Atheism Is Not Scientific

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Not_Freddy_Fender

Most skeptics claim they’re atheists.
They do this because they “see no evidence” for the existence of God.
And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be “evidence” for the existence of God.
Is it walking on water? Elimination of all pain and suffering in the world? Allowing everyone to live forever?
Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God.

Good question! You’d first have to define what you mean by “god”, and you’ve stumbled upon the number one paradox when trying to prove the supernatural - you’re appealing to something which, by definition, cannot be supported by physical evidence, which leaves me wondering why you’d believe in it in the first place.

Theism says God DOES exist.
Atheism says God DOES NOT exist.

BZZZZT Wrong. Theism and Atheism deal with belief in a certain claim. Theists accept the claim “a god exists”; Atheists reject that claim. Atheists do not say god does not exist, atheists say, “I reject your claim that a god does not exist”. There is a fundamental difference between claiming that something does not exist and rejecting the claim that something exists.

The only scientific disposition concerning God is Agnosticism: “I don’t know.”

Except that agnosticism and atheism describe two different things. Agnosticism describes knowledge while atheism describes belief. To my knowledge, virtually all atheists are also agnostics - they don’t know that god exists, therefore they don’t believe that god exists.

In order to say something exists, you must provide evidence to that end.
Likewise, in order to say something does not exist, you must know the conditions or circumstances that would have to be in place for that phenomenon to exist and then be able to show — scientifically — how or why such circumstances cannot or do not exist.
But no Atheist is ever able to demonstrate this.
They simply “know”.

No, they don’t. By and large, atheists do not claim that no god exists. They simply reject the claim that he does.

As an analogy, consider Love.
Most people, including skeptics, claim they “love” somebody.
Their spouse, their significant other, their friends, their relatives, their family.
But they cannot prove their love by the scientific method.
They claim love is simply an emotional response common to most people.
That is not scientific, that is anecdotal.
It is purely subjective which is not scientific in any sense of the word.

Except that love can be examined through examining brain activity. Furthermore, I have a damn good reason to believe, say, my girlfriend loves me - she’s stuck with me through thick and thin for almost two years now, she’s put up with a lot of my bullshit, and there’s very little reason for me to believe there’d be any other reason for this other than that she loves me. We cannot examine love directly, but we can look at it indirectly, like gravity.

You may answer that “love” and other emotions are nothing more than chemical reactions within your brain.
But such a disposition is The Matrix: how do you define reality?
If you take it to that level, then EVERY experience/emotion/thought could in fact be being fed to you by some external mechanism which is convincing you of a reality that is in fact not real.

Oh look, you’ve found out that we cannot solve hard solipsism. Give the man a cookie. :rolleyes: Seriously, this is like every stupid cliche in the book.

So why do so many skeptics agree with atheism if it isn’t really scientific?

Because what else are you supposed to be? A theist? No, that’s fundamentally unskeptical. You misunderstand the terms you use.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@The_Second_Stone

Philosophically theists and atheists have the same problem of carrying the burden of proof.

I don’t understand this. What burden of proof do I have as an atheist? (Philosophically or otherwise).
What claim am I making?

[tagos]

@Novelty_Bobble

I don’t understand this. What burden of proof do I have as an atheist? (Philosophically or otherwise).
What claim am I making?

Apparently if you cannot prove there is evidence for the lack of evidence that there is a god, you lose the internet.

Or something.

Good luck with that.

[DataX]

I think post 2 is all that is needed - there is nothing we can/need do if we can’t get an answer to that.

My answer to why I’m an atheist - is the same as posited by post 2 - everyone (well everyone I’ve met and know their feelings about this) - is an atheist about all other religions, but there own.

Another reason - if there was a God - he wouldn’t be so cruel to allow me to continue to respond to posts like these - knowing full well nothing I saw will make any difference.

[Smapti]

@The_Second_Stone

The person who is making the assertion has the burden of proof. Agnostics are the only ones who logically win this argument by default because they don’t know. Philosophically theists and atheists have the same problem of carrying the burden of proof. Atheist arguers would be well advised to shift from a mere philosophical argument to a field of scientific basis to get a leg up among educated people, but a good rhetorician will spot this as question begging.

The proposition is “God exists”.

The null hypothesis - the default answer in absence of any evidence to the contrary - is “God does not exist”.

To disbelieve in the proposition that God exists is not an act of faith. It is capitulation to the default.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@tagos

Apparently if you cannot prove there is evidence for the lack of evidence that there is a god, you lose the internet.

Or something.

Good luck with that.

Well I’m pleased it’s not just me that doesn’t understand their point.

