SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism

[Calculon]

Wow, so many logical flaws in one thread. Kind of hard to know where to begin.

With the whole God Vs. IPU/FSM/orbiting teacup/Santa Claus/whatever argument, the main problem with it is that it is an example of a weak analogy . Despite the claims of many atheists there are reasons to believe particular religions. You may not personally find them persuasive, and that is fine, but it is untrue to say that there is no reason AT ALL to believe in a particular religion. So for instance to Christians, the testimony of the apostles that Jesus did really rise from the dead is a reason to believe in Christianity. Or to Muslims the creation and beauty of the Koran is a reason to believe in Islam. You may also have your own personal experience which to you confirms your belief. The point note, is not that these are compelling or even good reasons for belief, but that they are reasons which are absent from the IPU et al which makes the analogy fall down. One has reasons (good, bad or otherwise) why they are believed in and the other is constructed so that it does not. The two are simply not comparable.

You can apply the same argument with the same fallacy to anything really. So for instance you can use it to disprove evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Phlogiston is a scientific theory. Therefore if you believe evolution you must also believe in Phlogiston. It doesn’t work because the two are not actually comparable, and the same with God Vs IPU

Secondly the argument is also bad because it doesn’t allow for logical contradiction. Having decided that one belief is true enables you to discount other contradictory beliefs. So if you were to ask for instance, why someone is a Christian and not a Muslim, one answer is that while both are somewhat likely, they both cannot be true and of the two Christianity is more likely. You can even maintain that both are far more likely than atheism. Someone can reject other beliefs not because they are inherently ridiculous, but because they contradict what other things the believe to be true. It simply does not follow that you have to believe in all possible Gods or none at all.

As to whether or not the argument is offensive, I think depends somewhat on the tone of how it is used. As evidenced by people in this thread it has been used to intentionally mock people, so it wouldn’t surprise me if people get offended at it being used. As a theist, personally I am not too offended by people using it, so long as they listen to why I think it is a bad argument and in general are respectful in the way they go about it. It depends on whether I think the person was out to mock me or whether they genuinely thought that it is a good argument.

Calculon.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Calculon

You can apply the same argument with the same fallacy to anything really.

No, actually, if the “anything” has some actual evidence in support of it, evidence that can replicated by different people working independently. In the case of the “five-day” bible example I described above, how could anyone determine which bible is the correct one? There’s no independent test, is there? If someone printed an evolution textbook that said cats were primates, though, this would contradict not only other textbooks, but genetics, fossils and anatomical studies. To be accepted, the cats=primates theory is going to have to explain away this contradiction. What evidence contradicts a five-day creation, aside from a book that claims a six-day creation?

As a theist, personally I am not too offended by people using it, so long as they listen to why I think it is a bad argument and in general are respectful in the way they go about it. It depends on whether I think the person was out to mock me or whether they genuinely thought that it is a good argument.

Well, I’m not convinced by your characterization of the IPU as a bad argument because your post has a number of flaws in it. I don’t think I’m being mocking, though. It’s sometimes hard for me to tell.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Calculon

Wow, so many logical flaws in one thread. Kind of hard to know where to begin.

With the whole God Vs. IPU/FSM/orbiting teacup/Santa Claus/whatever argument, the main problem with it is that it is an example of a weak analogy . Despite the claims of many atheists there are reasons to believe particular religions. You may not personally find them persuasive, and that is fine, but it is untrue to say that there is no reason AT ALL to believe in a particular religion.

That’s not the way the argument works. The comparison works because both hypotheses have about the same amount of evidence backing them up. If you think you have good reasons to prefer one or the other, show the evidence.

So for instance to Christians, the testimony of the apostles that Jesus did really rise from the dead is a reason to believe in Christianity. Or to Muslims the creation and beauty of the Koran is a reason to believe in Islam. You may also have your own personal experience which to you confirms your belief. The point note, is not that these are compelling or even good reasons for belief, but that they are reasons which are absent from the IPU et al which makes the analogy fall down.

You may not believe anyone claiming that the spaghetti monster exists, and I don’t think there are many people who would, but the argument is about about evidence, claims alone aren’t good enough.

