Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

La Petite Fleur · 28-02-2012 7:09pm

RichieC wrote: »

It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.

There's nothing grand in the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist. The fact remains, I have yet to see a single convincing argument for the Atheist position. So, if you've got a decent one, post it up.

marienbad · 28-02-2012 7:28pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

There's nothing grand in the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist. The fact remains, I have yet to see a single convincing argument for the Atheist position. So, if you've got a decent one, post it up.

Why would anyone do such a thing ? it is all around you , in science, maths, biology, evolution, etc . If you can't see it or you still need more and so take that ''step'' of faith - good luck to you .

You use an unusual phraseology in your post -'' the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist''- of course it is possible.

But to me the evidence means that it is unlikely. If more evidence becomes available I would revisit the proposition . Can you say the same ?

Zorbas · 28-02-2012 7:45pm

PDN wrote: »

Come, come. Surely you can disagree with me and still remain reasonably truthful?

I never challenged the report. I challenged your failure to read the report properly - and I still do.

I also pointed out that our discussion has never been limited to the Irish Republic. After all, as I alluded to earlier, we were talking about megachurches. I am unaware of any megachurches in the Irish republic.

Then admit your mistake instead of quoting a report and then contradicting it.

You know you are wrong and try to divert from Ireland to the US and the world. You are a poor loser and dont know how to accept your incorrect reading of a report which clearly comes to the conclusion that the religious are not generous. Am not surprised going by the general bad form of those christians on this thread.
The report on charitable giving in Ireland considered that it was "likely that the falling attendances" was the reason for church goers not being generous - no wonder when there are fewer and fewer of them to keep it up!

Why no accept that you are wrong big time and accept that as a moderator you should be the last to support a lost cause.
Will not post again because you ruin this thread with your devisive tactics and general unhappy personna.

La Petite Fleur · 28-02-2012 7:47pm

marienbad wrote: »

You use an unusual phraseology in your post -'' the simple proposition that is possible for an infinite spirit to exist''- of course it is possible.

But to me the evidence means that it is unlikely. If more evidence becomes available I would revisit the proposition . Can you say the same ?

Indeed I would. Now what evidence has atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any to date and I'm most keen to see it presented if you have it.

marienbad wrote: »

Why would anyone do such a thing ? it is all around you , in science, maths, biology, evolution, etc . If you can't see it or you still need more and so take that ''step'' of faith - good luck to you .

I adore science, maths, biology, evolution, etc. but I've never seen any of these disiplines ever present a single convincing argument for atheism (never mind evidence), so I'm most intrested in seeing one if you have it, because if you do, I have no issue in becoming an atheist.

marienbad · 28-02-2012 7:55pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

I adore science, maths, biology, evolution, etc. but I've never seen any of these disiplines ever present an argument for atheism, so I'm most intrested in seeing one if you have it.

Indeed I would. Now what evidence has Atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any to date and I'm most keen to see it presented if you have it.

Do you mean what evidence does atheism have to offer ?? if that is the question the answer is none - why should it ?

Atheism is the result of the process . The evidence is there in science evolution maths geology etc.

Morbert · 28-02-2012 7:57pm

philologos wrote: »

RichieC: The thing is all I've ever seen from your posts is just moaning about Christianity. Nothing you've presented actually gives me a positive reason as to why I should be an atheist rather than follow another religion. Even then, I haven't seen much that would devastate my Christian faith into pieces. Yet, throughout the years, there have been a lot of Christians offering positive reasons for why they believe in Jesus and trust in Him.

It seems a little bit disproportionate. The more and more I go on the less and less satisfied I am in the new-atheist cop out (and it is fairly recent - within the last decade) that the burden is not on them. However, if they want to convince me to become an atheist and reject Christianity, to a certain degree the burden is on you to convince me that God is a fable. Much of the new-atheist argument is simply repeating what they claim ad-infinitum without any positive contribution to the argument. E.G God doesn't exist, God's a fable, God's a delusion, God's like Santa for grown ups. The big question is Why is He any of these things? Answers are forthcoming on those really.

Atheists don't believe God exists because we don't believe there is evidence for his existence, but "burden of proof" is not a rule of logic. Lack of evidence for X does not imply X is false. So you can argue that lack of evidence for God does not necessarily show that God does not exists, or that we are arbitrarily relying on evidence to decide what is true and is not true, or that "there is no evidence for the non-existence of God". But it is ultimately a moot point. I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.

This is why the argument usually revolves around critiquing lines of evidence for God, whether the evidence is scientific, historical, societal or otherwise. A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.

tommy2bad · 28-02-2012 8:00pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Indeed I would, so what evidence has Atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any ?