[tagos]

@Novelty_Bobble

Well I’m pleased it’s not just me that doesn’t understand their point.

I think their point can be summed up as:

‘Shut up, shut up, shut up shut up.’

[Novelty_Bobble]

@tagos

I think their point can be summed up as:

‘Shut up, shut up, shut up shut up.’

Ah! theology!

[Chessic_Sense]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Except that agnosticism and atheism describe two different things. Agnosticism describes knowledge while atheism describes belief.

Please, let’s not start with this bullshit again. Both are about what you believe you know.

[Bozuit]

Nobody cares.

And give your return key a fucking rest.

[Kobal2]

@Sr_Siete

We need a better stock answer to these post and run religious posts.

We should start explaining that the definition of Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which means not actively choosing to believe something, which includes what most people considers wrongly that it can only be called agnosticism, which is the “I don’t know” position.

There’s also the Generation X and Millenial trend of atheism, whose core concepts are nuanced and complex but can possibly be adequately summarized as follows :

“Who gives a shit if there’s a god ?”

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Chessic_Sense

Please, let’s not start with this bullshit again. Both are about what you believe you know.

The definition of terms is “Bullshit”? Look, if you define atheism as “the claim that no god exists”, then I’m not an atheist, and neither is Matt Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins, or Thunderf00t. If you want to define agnostic as “someone who doesn’t know whether or not a god exists”, then I’m agnostic. Of course, it’s a mangling of the terms to a degree that is meaningless. The distinction between knowing and believing something is very important!

[crowmanyclouds]

@Kobal2

{…} the Generation X and Millenial trend of atheism {…} :

“Who gives a shit if there’s a god ?”

Stoner Atheism: God, this shit is good!

CMC fnord!

[kayaker]

@Not_Freddy_Fender

Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God.

Juggling a running chainsaw, bowling ball, live cat, and apple; taking occasional bites outa the apple, all while working a ventriloquist dummy with your feet and not moving your lips. Then, re-animation of Freddy Fenders corpse. Hosanna.

[VinylTurnip]

The only other scientific disposition is “I don’t know if I’m Freddy Fender.”

[Jackmannii]

@Not_Freddy_Fender

Most skeptics claim they’re atheists.
They do this because they “see no evidence” for the existence of God.
And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be “evidence” for the existence of God.

I’d settle for a personal appearance and book signing at Barnes & Noble.*

Jackmannii, a.k.a. Not Jerry Lee Lewis.

*Why wasn’t there ever a sequel?

[glee]

@Not_Freddy_Fender

Most skeptics claim they’re atheists.
They do this because they “see no evidence” for the existence of God.
And yet, they never disclose what exactly what they would consider to be “evidence” for the existence of God.
Is it walking on water? Elimination of all pain and suffering in the world? Allowing everyone to live forever?
Seriously, I would like to know exactly what skeptics would consider to be evidence for God.

Ah, the easiest question in the World!

1. Every single person on the planet believes in Gravity.
2. If God exists, all He has to do is respond every time he’s asked for proof (like Gravity does.) :smack:

[buddha_david]

The OP may be correct, in that atheism is just as fundamentally faith-based as theism. However, his premise is based on a fallacy, in which he claims that most skeptics are atheists. That’s not true, in my experience – most skeptics are agnostics, i.e. they believe there’s not enough evidence either way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, OP Fail.

[RTFirefly]

1. Just because there are exactly two possibilities (e.g. there is a God, or there isn’t) doesn’t mean they are equally likely. On Thursday of next week, Scarlett Johansson either will or won’t show up at my door, begging to be my love slave. 50-50 odds? If only!

2. There’s all sorts of notions out there that there is absolutely zero evidence in support of. (E.g. “astrology works.”) The existence of God is far from the only one.

3. The logical thing to do with each such notion isn’t to be an agnostic about it. It’s to disregard the notions backed by no evidence.

There’s no reason for me to be an agnostic about astrology, or about the possibility of Scarlett Johannson showing up at my door next week. There’s no reason for me to even consider the possibility that astrology works, or that I’ll receive such a visit from Scarlett Johansson.

There’s reason for me to not disregard the existence of God, because I’ve had certain experiences that I don’t find particularly explicable aside from that. But it’s not like I can take those experiences out and show them to someone else.

If you haven’t had such an experience, the main reason to not disregard the possibility of God’s existence is tradition - that there’s a long and usually formalized history of people believing in a God, or in multiple gods. But that’s got nothing to do with logic. Logic is on the side of disregarding.

[Zebra]

skeptic = scientist?