One has reasons (good, bad or otherwise) why they are believed in and the other is constructed so that it does not. The two are simply not comparable.

Of course I claim both are constructed and do not in fact exist. This puts the burden on the one claiming any such entity exists. You may not like it, but you can’t really have a debate about the existence of anything otherwise. See the long and tedious debate above.

You can apply the same argument with the same fallacy to anything really. So for instance you can use it to disprove evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Phlogiston is a scientific theory. Therefore if you believe evolution you must also believe in Phlogiston. It doesn’t work because the two are not actually comparable, and the same with God Vs IPU

Phlogiston theory is falsifiable and falsified (as you can see from that page you linked) in other words it does not match our current evidence of how the universe works. Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified again given our current evidence. It also has a nice lot of evidence to back it up (in other words, it’s not just an empty claim that doesn’t mean much).

Now you come up with an evidence-based argument why the FSM is not comparable to the christian god.

Secondly the argument is also bad because it doesn’t allow for logical contradiction. Having decided that one belief is true enables you to discount other contradictory beliefs. So if you were to ask for instance, why someone is a Christian and not a Muslim, one answer is that while both are somewhat likely, they both cannot be true and of the two Christianity is more likely. You can even maintain that both are far more likely than atheism. Someone can reject other beliefs not because they are inherently ridiculous, but because they contradict what other things the believe to be true. It simply does not follow that you have to believe in all possible Gods or none at all.

You can’t DECIDE something is true. Either something is provably true (and very few things are), or it’s the most likely given the evidence and the other possibilities are less likely. Strictly speaking the existence of entities in the universe is not something that can be proven at all, so they must be given probabilities. Based on evidence.

As to whether or not the argument is offensive, I think depends somewhat on the tone of how it is used. As evidenced by people in this thread it has been used to intentionally mock people, so it wouldn’t surprise me if people get offended at it being used. As a theist, personally I am not too offended by people using it, so long as they listen to why I think it is a bad argument and in general are respectful in the way they go about it. It depends on whether I think the person was out to mock me or whether they genuinely thought that it is a good argument.

Calculon.

If I’m honest I am conflicted about this - on the one hand I like these debates and want them to go on a long time without degenerating in a shouting match, on the other hand I really think some of the religious thinking in the world is only worthy of ridicule.

[Calculon]

@Bryan Ekers

No, actually, if the “anything” has some actual evidence in support of it, evidence that can replicated by different people working independently. In the case of the “five-day” bible example I described above, how could anyone determine which bible is the correct one? There’s no independent test, is there? If someone printed an evolution textbook that said cats were primates, though, this would contradict not only other textbooks, but genetics, fossils and anatomical studies. To be accepted, the cats=primates theory is going to have to explain away this contradiction. What evidence contradicts a five-day creation, aside from a book that claims a six-day creation?

OK, there are two main problems with the ‘different bible’ analogy

1. On a fundamental level the past is not something that can be explored by the scientific method. The past, having happened, cannot have experiments performed on it to determine it’s nature. We can infer from what is now what did happen, so for instance through archaeology, or looking at various written accounts. However these are not really experiments in the proper sense of the word.

So for instance, what if I made up two history books, one that said the Norman invasion of England at the Battle of Hastings happened on the 14th of October 1066, and other that said it happened on the 15th of October, 1066. What repeatable, verifiable experiment would you conduct to determine which was the right date?

2. In the theory of Young Earth Creationism, so long as God gets all of his work done by the time he rests, there is little consequence between God resting on the 6th or the 7th day. There are many more important details that you could change that would be easily testable by the YEC scientists, such as the age of the earth, (say 7,000 vs 6,000). To these sort of changes YEC would have ‘answers’ that could help you to determine the real from the fake*.

In contrast with your Mercuy example, changing the number of electrons of a mercury atoms has some very obvious and easy to test consequences, such as changing the spin state of mercury atoms, ect. To be totally comparable you would need to compare two things with wide ranging effects, not something like the say in which God rested which, from a “mechanism of creation” point of view is fairly unimportant

@Bryan Ekers

Well, I’m not convinced by your characterization of the IPU as a bad argument because your post has a number of flaws in it.