Sorry but what you're asking for is evidence of nothing. It cant be done. Not logically anyway. We can test if God dose any of the things that are claimed of Him. We can offer alternative explanations. But to prove a negative is impossible.
Everything that theists say God has done can be explained by other means. Well not everything, not salvation, or resurrection. But salvation is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and resurrection, well we have to take the word of people who heard about it for that one.
Anyway an eternal flame spirit is your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you.

La Petite Fleur · 28-02-2012 8:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

Atheism is the result of the process . The evidence is there in science evolution maths geology etc.

Evidence of what ?

La Petite Fleur · 28-02-2012 8:05pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

But to prove a negative is impossible.

First I've heard of that, can you prove this claim please ?

tommy2bad · 28-02-2012 8:06pm

Morbert;
All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.

I don't. I believe without evidence. But then I use believe to mean something different from I believe water is wet ,when talking about God. Come to think of it I use God pretty loosely too.

PDN · 28-02-2012 8:09pm

Zorbas wrote: »

You know you are wrong and try to divert from Ireland to the US and the world.

That is an downright falsehood. I know I am right because, apparently unlike you, I read the report.

You are a poor loser and dont know how to accept your incorrect reading of a report which clearly comes to the conclusion that the religious are not generous. Am not surprised going by the general bad form of those christians on this thread.

Stop throwing a tantrum and read the report. It says religious people are more likely to give to charity, but the size of the gifts do not differ significantly from those of the non-religious givers. What is so difficult to understand about that? It's hardly rocket science.

Why no accept that you are wrong big time and accept that as a moderator you should be the last to support a lost cause.

Just because I'm a moderator does not oblige me to allow an illiterate reading of a report to go unchallenged.

tommy2bad · 28-02-2012 8:12pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

First I've heard of that, can you prove this claim please ?

Back to Russell's teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

ISAW · 28-02-2012 8:12pm

RichieC wrote: »

ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.

You can run away from the issue if you want. It still wont support your claims and wont validate any shell game of "atheist" . time and again we hear atheists say all it means is there is no god or gods and have a go at any belief in supernatural things only to discover that when pressed on their own definition and what relevance it has for society to run away from the actual historical record of any atheist state that ever existed! All of them were a mess and they provided nothing useful good or beneficial to society! And the person I quote frequently on this Fasgnadh - is an agnostic! not alone that but i rarely if ever bring my own beliefs into the issue. I rely on objective arguments logic reason science and scholarship. The same thing the atheists claim to support. But when confronted with the actual published record they turn tail and run. Usually only to reappear some time later posting the same rubbish.

ISAW · 28-02-2012 8:25pm

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists don't believe God exists because we don't believe there is evidence for his existence, but "burden of proof" is not a rule of logic.

As an argument from ignorance it is a logical fallacy

Lack of evidence for X does not imply X is false.

"proving a negative" is a different fallacy to "argument from ignorance"

So you can argue that lack of evidence for God does not necessarily show that God does not exists, or that we are arbitrarily relying on evidence to decide what is true and is not true, or that "there is no evidence for the non-existence of God".

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is a burden of proof fallacy

But it is ultimately a moot point. I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". All Christians I know of believe in God because they believe there is evidence for God.

If they believed "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.

If they believed "You cannot prove that God/Thor/Zeus does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

ISAW · 28-02-2012 8:30pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

First I've heard of that, can you prove this claim please ?

Is absence of evidence of life on Mars evidence of absence of life on mars?

ISAW · 28-02-2012 8:40pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't. I believe without evidence. But then I use believe to mean something different from I believe water is wet ,when talking about God. Come to think of it I use God pretty loosely too.

Not only that but "evidence" may be used to mean different things too. Scientific evidence or formal proof is one thing. But science itself is not sufficient for society. scientists know that.

PDN · 28-02-2012 9:03pm

EWLong wrote: »

Actually I also think your reading is incorrect as the report clearly states that where before you were correct, things have changed and Christians are no longer the most generous group in Ireland.
As a newby I am surprised that there is so much nastiness over this issue and have no wish to cause more upset but its time to cool and read the report which clearly favours Zorbas position as far as I can see.
If I am to be corrected - please do so without rancour as its unseemly and does not make for happy bunnies.

Fair enough. It is important in reading any survey or report to be clear in understanding what is being measured. Unfortunately clarity tends to be the first thing that goes out the window when people google to mine quotes to support a preconceived argument.

