evidence then you are basically doing what Christians do when they say its obvious that God is real.

This depends on which definitions you are using. Using the common definitions, it takes more faith to be agnostic than atheist. This is because properly agnosticism is not simply claiming ignorance as to the existence or not of gods, but that that question is unanswerable; as such they do make a claim. Whereas the atheist, someone who is not a theist, makes no claims at all, not the claim that there is no god and not the claim that the question is unanswerable. Perhaps it could be argued that they do make a claim, that to the best of their knowledge the evidence for a god is insufficient. (Compare for example to someone who is not convinced that cows exist.)

 

[rjc34]

This depends on which definitions you are using. Using the common definitions, it takes more faith to be agnostic than atheist. This is because properly agnosticism is not simply claiming ignorance as to the existence or not of gods, but that that question is unanswerable; as such they do make a claim. Whereas the atheist, someone who is not a theist, makes no claims at all, not the claim that there is no god and not the claim that the question is unanswerable. Perhaps it could be argued that they do make a claim, that to the best of their knowledge the evidence for a god is insufficient. (Compare for example to someone who is not convinced that cows exist.)

I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of agnosticism here... There are two definitions, you're thinking of the 'unknowable' definition, but there's also the more common (and applicable to this situation) 'unknown' definition.

What you describe as an atheist is a 'weak atheist' or 'agnostic atheist'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What theory do you have to explain how simple chemicals colliding resulted in advanced biological organisms? That is where I think many deists place God, and where many others place Darwin.

Darwin died before any real steps could be made in theories of abiogenesis, but yes, that's the established science on the subject: the abiogenesis in prebiotic Earth of simple self-replicating monomer-filled micelles, which gives rise to evolution by natural selection.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of agnosticism here... There are two definitions, you're thinking of the 'unknowable' definition, but there's also the more common (and applicable to this situation) 'unknown' definition.

I definitely am one with the belief that gods are unknowable. I admit it is a belief.

I wonder however how 'unknown' claim works. Do they say "God is unknown to me" or "God is unknown to everyone"?
The second claim is still a belief.

 

[quatona]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?'

Yes, probably - if you work from that premise that everything must "come from" something.
Now, if "God" would solve this problem of infinite regression, you might have a point.