Care to say what you think they are?

Calculon

• Note, I am NOT a YEC. There is however groups of people working on scientific theories that confirm YEC. You many think, as I do, that these people are wasting their time, and their theories are incorrect. The point though is that there is a body of literature that works towards explaining YEC, so it is NOT a case of ‘no evidence whatsoever’. YEC believe that their posiition is backed by evidence. Whether or not that evidence is correct is another matter.

[Calculon]

@Superfluous Parentheses

That’s not the way the argument works. The comparison works because both hypotheses have about the same amount of evidence backing them up. If you think you have good reasons to prefer one or the other, show the evidence.

You may not believe anyone claiming that the spaghetti monster exists, and I don’t think there are many people who would, but the argument is about about evidence, claims alone aren’t good enough.

Of course I claim both are constructed and do not in fact exist. This puts the burden on the one claiming any such entity exists. You may not like it, but you can’t really have a debate about the existence of anything otherwise. See the long and tedious debate above.

Phlogiston theory is falsifiable and falsified (as you can see from that page you linked) in other words it does not match our current evidence of how the universe works. Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified again given our current evidence. It also has a nice lot of evidence to back it up (in other words, it’s not just an empty claim that doesn’t mean much).

Now you come up with an evidence-based argument why the FSM is not comparable to the christian god.

You can’t DECIDE something is true. Either something is provably true (and very few things are), or it’s the most likely given the evidence and the other possibilities are less likely. Strictly speaking the existence of entities in the universe is not something that can be proven at all, so they must be given probabilities. Based on evidence.

If I’m honest I am conflicted about this - on the one hand I like these debates and want them to go on a long time without degenerating in a shouting match, on the other hand I really think some of the religious thinking in the world is only worthy of ridicule.

No-one believes ONLY what they believe can be formally proved to be true. If you want to be rigourous about it you can’t prove anything to be true in that way because fundamentally there is no proof that our senses connect to the reality of the world around us. It is impossible to operate in the world when you require that all things be formally proven before you accept them.

In the real world people believe things on the basis of probabilities. That is the more likely something is to be true, the more we believe in it. In the sense in which we decide that something is likely enough to be true, then we decide that the statement is true.

This is precisely how the scientific method works. The scientific method does not prove theories. It works by showing through contradiction with experiment which theories are false, and then assumes that whatever agrees with experiment is true. If you demand that things must be formally proved before you accept them then you must jetison all of science as well.

I also don’t think you get my objection to the IPU argument. My point is not that the claims made by religious people are true, compelling, reasonable, ect. What I am saying is that you are comparing one belief system for which various evidences of varying qualities can be offered to one which is created such that no evidence exists. Just the sheer fact that they are two ideas (like evolution and phlogiston) do not inherently make them comparable.

[Czarcasm]

@Calculon

What I am saying is that you are comparing one belief system for which various evidences of varying qualities can be offered to one which is created such that no evidence exists.

And that evidence would be…?

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Calculon

I also don’t think you get my objection to the IPU argument. My point is not that the claims made by religious people are true, compelling, reasonable, ect. What I am saying is that you are comparing one belief system for which various evidences of varying qualities can be offered to one which is created such that no evidence exists. Just the sheer fact that they are two ideas (like evolution and phlogiston) do not inherently make them comparable.

I think you’re misunderstanding my argument. There is no real evidence for either*. Since you clearly belief there is evidence for one and not the other, please provide that evidence.

• Stated as politely and firmly as I can to make the point clear.

[Calculon]

@Czarcasm

And that evidence would be…?

Depends on the form of theism and the believer in question. May be historical testimony, may be personal experience, may be some sort of philosophical argument. The point is though that it is not a case of ‘no evidence’. The comparison between God and the IPU is valid if you can show that whatever evidence the believer presents is necessarily false. This, however is a hard task for a lot different reasons. For instance if someone believes in God because they believe God revealed themselves to them, then it is nigh on impossible to necessarily disprove something like that.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

@Superfluous Parentheses

I think you’re misunderstanding my argument. There is no real evidence for either*. Since you clearly belief there is evidence for one and not the other, please provide that evidence.