The report in question measured two distinct things.
1. How likely people are to give (ie. out of a given demographic what percentage of that group gives to charity?)
2. How large were the donations (ie. for those who did give, how did the size of their donations compare to other groups?)

In regard to the first point, the report states that in both the earlier and the later surveys, the religious are more likely than the non-religious to give to charity.

In regard to the second point, it says that in the earlier survey the religious donors gave more than the non-religious donors, but that was not the case in the later survey.

Now, that data, when put together tells us this:

a) In the earlier survey, religious people were more likely than non-religious to give to charity, and when they did so their average size of donations were also larger than donations given by non-religious donors.

b) In the later survey, religious people were still more likely than non-religious to give to charity, but now their average size of donations were no larger than donations given by non-religious donors.

Now, without any point to prove, think about that.

If 70% of group A gives to charity, and only 60% of group B gives to charity, and if the average size of donation from each group is no different, then it is logically inescapable that those in group A, on average, are more generous in their giving to charity than group B.

The findings of this report are similar to studies carried out in the US (as already cited) in Canada, and in other countries. Frequency of attendance at worship (not just Christian worship - this applies equally to other religions) is an indicator of a greater level of giving to charity. Even when churches and religious charities are excluded, regular worshippers still tend to give more to non-religious charitable causes than do the non-religious.

Morbert · 28-02-2012 9:06pm

ISAW wrote: »

You can run away from the issue if you want. It still wont support your claims and wont validate any shell game of "atheist" . time and again we hear atheists say all it means is there is no god or gods and have a go at any belief in supernatural things only to discover that when pressed on their own definition and what relevance it has for society to run away from the actual historical record of any atheist state that ever existed! All of them were a mess and they provided nothing useful good or beneficial to society! And the person I quote frequently on this Fasgnadh - is an agnostic! not alone that but i rarely if ever bring my own beliefs into the issue. I rely on objective arguments logic reason science and scholarship. The same thing the atheists claim to support. But when confronted with the actual published record they turn tail and run. Usually only to reappear some time later posting the same rubbish.

You are describing yourself. I have frequently attempted to engage your "historical record" nonsense (see my last post to you), but you never engage. You run and hide, only to spout the same nonsense at a later time.

EWLong · 28-02-2012 9:06pm

PDN wrote: »

That is an downright falsehood. I know I am right because, apparently unlike you, I read the report.

Stop throwing a tantrum and read the report. It says religious people are more likely to give to charity, but the size of the gifts do not differ significantly from those of the non-religious givers. What is so difficult to understand about that? It's hardly rocket science.

Just because I'm a moderator does not oblige me to allow an illiterate reading of a report to go unchallenged.

I think you may be wrong in this instance because I know the report Zorbas mentioned and it does say that in the last research religious people were not more generous than the rest of the populace.
That does not prove much but the facts speak for themselves and where before religious people were more generous, they no longer are.

ISAW · 28-02-2012 9:10pm

EWLong wrote: »

Actually I also think your reading is incorrect as the report clearly states that where before you were correct, things have changed and Christians are no longer the most generous group in Ireland.

no it does not! Appendix A clearly shows statistical significance at the one percent level that "holy" people co,ntributed more in 1995 than they did in 2000 compared to non "holy" people (dont blame me it is the term used in the statistics)
It at no point states "holy" people are ever measured as giving less than the non church goers just that the overall amount declined. It even offers an explanation -there were less holy people i.e less people going to church meant church gate collections were down.

As a newby I am surprised that there is so much nastiness over this issue and have no wish to cause more upset but its time to cool and read the report which clearly favours Zorbas position as far as I can see.
If I am to be corrected - please do so without rancour as its unseemly and does not make for happy bunnies.

Oh stow it! I already corrected the statistical significance several times. Page 141-145 under the variable HOLY Then you show up as an avatar of decorum as if you think it somehow shows they cant moderate discussions here. the report is limited in scope and does NOT show religious people in Ireland or anywhere else contribute less than they did. What it seems to show is that as people get less religious donations decline.

By the way i was asked about older people contributing more.
Read the same report!
Page 64 table 3.6 which shows average contribution by older people is higher.
Particularly considering pensioners with less income but possibly more disposable income. They contribute more.

On page 77 he lists FIVE other researchers who concluded religion correlates positively with donation.
On page 78 you will note that households that donate to church donate about three times as much to charity compared to households that dont donate to a church. It is assumed donate to a church are churchgoers i.e practice their religion. the money donated to the church collection and to a charity are different.

