I went to an atheist convention…and a hockey game broke out.
I agree that seeing an angel doesn’t prove the existence of God. But it would demonstrate that my current views on what is real and not real is incorrect.
It would be the equivalent of seeing a flying reindeer. It wouldn’t prove that Santa Claus is real but it would make me rethink my position on the issue.
Ultimately all of us form our beliefs on what we have experienced. My atheism is founded on the preponderence of evidence that I have experienced that there is no supernatural forces controlling the universe. And that’s all I think any atheist can honestly say.
There’s the young earth creationist argument that God created false evidence to indicate the universe is millions of years old and species evolve. That seems improbable to me and I don’t believe it. But can I say that I absolutely know for a fact that it’s not true? Of course not.
So? It is just this sort of thinking that is the problem. Many things we know about now would seem utterly magical and supernatural to a neanderthal. If your way of thinking made sense, showing an iphone to a lost tribesman in deepest Amazon would prove gods exist.
This is all backwards. I think what you are trying to say is that your atheism is founded on the lack of any evidence of supernatural forces controlling the universe. This sort of ass backwardness is where you go wrong, IMHO.
There’s nothing backwards about what I said.
So you have evidence that there are no supernatural forces? I’m intrigued. Do tell.
Actually there is. There can no evidence that gods don’t exist, but there might be evidence that they do exist, if they exist. How can there be a preponderance of no evidence?
Oops, meant this in response to Nemo.
Except for two things: One, we know more about physics than a Neanderthal, so we have a firmer grasp on what’s possible and what isn’t. Two, we could explain the iPhone to the tribesman, even if we have to start with the absolute basics, and he’d understand it given enough time. In short, we could place the iPhone into the framework of reality founded on basic laws of physics. You can’t do that with something that can instantly reverse entropy without adding massive amounts of energy to the relevant system, like, for example, causing a large body of water to split in half by waving a hand around.
How is it backwards? That’s where my atheism comes from, too: There is a complete lack of evidence that anything exists outside of the laws of physics as we know them, meaning that the existence of the supernatural has no foundation in the facts as we know them.
Essentially, the argument is this: A combination of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and general relativity (GR) is so good at predicting everything we observe that there is no room for the supernatural in our predictive models. Therefore, by Occam’s razor, we can conclude the supernatural almost certainly does not exist.
If you wish to disregard Occam’s razor you can postulate anything you want in addition to QED and GR. However, without evidence that can’t be explained via QED and GR and can be explained by your model, nobody else is obligated to take your imaginings seriously.
It is backwards because the claim is that there is a preponderance of no evidence. One cannot have a preponderance of nothing.
If it is - for us - a reason to believe in gods that one discovers that what you formerly thought was impossible is not, then it is for a neanderthal. There is no qualitative difference. You are using the benefit of hindsight to look back at what might shock a neanderthal and say “well an iphone is explicable to me, so it would all ultimately be explicable to a neanderthal even if it did utterly overturn what the neanderthal previously thought, so that wouldn’t be a reason for a neanderthal to conclude there was a god”.
But equally, if there are angels then an angel might say “well my powers are explicable to me, so it would all ultimately be explicable to a 21st century man even if it did utterly overturn what that man previously thought, so that wouldn’t be a reason for such a man to conclude there was a god”.
As to your second point, Boyo Jim has already responded succinctly. I agree with your reasoning, but your reasoning is backward from Little Nemo’s.
Princhester: You’re missing my point. It’s about whether you can explain something so it is founded on the same laws as everything else, not whether you have an idea of what makes it work when you first see it.
The supernatural, by definition, can’t be placed into the same framework as everything else. If you introduce the supernatural to math, you have equations that must say “A = A unless a deity says otherwise” or equivalent. If you introduce it to physics, you no longer have perfectly consistent laws that apply equally to everyone everywhere at all times; you have “Laws apply unless suspended by a deity” or “There are no laws, supernatural beings do everything directly.”
On the other hand, an iPhone is based directly on all kinds of known physical laws, which can be demonstrated by someone with enough time and knowledge.
Boyo Jim: What do you think of Russell’s Teapot?
Russell Case, the drunk pilot in Independence Day? I didn’t know he drank tea – my opinion is that would be an improvement!
Ok, I had to look it up, and I agree 100% with Russell.
I’ve been to Atheist meetings for a local group. Mostly they talk about how to get the message out. Billboards and such. They have a float in the local parade.
A bit of it is as a support group for people who’ve been disowned by their families and loved ones for coming out. There is also philosophical talk and debate of other rational issues. They’ve had science speakers and lecturers.
I’ve never been to a proper convention though, I’d imagine they’d need a larger, skeptic / rational theme in order to get enough grist.
So… how have you not been convinced by “a preponderance of nothing”?
Derleth,
I don’t know what you are arguing. I am arguing language. One person cannot have more nothing than another person’s amount of nothing. I agree that there is no evidence of a god – i think we all agree with that. But the lack of evidence for a god is not the same as being evidence against a god. For there to be a preponderance of evidence, there must actually be evidence, and there is none.
And while I agree with Bertrand Russell’s argument, I don’t see that it has any bearing at all on this point. Unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen any of the 4 of us (You, Princhester. Little Nemo, or me) argue anything like what Russell was arguing against.
Perhaps I’m wrong. Please tell me of what evidence you are aware of that there is not a god.
Firstly, the supernatural is not a valid concept, it is just a rhetorical trick used to avoid the need to deal with the actual. If something actually exists it is not supernatural. Saying something is supernatural is another way of saying it doesn’t exist, while not admitting that.
Secondly, you have moved away from the point. To prove that there is a deity who can change all laws, then you need evidence that he can change all laws. What is that evidence going to be? It’s hard to imagine. An angel just doing something beyond explanation is not going to do it. It just proves the angel can do that. And the angel would probably understand what they are doing so they can explain it, just like the iphone.
Well, reporting back. It was kind of dull, as I was expecting: authors plugging books, people talking about lawsuits (some of which are quite necessary, but some I think merely serve to make us atheists looks like thin-skinned crybabies).
I met a few interesting people at the meals, though, including an Irish priest who has decided he is an atheist and doesn’t quite know what to do about it. “I’ve been telling my congregation about the dodgy bits of the bible, that they don’t usually hear about,” he says, “and they *love *it! The crowds are getting bigger every week, I don’t know what to do!”
Some of the speakers were so dull and long-winded I zoned out and concentrated on things like the hair on the guy two rows up, which was so blonde it was almost pink, and the woman in the paisley shirt who kept putting her arm around the man in the striped shirt, creating a horrible pattern clash. Four of the speakers noted that “I’m an atheist, but that doesn’t mean I eat babies,” which left me hurt on behalf of those of us who *do *eat delicious, delicious babies.
That’s where you raise your hand and say, in a voice as natural as if you were talking about broccoli: “Um, what kind of sauce are we talking about on those babies?”
I thought about going to an agnostic convention, but I just don’t know…
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week.
Somehow, I don’t think a proper atheists convention can be in any place BUT Vegas!
(Sin City and all … )