• Stated as politely and firmly as I can to make the point clear.

So you believe that every religious person throughout space and time believes in God for no reason whatsoever? That every one of them wakes up one day and says “I now believe God exists for no reason!!!”

My point is not that the evidences are necessarily true, but simply poeple believe rightly or wrongly, that their beliefs are justified. Since the comparison inherently relies on all evidences for the existence of God are false, (as in the statement, there is as much evidence for God as the IPU) unless this can be demonstarted to be true, then the comparison is invalid.

Calculon.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Calculon

Care to say what you think they are?

I think I named a couple already, but in detail:

Despite the claims of many atheists there are reasons to believe particular religions. You may not personally find them persuasive, and that is fine, but it is untrue to say that there is no reason AT ALL to believe in a particular religion. So for instance to Christians, the testimony of the apostles that Jesus did really rise from the dead is a reason to believe in Christianity. Or to Muslims the creation and beauty of the Koran is a reason to believe in Islam.

One major problem with this is that generally adults aren’t making decisions to believe certain religions based on reasons they find compelling. Some do, I gather, but the vast majority follow the traditions of their parents, i.e. because they’ve been indoctrinated, not convinced. If the decision of what religion to follow was as individual as you imply, wouldn’t it be essentially random across a population and across generations?

You may also have your own personal experience which to you confirms your belief. The point note, is not that these are compelling or even good reasons for belief, but that they are reasons which are absent from the IPU et al which makes the analogy fall down. One has reasons (good, bad or otherwise) why they are believed in and the other is constructed so that it does not. The two are simply not comparable.

I don’t know what reasons you’re describing, but doesn’t the “personal experience” depend on social context? A man in Ancient Greece having an epiphany might assume it came from Zeus because he’s been familiar with the tradition of Zeus since childhood. A woman in Medieval Japan has a profound personal experience and attributes it to Amaterasu, reflecting her society’s traditions. A late-20th-century man rids himself of a Thetan and feels he’s won a victory over Xenu, not a tradition he was raised with but did embrace as an adult. By the standard you describe, is this latter experience more profound than the first two?

You can apply the same argument with the same fallacy to anything really. So for instance you can use it to disprove evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. Phlogiston is a scientific theory. Therefore if you believe evolution you must also believe in Phlogiston. It doesn’t work because the two are not actually comparable, and the same with God Vs IPU

This doesn’t follow at all. If science is so readily dismissible, how do you think your computer works? Photoelectric effect, piezoelectric effect, chemical engineering, solid state theory… or spirits? What if anything is the difference between them? Deprived of the first four, can you make a spirit-box that accomplishes the same feat?

Secondly the argument is also bad because it doesn’t allow for logical contradiction.

I don’t understand - wouldn’t tolerance for contradiction be a sign of a bad theory?

Having decided that one belief is true enables you to discount other contradictory beliefs. So if you were to ask for instance, why someone is a Christian and not a Muslim, one answer is that while both are somewhat likely, they both cannot be true and of the two Christianity is more likely.

It is? Based on what?

You can even maintain that both are far more likely than atheism.

They are? Based on what?

Someone can reject other beliefs not because they are inherently ridiculous, but because they contradict what other things the believe to be true. It simply does not follow that you have to believe in all possible Gods or none at all.

Well, nobody has to believe in anything and nobody has to believe in nothing. The main reason, I find, to argue aggressively for atheism is not to shatter theists, but to limit their influence over fields where theism has no place, such as science education, law and government policy. The fact that one would fight against something not on the basis of evidence but because it contradicted an arbitrary belief (itself lacking in evidence) is an excellent reason to not let theism be your guide - it can lead to really really bad decisions.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Calculon

So you believe that every religious person throughout space and time believes in God for no reason whatsoever? That every one of them wakes up one day and says “I now believe God exists for no reason!!!”

No, I think they have the wrong reasons to believe in whatever they believe in. I would prefer it if people in this thread don’t try to hide behind hypothetical believers that should be appeased. I’m trying to explain my (non)belief system as clearly as I can, and I’d appreciate it if you did the same.