By the way most parishes dont usually allow charaties collect outside church In the roman Catholic church with the exception of the odd st vincent de Paul. There arez usually two church collections one ges into a fund which pays salaries to priests. the other goes into a fund to pay for building new churches. Occasionally the second collection is replaced with another church related charity . maybe one of these
http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/diocesan-agencies

anyway the figures are
1995 religious - 1.32 non religious 0.48
2000 religious - 1.63 non religious 0.56

Have you got the picture now? They contribute MORE!
edit: Page 78 in case you cant be bothered actually reading through the report you cite.

Morbert · 28-02-2012 9:16pm

ISAW wrote: »

As an argument from ignorance it is a logical fallacy

"proving a negative" is a different fallacy to "argument from ignorance"

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" is a burden of proof fallacy

If they believed "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

If they believed "You cannot prove that God/Thor/Zeus does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

Ok but I don't see what this has to do with what I said, unless it is some kind of corollary to my post.

ISAW · 28-02-2012 9:28pm

Morbert wrote: »

Ok but I don't see what this has to do with what I said, unless it is some kind of corollary to my post.

what you stated:
I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.".

what i replied If they believed "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

If you knew of any christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". they believe in God because you can not prove god does not exist.

If you dont see the idea of "can not prove" and "no evidence for" dont blame me.

Can you give me some examples maybe of things for which there is no evidence which you CAN prove?

I dont think you will.

Quote you :
A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.

Falling back on "no evidence for no God " is falling back on

"You cannot prove no God exists... so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

Assuming by reassurance and falling back on you actually mean they believe based on this argument? which is a fallacious belief.

Plowman · 28-02-2012 9:30pm

This post has been deleted.

Morbert · 28-02-2012 10:25pm

ISAW wrote: »

what you stated:
I do not know of any Christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.".

what i replied If they believed "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

If you knew of any christian who believes in God because "There is no evidence that God does not exist.". they believe in God because you can not prove god does not exist.

If you dont see the idea of "can not prove" and "no evidence for" dont blame me.

Can you give me some examples maybe of things for which there is no evidence which you CAN prove?

I dont think you will.

Quote you :
A Christian, if they wished, could always fall back on the "reassurance" that there is no evidence for "no God", just as there is no evidence for "no Thor" or "no Zeus", but it is not compelling to anyone, Christians included.

Falling back on "no evidence for no God " is falling back on

"You cannot prove no God exists... so He does" they would be committing a fallacy -the burden of proof fallacy.

Assuming by reassurance and falling back on you actually mean they believe based on this argument? which is a fallacious belief.

Again, are you disagreeing with something I said? I said that, since burden of proof is not a logical rule, Christians are not logically compelled to provide any evidence. However, since (most) Christians believe there is evidence for God, atheists are happy to critique such evidence presented. I am not saying anyone is committing a logical fallacy.

RichieC · 28-02-2012 11:40pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, are you disagreeing with something I said? I said that, since burden of proof is not a logical rule, Christians are not logically compelled to provide any evidence. However, since (most) Christians believe there is evidence for God, atheists are happy to critique such evidence presented. I am not saying anyone is committing a logical fallacy.

This is a Christian forum so the normal rules of logic aren't applicable. In here saying God doesn't exist is the crazy claim.

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 12:21am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Back to Russell's teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot[/QUOTE]

Your claim was that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Bullsheeeeet.

"I believe there is milk in your fridge"
"There is no milk in the fridge"
"Prove it"
"You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with you"
"Yes you can, open the fridge door"

Regarding Russells very leaky teapot, a simple example is the planet vulcan was claimed to exist in our solar system by reputable scientists in the 19th century, some disagreed, and went on to prove Vulcan did not exist. Yet another negative was proven.

iBeast · 29-02-2012 12:23am

Tino Rodrigez from IRT deadliest roads believes in God. Thats evidence enough for everyone

ISAW · 29-02-2012 9:49am

Morbert wrote: »

Again, are you disagreeing with something I said? I said that, since burden of proof is not a logical rule, Christians are not logically compelled to provide any evidence. However, since (most) Christians believe there is evidence for God, atheists are happy to critique such evidence presented. I am not saying anyone is committing a logical fallacy.

You are not saying christians arent! you have stated they always have one to fall back on.

1. Im not disagreeing with "christians dont make the argument P Q or R" because ther is no significance in arguing about arguments christians are NOT making or not fgalling back on (even if they could). that is one of my points.

2. Burden of proof IS a logical fallacy

3. what sort of "evidence" of God do you claim christians believe?

4. If christians fall back on a fallacy they are committing a fallacy! They arent really interested in discussing the logic of what they are NOT arguing.