My point is not that the evidences are necessarily true, but simply poeple believe rightly or wrongly, that their beliefs are justified. Since the comparison inherently relies on all evidences for the existence of God are false, (as in the statement, there is as much evidence for God as the IPU) unless this can be demonstarted to be true, then the comparison is invalid.

I don’t get this part. You appear to claim that there is more evidence for God (and I’d like a short explanation of which God we’re currently talking about). What evidence are you talking about? I would really like to know. Just to make it clear: I’m not asking about hypothetical evidence provided by hypothetical believers who may have the answers to Life, the Universe and Everything for all we can’t prove.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Calculon

So you believe that every religious person throughout space and time believes in God for no reason whatsoever? That every one of them wakes up one day and says “I now believe God exists for no reason!!!”

If I may, I suspect the vast majority believe in God if their parents told them to. And those who believe in Buddhism do so because of their parents. Same for Shinto and pretty much any religion you can name, including numerous variations on the Western monotheistic “God” tradition.

There’s no point making up stuff he didn’t say or imply.

[Calculon]

@Bryan Ekers

I think I named a couple already, but in detail:

One major problem with this is that generally adults aren’t making decisions to believe certain religions based on reasons they find compelling. Some do, I gather, but the vast majority follow the traditions of their parents, i.e. because they’ve been indoctrinated, not convinced. If the decision of what religion to follow was as individual as you imply, wouldn’t it be essentially random across a population and across generations?

The main problem though is as you yourself state, it is not universal. In fact I would question if it is even common at all. I think a natural part of growing up is questioning the beliefs of your parents. Sometimes people accept them, sometimes not. I know of plenty of people who have accepted Christianity against the beliefs of their parents, William J. Murray being one high profile example. The other problem is that is says nothing about how various religious traditions get started in the first place. “Because their parents were Christians” is not an answer to how Christianity spread across the Roman world.

@Bryan Ekers

I don’t know what reasons you’re describing, but doesn’t the “personal experience” depend on social context? A man in Ancient Greece having an epiphany might assume it came from Zeus because he’s been familiar with the tradition of Zeus since childhood. A woman in Medieval Japan has a profound personal experience and attributes it to Amaterasu, reflecting her society’s traditions. A late-20th-century man rids himself of a Thetan and feels he’s won a victory over Xenu, not a tradition he was raised with but did embrace as an adult. By the standard you describe, is this latter experience more profound than the first two?

My point is not to say which ones are true and which are false. Indeed i acknowledge that people can be mistaken about experiences they have. My point though is that regardless these people feel their belief is justified, and therefore if you want to compare their belief with something that is completely unjustified, you have to conclusively show why their belief is also completely unjustified.

@Bryan Ekers

This doesn’t follow at all. If science is so readily dismissible, how do you think your computer works? Photoelectric effect, piezoelectric effect, chemical engineering, solid state theory… or spirits? What if anything is the difference between them? Deprived of the first four, can you make a spirit-box that accomplishes the same feat?

I know that phlogiston isn’t real. My point was that it was a bad comparison. You see that because you believe that one belief (evolution) is justified, and one (phlogiston) is not. If I wanted to compare them I would have to either show that phlogiston is justified, or that evolution is not. The mere fact that they are both two theories does not make them comparable.

In the same way if you want to compare religions, then you have to demonstrate they they both have equally no justification.

@Bryan Ekers

I don’t understand - wouldn’t tolerance for contradiction be a sign of a bad theory?It is? Based on what?They are? Based on what?Well, nobody has to believe in anything and nobody has to believe in nothing. The main reason, I find, to argue aggressively for atheism is not to shatter theists, but to limit their influence over fields where theism has no place, such as science education, law and government policy. The fact that one would fight against something not on the basis of evidence but because it contradicted an arbitrary belief (itself lacking in evidence) is an excellent reason to not let theism be your guide - it can lead to really really bad decisions.