Have you considered that even though it does not logically follow the reason you are not witnessing christians committing logical fallacies is because they qrent making them and not just because they are making them and you just didnt happen to notice.

Have you ever heard of Type 1 and type 2 errors or "false negatives" and "false positives"

ISAW · 29-02-2012 10:03am

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

tommy2bad wrote: »

Back to Russell's teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot[/QUOTE]

Your claim was that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Bullsheeeeet.

"I believe there is milk in your fridge"
"There is no milk in the fridge"
"Prove it"
"You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with you"
"Yes you can, open the fridge door"

aha but what if you opened the door and there was a big box in the way behind which there might be milk you can,t see?
Or if i have invisible milk?

Logically formally universally prove a negative proposition.

for example take all the fridges in the world.
Even if you could take all the milk out of all the fridges yo would still have to observe them.
which is measuring them and creating a premise and not arriving at a conclusion based on what came before.

Opening the fridge door is actually establishing a premise that "milk in fridge"=false
you have not logically arrived at that conclusion you have begun with it.
you had to go and measure the system!

similarly you could prove "no unicorns" if you could look everywhere in the universe with a unicorn detector. you would have established no unicorns .

One can not logically prove "no unicorns" however.

Regarding Russells very leaky teapot, a simple example is the planet vulcan was claimed to exist in our solar system by reputable scientists in the 19th century, some disagreed, and went on to prove Vulcan did not exist. Yet another negative was proven.

Because they MEASURED the place where it should be!

Looking isnt logically proving!

It means "derive from deduction". One cant deduce no milk or no vulcan. Which I suppose demonstrates the limits of mathematics and logic.

ISAW · 29-02-2012 10:05am

RichieC wrote: »

This is a Christian forum so the normal rules of logic aren't applicable. In here saying God doesn't exist is the crazy claim.

You are ignorant of history.
christianity is rooted in logic and reason. It has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science.

Andrewf20 · 29-02-2012 12:51pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Indeed I would. Now what evidence has atheism got to offer ? I've never seen it offer any to date and I'm most keen to see it presented if you have it.

I adore science, maths, biology, evolution, etc. but I've never seen any of these disiplines ever present a single convincing argument for atheism (never mind evidence), so I'm most intrested in seeing one if you have it, because if you do, I have no issue in becoming an atheist.

The impression I get from these dicussions it that it seems to come to down to a persons frame of mind. If you are a Christian you may see the Bible one way (divinely inspired, making complete sense to them etc) while and Athiest may see it another way (contradictory, vague, unclear etc). The fact that intelligent people form opposing opinions (believing vs not believing) comes down to the fact that the method of spreading the word of God could certainly have improved. Confusion reigns where it perhaps could have been avoided.

I understand why an athiestic standpoint could be respected. I think alot of atheists believe the Bible to be man made due to inconsistencies, vagueness and contradictions on a variety to topics that may even go against their moral compass.

Some athiests will say that we are all athiests in regards to most Gods but that they go one step further in believing in no God, for the same reasons alot of us reject the idea of Apollo and Zeus for example - that theres no credible evidence to believe in them.

Barr125 · 29-02-2012 2:19pm

ISAW wrote: »

You are ignorant of history.
christianity is rooted in logic and reason. It has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science.

I'm sorry but no. Just no. Christianity has no root in logic or reason. Religion, in any form, is rooted in faith. Faith directly opposes logic and reason by its very definition:

Faith: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Penn · 29-02-2012 2:22pm

ISAW wrote: »

You are ignorant of history.
christianity is rooted in logic and reason. It has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science.

How so?

Morbert · 29-02-2012 2:51pm

ISAW wrote: »

You are not saying christians arent! you have stated they always have one to fall back on.

1. Im not disagreeing with "christians dont make the argument P Q or R" because ther is no significance in arguing about arguments christians are NOT making or not fgalling back on (even if they could). that is one of my points.

2. Burden of proof IS a logical fallacy

3. what sort of "evidence" of God do you claim christians believe?

4. If christians fall back on a fallacy they are committing a fallacy! They arent really interested in discussing the logic of what they are NOT arguing.

Have you considered that even though it does not logically follow the reason you are not witnessing christians committing logical fallacies is because they qrent making them and not just because they are making them and you just didnt happen to notice.

Have you ever heard of Type 1 and type 2 errors or "false negatives" and "false positives"

I think I'll call that the "fallacy" fallacy. I was directly responding to philologos's statement:

philologos wrote:

The more and more I go on the less and less satisfied I am in the new-atheist cop out (and it is fairly recent - within the last decade) that the burden is not on them. However, if they want to convince me to become an atheist and reject Christianity, to a certain degree the burden is on you to convince me that God is a fable.

I was saying that, while this is logically consistent, it is not compelling, as Christians (philologos included) do believe there is evidence for God. I.e. Christians and atheists agree that the burden of proof is not on atheists, and that is is perfectly reasonable to not believe in God if there is no evidence for God.

What I didn't bring up at all was any fallacy that a lack of evidence for God implies God exists.

tommy2bad · 29-02-2012 4:29pm

Originally Posted byMorbert ;
What I didn't bring up at all was any fallacy that a lack of evidence for God implies God exists.

Thats why you cant prove a negative. Lack of evidence isn't proof. However it dose raise the question of which is more likely ?

Zombrex · 29-02-2012 8:21pm

philologos wrote: »

It seems a little bit disproportionate. The more and more I go on the less and less satisfied I am in the new-atheist cop out (and it is fairly recent - within the last decade) that the burden is not on them. However, if they want to convince me to become an atheist and reject Christianity, to a certain degree the burden is on you to convince me that God is a fable. Much of the new-atheist argument is simply repeating what they claim ad-infinitum without any positive contribution to the argument. E.G God doesn't exist, God's a fable, God's a delusion, God's like Santa for grown ups. The big question is Why is He any of these things? Answers are forthcoming on those really.

Well it is impossible to speak for the entire new atheism movement, but there has certainly be a heck of a lot of stuff about the psychological reasons for why humans would both invent something like a god and why such an idea would propagate through human culture, and why it would seem so sensible and appealing to the human mind.

To me these present a much more plausible explanation for the existence of human religion at a far greater level of detail than any religion explanation does.

Now in my experience these ideas tend to be rejected off hand when presented on this website to theists, including yourself.

So I think the term you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink comes to mind.

philologos · 29-02-2012 8:24pm

Zombrex: The difference is beyond mere pseudo-psychology there are an abundance of reasons for God's existence. I'm not satisfied with the "there's no evidence" nonsense any more, because in the past atheists did present positive arguments for their position. Look up William Rowe for example or J.L Mackie.

Again, even if you did for arguments sake show Christianity to be a lie, there's still no good reason why I would be an atheist over anything else.

Morbert · 29-02-2012 8:29pm

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: The difference is beyond mere pseudo-psychology there are an abundance of reasons for God's existence.

Is there?

Again, even if you did for arguments sake show Christianity to be a lie, there's still no good reason why I would be an atheist over anything else.

Do you believe Russell's teapot exists? Why not?

Zombrex · 29-02-2012 8:32pm

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: The difference is beyond mere pseudo-psychology there are an abundance of reasons for God's existence. I'm not satisfied with the "there's no evidence" nonsense any more, because in the past atheists did present positive arguments for their position. Look up William Rowe for example or J.L Mackie.

Again, even if you did for arguments sake show Christianity to be a lie, there's still no good reason why I would be an atheist over anything else.

If there were evidence that humans have a natural tendency to imagine/invent supernatural agents in nature, and that our brains used the models of these agents to help them process the world around them in a way that was easier for them to comprehend and process (in the context of human like interactions), do you not think that this would be a strong case against the claims of religions, since religions are basically claim that these supernatural agents are actually real not merely invented by the human mind and shared through culture? All religions, not just Christianity?

And by the way this isn't pseudo-psychology, there is on going serious scientific research into this area and they are all pointing to the same conclusions. That sort of dismissive terminology is what I meant earlier about dismissing this off hand without proper examination.

philologos · 29-02-2012 8:37pm

Morbert: I think Russell's understanding was lacking as a lot of philosophy can be.

Zombrex: Not at all, because there's still the fundamental question of how all this came to be. It seems pretty clear on a number of grounds that there must have been an ultimate cause to this universe. I've presented a number of arguments for God's existence, which have been flat out ignored time and time again in what seems a mere matter of personal preference. Ultimately, I believe it's down to you if you want to earnestly consider God's word, and ultimately I believe that He is the only one who will make that change. No argument how good, how lofty, how intellectual will break down the barrier that you have created. I'm convinced of that.

It is pseudo-psychology, it's atheists trying to explain away what is a genuine philosophical issue. The new-atheists simply fuse opinion with fact without consideration. Sam Harris has done it and Richard Dawkins certainly has done it.

Zombrex · 29-02-2012 8:52pm

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Not at all, because there's still the fundamental question of how all this came to be.

That question doesn't go away (look at all the research currently being done into things like M-theory). But that isn't really the question though is it. The question is why would anyone think that the ideas humans came up with a few thousand years ago are the actual right answer.