What I mean is that it doesn’t allow for contradiction with an existing religious belief being a reason for rejecting a different religion
The problem with the comparison is that it assumes that the only two possible positions are that someone either accepts all Gods, or they accept none. It is possible that someone accepts one God, and then uses this to discount all others.

It is the same problem with the “atheist with respect to one more God than you” argument that I am too lazy to type out. It assumes that a believer disbelieves all religions accept one because they are obviously false on their own merits, but still accepts one. For many people though this is not the case. It is also possible that you find many religions likely, but one more likely than the others. Since the others cannot also be true you must, in order to accept the first religion discount the others.

So for instance the reason that I am not a Muslim is not because I find Islam inherently ridiculous. I am not a Muslim because I believe it is far more likely that Christianity is true, and if that is the case then Islam must be false.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

@Superfluous Parentheses

No, I think they have the wrong reasons to believe in whatever they believe in. I would prefer it if people in this thread don’t try to hide behind hypothetical believers that should be appeased. I’m trying to explain my (non)belief system as clearly as I can, and I’d appreciate it if you did the same.

So then you acknowledge (as I thought you did) that they did have reasons. OK. Now then if you want to claim that their religion has no evidence to support it, you should show why that evidence is false. Merely stating that the evidence is false doesn’t make it so. That is my point.

I don’t get this part. You appear to claim that there is more evidence for God (and I’d like a short explanation of which God we’re currently talking about). What evidence are you talking about? I would really like to know. Just to make it clear: I’m not asking about hypothetical evidence provided by hypothetical believers who may have the answers to Life, the Universe and Everything for all we can’t prove.

The reason that I have been shying away from providing specific cases is that what I am talking about is a general problem with the argument. It is IMHO obviously false that there are no arguemnts for the existence of God. There obviously various arguments that people believe demonstrates God’s existence. Therefore if you want to argue with somethat that their beliefs in God are as likely as the IPU you need to find out from them what reasons they have for believing in God and then demonstrate that these reasons are baseless.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

Ooops, should have moved the quote tags in the above response

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Calculon

My point though is that regardless these people feel their belief is justified, and therefore if you want to compare their belief with something that is completely unjustified, you have to conclusively show why their belief is also completely unjustified.

I’m getting tired of this game.

If anyone posits the existence of any entity whatever it is - blue bunnies, god, spanners, beer bottles, whatever, the burden is on them to provide evidence of that entity.

You are going out of your way to not provide evidence and put up hypothetical people who believe I-don’t-know-what without even providing evidence for what they believe either.

I put it to you that there is no evidence for anything your hypothetical believers believe as long as it’s supernatural/god-like creatures/aliens/blue bunnies. Now it’s up to you to define what they believe in and what the evidence for that belief is.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Calculon

So then you acknowledge (as I thought you did) that they did have reasons. OK. Now then if you want to claim that their religion has no evidence to support it, you should show why that evidence is false. Merely stating that the evidence is false doesn’t make it so. That is my point.

What evidence? I’m really getting tired of asking this without you giving me a straight answer. Mentally apply this reply to the rest of your post.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

Addendum: reasons are not evidence. For example people during the inquisition had good reasons to be catholic, but as far as I know no more evidence for that belief than now.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Calculon

The main problem though is as you yourself state, it is not universal. In fact I would question if it is even common at all. I think a natural part of growing up is questioning the beliefs of your parents. Sometimes people accept them, sometimes not. I know of plenty of people who have accepted Christianity against the beliefs of their parents, William J. Murray being one high profile example. The other problem is that is says nothing about how various religious traditions get started in the first place. “Because their parents were Christians” is not an answer to how Christianity spread across the Roman world.

Well, of course there are those who become theists in rebellion, but this is just a variation on parental influence. As my limited understanding of the subject suggests, Christianity spread in large part because of Constantine, as paternal an influence as it gets, promoted it and had the armies to enforce it. I’m prepared to be corrected on this, of course.

My point is not to say which ones are true and which are false. Indeed i acknowledge that people can be mistaken about experiences they have. My point though is that regardless these people feel their belief is justified, and therefore if you want to compare their belief with something that is completely unjustified, you have to conclusively show why their belief is also completely unjustified.