If we can explain both the existence of these ideas, why they take the particular form they do (ie why gods instead of mute mice with magic wands), why they are appealing to humans etc, would that not be a good reason to reject these ideas as simply human creations, irrespective of whether or not we have another answer to any of these big questions.

philologos wrote: »

It seems pretty clear on a number of grounds that there must have been an ultimate cause to this universe. I've presented a number of arguments for God's existence, which have been flat out ignored time and time again in what seems a mere matter of personal preference.

Sorry Phil but that is a little hard to believe. In my experience no argument for the existence of God is ever ignored on the A&A forum, by myself or any of the other mad rabid atheists who are just waiting to tear to pieces an argument for the existence of God. Any discussions we have had with you over your reasons for your belief in God have been discussed to the point that you gave up and left, with the remaining A&A posters complaining that you had left and were no longer responding to their rebuttals.

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately, I believe it's down to you if you want to earnestly consider God's word, and ultimately I believe that He is the only one who will make that change. No argument how good, how lofty, how intellectual will break down the barrier that you have created. I'm convinced of that.

Ok. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we are discussing here though.

philologos wrote: »

It is pseudo-psychology, it's atheists trying to explain away what is a genuine philosophical issue.

No actually it is not. It is scientists attempting to understand how the human brain works in relation to these sort of beliefs and behaviors.

The question really is how genuinely interested are you in looking into this area, given that it may actually convince you that your beliefs are a delusion, a trick of the mind. I don't blame anyone for not being overly keen to do that, but at the same time if you are not prepared to do that you can't really say that you are open to alternatives and counters to you beliefs.

King Mob · 29-02-2012 8:55pm

philologos wrote: »

Morbert: I think Russell's understanding was lacking as a lot of philosophy can be.

I believe that Morbert was attempting to get you detail out the exact reasons why you don't believe that there is a teapot floating around in space.
And these reasons would have illustrated the point as there is no way to reject Russell's teapot without falling back to a lack of evidence.

If you have another way of explaining how you know that the teapot doesn't exist, please explain.

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: Not at all, because there's still the fundamental question of how all this came to be. It seems pretty clear on a number of grounds that there must have been an ultimate cause to this universe. I've presented a number of arguments for God's existence, which have been flat out ignored time and time again in what seems a mere matter of personal preference.

Cept it has been pointed out to you many many times that 1) this might not be the case and 2) if it was that there are still many other, much more supported and sensible explanations that do not require god.
However when presented with these alternatives you flat out ignored them and stated that they were not adequate despite having also stated that you did not know anything about them and refused to explain how they were inadequate other than your personal preference. And now here you are, pretending that these have never been explained to you.

Why do you think people believe in religions and gods that you believe are false? What about religions that are clearly based on lies and scams, why do people follow those religions? Why do people believe in fake (or more exactly all) psychics? Why do people believe in massive shadowy global conspiracies?
(Now do be clear, I'm asking you to specifically outline the exact reasons why, as they are relevant to the point I wish to make, so please answer the question directly.)

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 8:57pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats why you cant prove a negative.

Er, you're mixing up the arguments of atheism with facts again.

You can prove a negative, that is a fact.
To say you cannot is factually incorrect, look it up.

Because you cannot prove some negatives YET, that does not mean you cannot prove any negatives.

joseph brand · 29-02-2012 9:11pm

philologos wrote: »

Again, even if you did for arguments sake show Christianity to be a lie, there's still no good reason why I would be an atheist over anything else.

How honest of you. I say this sincerely.

In light of overwhelming evidence that everything you hold true, and believe to have actually happened (in the bible), turns out to be just a story, like any fairytale, you would still believe.

Well then, THAT is why you are religious. You WANT it so bad. You probably just need a big hug. (Atheists are capable of hugs btw)

Zombrex · 29-02-2012 9:19pm

One point I will quickly make about evidence, since the topic seems to be moving towards the evidence for God (which tends to be things like lovely sunsets).

By definition a all powerful supernatural being can explain anything. That doesn't mean the existence of anything is evidence for that all powerful supernatural being.

This is a point that is often spectacularly missed by some theists who think they merely have to point to the existence of the universe to demonstrate that their god exists because they only consider their god as capable of producing something. Something exists, must have been our god sure what else could it have been. Well anything really, what evidence is it that it was your god specifically and not something else.

So to any theists brave enough to put forward evidence for their god can you try, to save time, to think a bit over whether it is actually evidence for your god or is it simply evidence for something, anything, that produced the universe.