How about:

1.A is objectively meaningless.
2.B has no objectively measurable difference from A.
3.Therefore, A is objectively meaningless.

If you can break step 2, please do so.

I know that phlogiston isn’t real. My point was that it was a bad comparison. You see that because you believe that one belief (evolution) is justified, and one (phlogiston) is not. If I wanted to compare them I would have to either show that phlogiston is justified, or that evolution is not. The mere fact that they are both two theories does not make them comparable.

But they are comparable. Each theory requires evidence in support. Evidence is gathered and empirically analyzed. Results are compared. Evolution is a better fit. Evolution, for the moment, wins.

In the same way if you want to compare religions, then you have to demonstrate they they both have equally no justification.

I refer to the transitive logic example above.

So for instance the reason that I am not a Muslim is not because I find Islam inherently ridiculous. I am not a Muslim because I believe it is far more likely that Christianity is true, and if that is the case then Islam must be false.

Well, I’m making certain assumptions here, but I suspect it’s far more likely you accept Christianity and reject Islam because you were born to Christian parents and not Muslim ones.

I could be wrong, of course. I can only hypothesize in the absence of evidence.

[Calculon]

@Superfluous Parentheses

I’m getting tired of this game.

If anyone posits the existence of any entity whatever it is - blue bunnies, god, spanners, beer bottles, whatever, the burden is on them to provide evidence of that entity.

OK, this is another one of the logical flaws that has been bugging me this entire thread. The whole “burden of proof” argument. Put simply in formal logic there is no such thing as a “default position”, “null hypothesis” or anything else of that nature. It is a misunderstaning that seems all to common in these sorts of discussions.

When evaluating an argument, “true” and “false” are not the only possible assessments. It is also possible to decide that the truth value of a statement is “unknown” given the evidence presented. And it is this assessment that should be given to statements if there is no conclusive proof that they are either true or false. To do otherwise will clearly lead you into error.

So for instance, take the statement “there is a mammal that lays eggs”. To the 1780’s European naturalist, there was no evidence that such a creature existed. So if they followed the “burden of proof” argument, then they would conclude that there was no such creature. However there was also no conclusive proof that such a creature did not exist, so it would also be possible to say that the answer was “unknown”.

Later discoveries in Australia later revealed that there was not noe, but two mammals that lay egss, the platypus and the echnida. So in this case following the “burden of proof” argument would lead you to a demonstrably false conclusion. Indeed there were those in England at the time Europeans discovered the platypus that had trouble believing it was not a fraud. Without either proof for or against the existence of egg laying mammals the only answer that is neccessarily right is “unknown”

So when it comes to God, where there is no definitive proof either for or against the existence of God, to say that God must not exist is an abuse of logic. At best we can say that we are unsure as to whether or not God exists, and that either side may be right. We can go beyond that, either to say that we believe that God does or does not exist based on some other non-conclusive arguments, but to do so requires trust in the truthfulness of belief. Or to put it in another way, to say that God exists requires faith, but then so to does the belief that God does not exist. Just like the existence of God is it unproven and possibly unprovable, and therefore reuqires faith to believe.

@Superfluous Parentheses

You are going out of your way to not provide evidence and put up hypothetical people who believe I-don’t-know-what without even providing evidence for what they believe either.

I put it to you that there is no evidence for anything your hypothetical believers believe as long as it’s supernatural/god-like creatures/aliens/blue bunnies. Now it’s up to you to define what they believe in and what the evidence for that belief is.

I am not trying to convince you that God exists I am trying to convince you that the IPU Vs God argument is a bad one, quite independently of God’s existence.

To put it another way the IPU Vs God argument starts off from the position that all reasons for believing in God are necessarily false. If that is not true then the comparison is not valid. The argument is not about listening to what theists have to say, it is about assuming that they are wrong and shouting them down.

So since you insist, if that argument was put to me I would point out that the statement that there is no more proof for Jesus (since my version of theism is Xianity) is false, since there are historically reliable accounts of Jesus performing miralces, most notably being raised from the dead, that are simply not there with the IPU. Other theists may give other answers, and I don’t want to speak for them, just myself.

Calculon