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 9:20pm

joseph brand wrote: »

In light of overwhelming evidence that everything you hold true, and believe to have actually happened (in the bible), turns out to be just a story, like any fairytale, you would still believe.

Well then, THAT is why you are religious. You WANT it so bad. You probably just need a big hug. (Atheists are capable of hugs btw)

Nope, if athiesm ever presents a single convincing argument, never mind evidence, never mind proof, I'd have no problems in being an Athiest.

So please post one up if you have it.

philologos · 29-02-2012 9:23pm

joseph brand wrote: »

How honest of you. I say this sincerely.

In light of overwhelming evidence that everything you hold true, and believe to have actually happened (in the bible), turns out to be just a story, like any fairytale, you would still believe.

Well then, THAT is why you are religious. You WANT it so bad. You probably just need a big hug. (Atheists are capable of hugs btw)

joseph brand: No, my point is that atheism is one viewpoint on this topic over others. As a result, I would suggest that if people were encouraging atheism that they would present a positive argument for it, if they were interested in people becoming atheists that is. My argument is real simple. Even if Christianity is wrong, why is atheism any more true than any other system of thought?

In your case, you are an atheist simply because you weren't bothered to look into anything else from what I can tell of your posts. You've not even considered Christianity, which is why I think that your criticism of Christianity is destined to be poor.

While that is still valid, you don't get to criticise me for confirmation bias.

King Mob · 29-02-2012 9:27pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Er, you're mixing up the arguments of atheism with facts again.

You can prove a negative, that is a fact.
To say you cannot is factually incorrect, look it up.

Because you cannot prove some negatives YET, that does not mean you cannot prove any negatives.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you can't prove a negative but you can falsify a prediction.

To use an example that someone mentioned take the proposed planet Vulcan which was thought to have an orbit inside Mercury's.
You could state the positive claim that "Vulcan exists" or you could make the negative claim that "Vulcan does not exist."
Now for the first statement you could provide supporting evidence such as direct observations of the planet which detail it's orbit. But what evidence could you supply for the second one? "Vulcan has not been observed" is not solid evidence, though it does point out a lack in the positive argument.

However in this case, since Vulcan was not observed (it being proposed as a way to explain the odd orbit of Mercury) we need other evidence to separate it from total fantasy.
And to do this, we must try to build a theoretical model and make some verifiable predictions about it.
So using the observed oddities of Mercury's orbit we try to work out what size, mass and orbit Vulcan would have to explain the oddities then use that to figure out what we would expect to find. For example we work out how long it's orbit would be and where we might find the planet (which is how we found Neptune.)
However for Vulcan, none of the predictions worked. Vulcan was never observed where it was supposed to be and the math never quite worked out. So the predictions were falsified.
But the final nail in the idea's coffin was when a new theory came along to explain to oddness of Mercury's orbit. Relativity made several predictions regarding how gravity would work in greater detail than Newton's gravity and these predictions were spot on.

So the was never any positive evidence supplied for the claim that "Vulcan does not exist", but rather that the positive claim that " Vulcan exists" was never supported by evidence, had all it's predictions be falsified and was supplanted by a theory that explained the facts better, more simply and had it's predictions verified.
So the correct stance would be that: "There is nothing to suggest that the planet Vulcan exists."

Zombrex · 29-02-2012 9:40pm

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Nope, if athiesm ever presents a single convincing argument, never mind evidence, never mind proof, I'd have no problems in being an Athiest.

So please post one up if you have it.

Human's have a natural instinctive tendency to imagine supernatural agents operating in the natural world, both structuring and effecting the natural world. This allows humans to process the natural world around them using the same mental systems they have evolved to process human to human interaction, cutting down on the amount of mental activity the brain has to perform to produce a coherent understandable mental model of the world around them. In actuality these supernatural agents are not really there, but humans find it easier to imagine they are than have to process the world as it really is, a series of massively parallel systems with millions of interdependent variables. Far easier to believe X happened because supernatural agent Y wanted it to happen.

All of this is supported by research on human behavior, including research on how humans behave when stressed or attempting to process larges amounts of information about the world around them (they revert to this sort of thinking), and on children who will imagine these agents with little to no promoting, often assigning elaborate stories to them.

Convinced?

La Petite Fleur · 29-02-2012 9:56pm

Zombrex wrote: »

. . .Far easier to believe X happened because supernatural agent Y wanted it to happen. . . .

. . . Convinced?

Sorry nope, but thanks for trying.

I'm a lover of the sciences, and I don't look to religion to explain the fine details of the physical, thats where science comes in, and true religion does not clash with science.

Pop up another one there.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments