Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

orubiru

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that isn't it at all. An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods. Very often that lack of belief is for other reasons than a lack of evidence.

Well, that's interesting.

What reasons?

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. Of course you can disprove a supernatural event. Someone could claim that Bangladesh beat England at cricket today because Allah made the cricket ball so intensely hot that it burned Eoin Morgan's hands off.

That claim of a supernatural event could be fairly easily disproved.

Prove his hands were not burned off.

You can show me his hands, but a believer can just claim that God grew them back again. If there are no rules you cannot say what should or shouldn't have happened. Reasoning about what happened goes out the window. Why supernatural/magical thinking ultimately is pointless. Even believers refuse to accept that certain things can be true (for example Jesus cannot just be Satan having a laugh)

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Go back and read the posts where you made them, or are you now trying to claim you made no claims in those posts ? lol

"lol" indeed.

I read my posts again.

What claims did I make about you?

What claims did I make about Theists and what Theists believe?

What claims do Atheists make about Theists and what Theists believe?

List them.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the difference here, of course, is that I have not, at any stage in this discussion, claimed to have determined that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.

When I weigh up the available evidence I do believe that Paul saw Jesus, but the evidence either way is such that my belief remains a faith proposition, albeit with more evidence than your faith proposition about the mushrooms. I'm not claiming that I have sufficient evidence to convince those who wish to believe otherwise, and I'm open to changing my mind in the future if more compelling evidence is presented.

How does that make any sense? Isn't that a cop out? "There's no evidence to support the claim that Paul did see Jesus, but I'm going to believe it anyway 'cause faith"
Don't you think that admitting there is no evidence in support of a claim but believing it anyway (cause faith) is just stupid?
Why is it that the mushroom hypothesis is so unlikely in your opinion?

I know you never did state flat out that you do believe Paul saw Jesus, but it was a very reasonable conclusion on my part, given that you express a belief in christianity.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

"lol" indeed.

I read my posts again.

What claims did I make about you?

What claims did I make about Theists and what Theists believe?

What claims do Atheists make about Theists and what Theists believe?

List them.

Again ?

Glady.

orubiru wrote: »

Ah, so you seem to want me to form an argument that will convince you that God does not exist or something that will negate your existing belief in God? [FALSE argument]

Why would you ever think that Atheists would want to "convert" you? [FALSE argument]

You seem more annoyed that these Atheists won't allow you to dismiss ideas like Evolution or the Big Bang without calling you out on it? [FALSE argument]

It's really strange. I guess if I wasn't raised in religion then I would have been an Atheist by default. My guess is that you were either raised in Religion or have "found" Religion later in life. So your approach is "I have taken up this belief on faith but if you can break my faith then I will join you in not believing". [FALSE argument] Um, to be honest, if it is gonna make you unhappy to break or lose your faith then I'd personally rather not go there.

I think the best place to start though would be for you explain how you define "God"? [DICTIONARY]

Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually? [FALSE argument]


Exactly, you have no evidence that God exists so when you claim [FALSE argument] that God does exist you leave yourself wide open to awkward questions. You then fail to answer the questions [FALSE argument] but insist that your belief is still true and a result of this is ridicule.[FALSE argument]

It's like if someone believed in Aliens and upon failure to provide a decent level of proof decided to just start wailing that "you people can't prove that they don't exist [FALSE argument], what are your arguments and evidence for No Aliens" then you have to expect that people will just laugh at you.

You can't bring a child-like [FALSE argument] understanding of logic [FALSE argument] and try to use it in a conversation with educated and thoughtful adults. It's only gonna end one way, with you being treated like a child. [FALSE argument]

That's true but there are many many many Gods being put forward as existing. [FALSE argument] There is no evidence for any of them. Can I then assume Christianity is equally as valid as Scientology? [FALSE argument]

If there is no evidence for any Gods then maybe they are ALL real [FALSE argument] and there are maybe even Gods out there that we don't even know about. [FALSE argument]

In the end. If there is no evidence then absence is assumed until evidence is presented. [FALSE argument]

True but you are not saying things like "men can't marry other men because ET and Fox Mulder forbid it".

Also, the fact that there is life here implies that there may indeed be life out there. The fact that there is life here does not imply that life was created by God.

The leap from "there's life here" to "there is life on other planets" is A LOT smaller than the leap from "there's life here" to "God created everything". [FALSE argument]

Surely my lack of belief should be a problem for you though? [FALSE argument] My lack of belief should serve as a reference point for how solid your belief actually is. [If it was based on the on the extreme weakness of all your false arguments and tactics in this one post, which so happens it isn't, it would be very solid indeed]


You went through all that and still ended up at the same point asking people for a reason and/or argument for Atheism.

It's like you made all those points as "filler" so you could squeeze your dumb [FALSE argument] question in at the end.

The reason and argument for Atheism is what I already said it was.

You believe that God exists.
You have no proof.

REASON - You have no proof that God exists therefore I cannot believe in your God. [Yet again I did not ask you to] I do not have any belief in God therefore I am an Atheist.

ARGUMENT - Someone who lacks belief in God is an Atheist. This lack of belief is usually based on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of Theists. [Then that would be a very poor false argument, as absence of evidence is not evidence, e.g. belief in alien life]

I dunno. What point are you trying to make here?

Those were your claims above, and here was my reply

Cen taurus wrote: »

Instead of dealing factually with any of the points you’ve resorted back to the old reliables of misrepresentation, straw men, and ad homien already.

I've highlighted just some of them to save everyone time.

If anyone wishes to engage in a discussion, I want you to present your arguments based on sound premises, that are true, and do not contain any fallacies.

Have any other atheists out there got any ?

If not, don’t waste your time or mine

When your memory fails again, I can keep posting this for you again, anytime you want, just give me a shout

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that isn't it at all. An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods. Very often that lack of belief is for other reasons than a lack of evidence.

I am sure that is so , for example I watched an interview with a footballer one time ( I think it was Michael Ballack) who was born into an East German atheist family and belief just never entered his consciousness , in the same way that most Catholic kids had it drummed into them with their mother's milk and cannot imagine the lack of belief.

I think though most atheists on here have reasons for their lack of belief ,lack of evidence chiefly I suppose.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Again ?

Glady.

Those were your claims above, and here was my reply

When your memory fails again, I can keep posting this for you again, anytime you want, just give me a shout

Do you understand what a claim is?

OK. For example, I said "Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually?"

This is not a claim. It is a question. A question that you did not answer.

I am not sure how this comes under the umbrella of "Those were your claims".

I also said "Ah, so you seem to want me to form an argument that will convince you that God does not exist or something that will negate your existing belief in God?"

"Why would you ever think that Atheists would want to "convert" you?"

"I think the best place to start though would be for you explain how you define "God"?"

Again, how exactly are these "claims"? I have asked you questions but you did not answer.

I asked you "Can I then assume Christianity is equally as valid as Scientology?"

This is not a claim. It was a question. You did not answer.

I stated "If there is no evidence then absence is assumed until evidence is presented" your response was FALSE ARGUMENT.

Care to expand on that?

I am not seeing what "claims" I made. You have basically just copied my post and said "see those are the claims you made". What?

You do realize that just shouting "[FALSE argument]" isn't really much of discussion.

So why don't you answer some of the questions asked?

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

Prove his hands were not burned off.

You can show me his hands, but a believer can just claim that God grew them back again. If there are no rules you cannot say what should or shouldn't have happened. Reasoning about what happened goes out the window. Why supernatural/magical thinking ultimately is pointless. Even believers refuse to accept that certain things can be true (for example Jesus cannot just be Satan having a laugh)

Now who's playing games?

If you want to go down that kind of silliness then I can't disprove a natural event either. For example, I can't prove that Eoin Morgan was in the England team at all because you could just respond that the video I saw was faked, or that I only imagined that I saw him on TV.

You are positing a false dichotomy between
a) The only rules are natural rules.
b) There are no rules at all.
Whereas there is a third option
c) There are some extra rules we never counted on.

The fact remains, however, for anyone that wants to engage in reasonable discussion rather than whataboutery, that most of us would accept evidence as conclusive in regards to both natural and supernatural events.

For example, if a letter was found that could be demonstrated to be genuinely written by the apostle Paul in which he admitted fabricating his account of meeting Jesus, then I think most of us would accept that as conclusive.

RikuoAmero

For example, if a letter was found that could be demonstrated to be genuinely written by the apostle Paul in which he admitted fabricating his account of meeting Jesus, then I think most of us would accept that as conclusive.

I highly doubt that. You have stated an acceptance of Paul's claim that he did meet Jesus while on the road to Damascus, and have so far, not presented any evidence in support of/in favour of this claim, other than Paul's say so. You've mentioned something along the lines of some evidence, but have not yet elaborated on what that evidence is. Since, from what I can see (unless you can present said evidence) you have accepted the claim with little to no evidence in support of it, then I wouldn't expect you to alter your belief of this claim even if such a letter was ever found.
Anytime I do look at the evidence for Paul, the best I can do in support of his claim is that the evidence is inconclusive. I can't provide strong evidence that he did take hallucinogens or make it up, other than saying that hallucinogens are and were available and that people have and do make things up. However, on the other hand, I don't have any evidence at all that he did meet Jesus. There's nothing there, other than him telling a story. I can either rule hallucination or fabrication...or I can say inconclusive and not rule either way. However, I do believe that hallucination/fabrication is more likely, simply due to the fact that those have been confirmed to have happened throughout history to have happened to many other people, and so far, we have not one confirmed case of divine experiences.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

Now who's playing games?

If you want to go down that kind of silliness then I can't disprove a natural event either. For example, I can't prove that Eoin Morgan was in the England team at all because you could just respond that the video I saw was faked, or that I only imagined that I saw him on TV.

Yes, that is the whole point.

Simply by introducing the supernatural in the first place means you are saying that ANYTHING could have happened and that any of these explanations are as likely as any other. There is no reason to suppose a magic deity doing one thing is any more or less likely than him doing any other thing.

Believers end up picking simply what they were told happened (well Paul said he saw Jesus, so why not), without any reason why that supernatural event is any more or less likely than any other supernatural event taking place.

Nick Park wrote: »

You are positing a false dichotomy between
a) The only rules are natural rules.
b) There are no rules at all.
Whereas there is a third option
c) There are some extra rules we never counted on.

Again there is a significant difference between the supernatural and natural laws we simply have not discovered yet or do not understand.

Nick Park wrote: »

The fact remains, however, for anyone that wants to engage in reasonable discussion rather than whataboutery, that most of us would accept evidence as conclusive in regards to both natural and supernatural events.

Believers certain, but that is because few believers actually want appeals to the supernatural to do anything other than to allow for their very specific version of events. In my experience they get very annoyed at the idea that the supernatural not only means that their religious event could have taken place, but that ANY supernatural event could have take place and we can never tell the difference.

Which simply goes back to the psychological purpose appeals to the supernatural serve. They exist simply justify religious faith.

Nick Park wrote: »

For example, if a letter was found that could be demonstrated to be genuinely written by the apostle Paul in which he admitted fabricating his account of meeting Jesus, then I think most of us would accept that as conclusive.

I very much doubt that, and evidence from the debunking of modern cult leaders would not support your conclusion. Believers will continue to believe in the face of increasing argument to why their belief is unsound.

Which goes back to my original point. It is ridiculous to believe that Paul was talking to Jesus RIGHT NOW, even though we don't have any hard evidence of an alternative explanation. Who cares if he wasn't on magic mushrooms, it is ridiculous to believe he was talking to Jesus. But that means little to nothing to a believer who has some how convinced themselves that Paul was actually talking to Jesus.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

How does that make any sense? Isn't that a cop out? "There's no evidence to support the claim that Paul did see Jesus, but I'm going to believe it anyway 'cause faith"

We could probably have a better discussion if you engage with what I post, rather than making stuff up that I never posted.

I specifically said that there is evidence (more so than there is for him eating bad mushrooms) but that the evidence is not so conclusive as to convince those who wish to believe otherwise.

Don't you think that admitting there is no evidence in support of a claim but believing it anyway (cause faith) is just stupid?

It would be stupid, which I why I was so amazed when you did just that with your claim about determining that Paul ate bad mushrooms. I, however, did no such thing.

Why is it that the mushroom hypothesis is so unlikely in your opinion?

I didn't say it was unlikely. I said there was zero evidence for it. It is as likely or as unlikely as a host of other hypotheses.

I know you never did state flat out that you do believe Paul saw Jesus, but it was a very reasonable conclusion on my part, given that you express a belief in christianity.

The issue is not what I do or don't believe, or indeed what you do or don't believe. The issue is whether either of us is daft enough to propose an argument on a discussion forum for which we have zero evidence.

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

I very much doubt that, and evidence from the debunking of modern cult leaders would not support your conclusion. Believers will continue to believe in the face of increasing argument to why their belief is unsound.

RikuoAmero wrote:

I highly doubt that.

So, if you don't like me expressing my honestly held opinion about what how I would react to evidence, then you resort to accusing me of being untruthful.

Well done, guys. You've just demonstrated your inability to participate in reasonable and civilised discussion.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

Do you understand what a claim is?

OK. For example, I said "Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually?"

This is not a claim. It is a question. A question that you did not answer.

I am not sure how this comes under the umbrella of "Those were your claims".

I also said "Ah, so you seem to want me to form an argument that will convince you that God does not exist or something that will negate your existing belief in God?"

"Why would you ever think that Atheists would want to "convert" you?"

"I think the best place to start though would be for you explain how you define "God"?"

Again, how exactly are these "claims"? I have asked you questions but you did not answer.

I asked you "Can I then assume Christianity is equally as valid as Scientology?"

This is not a claim. It was a question. You did not answer.

I stated "If there is no evidence then absence is assumed until evidence is presented" your response was FALSE ARGUMENT.

Care to expand on that?

I am not seeing what "claims" I made. You have basically just copied my post and said "see those are the claims you made". What?

You do realize that just shouting "[FALSE argument]" isn't really much of discussion.

So why don't you answer some of the questions asked?

To give just one small example, I said that I believe in evolution, to which your reply was

"Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually?"

If someone siad the sky was blue, and someone came back with "Do you really think the sky is green ?" - then it's pretty pointless to continue.

You can waste other peoples time with this type of discussion, but you won't be wasting mine.

The rest of your post was false claims and argumentation, I've already highlighted just some of them.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

So, if you don't like me expressing my honestly held opinion about what how I would react to evidence, then you resort to accusing me of being untruthful.

Well done, guys. You've just demonstrated your inability to participate in reasonable and civilised discussion.

Then prove me wrong. Show me that your acceptance of Paul's Damascus experience is based on evidence.
If you don't, then I have little choice but to conclude that since you accept such claims with no evidence, then it's highly unlikely that you would alter said beliefs if ever evidence is found to the contrary.
I also have to ask why you said you would alter your belief only if there's hard evidence against the claim? What about if (as I believe is the case here) there's no evidence in support of the claim?

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

So, if you don't like me expressing my honestly held opinion about what how I would react to evidence, then you resort to accusing me of being untruthful.

Well done, guys. You've just demonstrated your inability to participate in reasonable and civilised discussion.

I've no problem you expressing your honestly held opinion. I'm saying I don't believe you. You already believe something that is patently ridiculous, saying that if you were presented with just a little bit more evidence that it is patently ridiculous you would change your mind is not a believable assertion, particularly given the countless examples of believers NOT changing their minds when presented with such evidence.

I'm not sure how this makes the discussion uncivilised? I have to believe everything you say to be civilised?

Viper_JB

Cen taurus wrote: »

Out of interest, what physical evidence would prove God's existence and why would it be proof?

I don't know, very many things if we were to talk specifically, more generally - something which could provide direct proof of the truth of the assertion - in this case that their is a god.

What evidence would be required to shake your faith, or could anything?

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

To give just one small example, I said that I believe in evolution, to which your reply was

"Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually?"

If someone siad the sky was blue, and someone came back with "Do you really think the sky is green ?" - then it's pretty pointless to continue.

You can waste other peoples time with this type of discussion, but you won't be wasting mine.

The rest of your post was false claims and argumentation, I've already highlighted just some of them.

OK. Well instead of going endlessly round in circles let's see if we can get somewhere. Forget my previous posts.

You want Atheists to present an argument that does not contain any logical fallacies, or false premises. Am I correct?

The obvious question is an argument for what?

You want an argument from Atheists for their claims about Theism or what Theists believe. The argument should not be based on any fallacies or false assumptions, or misrepresentations, and all the premises should be true. Am I correct?

The second obvious question is what claims are Atheists making about Theism or what Theists believe?

If you want me to present an argument for something then you will have to tell me what I am supposed to be arguing for.

If I am supposed to be arguing for claims that Atheists have made then you will have to detail what those claims are.

You need to be clear and specific.

Cen taurus

Viper_JB wrote: »

I don't know, very many things if we were to talk specifically, more generally - something which could provide direct proof of the truth of the assertion - in this case that their is a god.

What would any one of those things be, can you give us an example, and why it would actually be evidence.

Viper_JB wrote: »

What evidence would be required to shake your faith, or could anything?

Shaking ? It's about simply following the truth wherever it leads, belief or non belief.
I don't mind which I have, belief or non belief.

As for evidence, even a sound argument for atheism or against theism that is not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise would do.

I've yet to see one, here or anywhere else.

For example I believe alien life in some form exists elsewhere, physical or otherwise in the universe. There is no evidence for alien life to date, but if I was ever presented with a convincing argument, based on actual fact, and not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise, that there is most probably not life of any type, anywhere other than on earth, I'd be quite happy to change my opinion to disbelief that there is life somewhere else in the universe.

TheLurker

Cen taurus wrote: »

As for evidence, even a sound argument for atheism or against theism that is not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise would do.

I've yet to see one, here or anywhere else.

Humans have a natural tendency to make up supernatural agents in nature. This has been shown to happen, particularly when a person is stressed for feels their life is out of control. Why this happens is not 100% clear, but it seems to be a way to reduce the stress on the brain required to model a complicated natural world around us, easier to view actions in nature in terms we are familiar with (human to human interaction)

And

There is no reasonable evidence any of these supposed beings actually exist. By reasonable evidence I mean evidence that is not simply the assertions of those who believe they do.

Hence atheism.

What is your issue with this reason to be an atheist?

Viper_JB

Cen taurus wrote: »

What would any one of those things be, can you give us an example, and why it would actually be evidence.



Shaking ? It's about simply following the truth wherever it leads, belief or non belief.
I don't mind which I have, belief or non belief.

As for evidence, even a sound argument for atheism or against theism that is not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise would do.

I've yet to see one, here or anywhere else.

For example I believe alien life in some form exists elsewhere, physical or otherwise in the universe. There is no evidence for alien life to date, but if I was ever presented with a convincing argument, based on actual fact, and not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise, that there is most probably not life of any type, anywhere other than on earth, I'd be quite happy to change my opinion to disbelief that there is life somewhere else in the universe.

In terms of what would be evidence, I'm sure I'd know it if I seen it - haven't yet though but couldn't hazard a guess as to what that would be - probably would need to be something tactile - or at least measurable in some way shape or form - something with an explanation - something that doesn't require "faith" to believe - if it happens I'll let you know.

I mean there's no evidence either way really - impossible to prove that something doesn't exist - even more so if it genuinely doesn't.

I find your views on aliens odd though as it does fly in the face of Christianity, no (making assumptions that you're christian here - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong....or "False" which ever you prefer)

TheLurker

Cen taurus wrote: »

There is no evidence for alien life to date

We are evidence for alien life. If life could develop on a planet like ours it is reasonable to suppose that it could happen again, given the size of the universe. The idea that people just randomly believe alien life might exist without any reason (aka faith) is not accurate at all.

I'm beginning to suspect what is needed here is a discussion on what 'evidence' actually is.

Safehands

Cen taurus wrote: »

What would any one of those things be, can you give us an example, and why it would actually be evidence.

Most Christians, Jews and Muslims base their beliefs about God, on what is written in the Old Testament. I have shown before that without going far into this book, in the very beginning, it is patently untrue, provably so. So I present that to you, as an example of evidence that the story, in the OT of how God created the world, is just not true. So the very foundation of a belief in God is untrue.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

As for evidence, even a sound argument for atheism or against theism that is not based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise would do.

What exactly do you mean by "a sound argument for atheism"?

How about this, you give an example of an argument "for atheism" that is based on misrepresentation, fallacy, or a false premise and maybe we can work backwards from there?

TheLurker

orubiru wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "a sound argument for atheism"?

Not to speak for him, but I'm guessing he is coming from a position where it is "common sense" that the universe was created. This is not as unusual as you would initially think, there is a lot of evidence that our brains naturally default to this state, assuming that something must have been created by something. It can take quite a lot to get someone to move way from this axiom, and often they don't see it as even something worthy of being debated. This shift in think can in fact be quite stressful, as we default to the 'something made something for some reason' as a method to cope with the mental stress of processing a universe that doesn't operate on these easy to understand principles. So often it is not simply an alternative idea for a believer to consider, but a painful stressful idea for them to consider.

So I'm assuming his reasoning is unless you have a better explanation I'm going to stick with what comes naturally to me.

RikuoAmero

TheLurker wrote: »

We are evidence for alien life. If life could develop on a planet like ours it is reasonable to suppose that it could happen again, given the size of the universe. The idea that people just randomly believe alien life might exist without any reason (aka faith) is not accurate at all.

I'm beginning to suspect what is needed here is a discussion on what 'evidence' actually is.

Ditto. Nick Park earlier mentioned something along the lines of "evidence that wouldn't convince you", as if there's two types of evidence? This to me sounds like Ken Ham, who posits two types of science: observational science, and historical science.

orubiru

TheLurker wrote: »

Not to speak for him, but I'm guessing he is coming from a position where it is "common sense" that the universe was created. This is not as unusual as you would initially think, there is a lot of evidence that our brains naturally default to this state, assuming that something must have been created by something. It can take quite a lot to get someone to move way from this axiom, and often they don't see it as even something worthy of being debated.

So I'm assuming his reasoning is unless you have a better explanation I'm going to stick with what comes naturally to me.

That's kind of what I was thinking too but I just can't wrap my head around why so many religious people take this attitude that "you can't prove that Atheism is true".

It's as if they think that Atheism is itself a religion or a religious belief.

TheLurker

orubiru wrote: »

That's kind of what I was thinking too but I just can't wrap my head around why so many religious people take this attitude that "you can't prove that Atheism is true".

It's as if they think that Atheism is itself a religion or a religious belief.

It is ingrained in our mental reasoning to think of the world in this fashion. Lightening happened, therefore Thor is angry. In psychology it is known as hyperactive agency detection device (HADD), to automatically view events in terms of an agent who has acted in a specific fashion for a specific reason. Evolutionary biologists suppose that this arose because so much of a brain is devoted to human interaction it was just easier to also view the natural world around us in this way. If you have a brain devoted to pondering why the next village wants to burn your village down (and how you can stop that) it also makes sense that your brain will default to thinking that the flood that washed your village way was also caused by the actions of an agent, an agent that you can hope to appease in future.

This HADD thinking can be very difficult to overcome as it is what comes most naturally to us, and experiments have shown that it is very closely related to stress, so putting the mind in a state of stress by challenging this conceptual model is bound to be met by strong resistance.

So when an atheist says "I don't accept that" the believer hears you saying something bewildering, like claiming you don't accept things fall down when dropped. To them not accepting the obviously true default stance that agents make stuff happen in nature, requires an explanation in of itself.

Cen taurus

Viper_JB wrote: »

In terms of what would be evidence, I'm sure I'd know it if I seen it - haven't yet though but couldn't hazard a guess as to what that would be - probably would need to be something tactile - or at least measurable in some way shape or form - something with an explanation - something that doesn't require "faith" to believe - if it happens I'll let you know.

Well you talked about there being many examples earlier, so even giving one example, and why it would be evidence if you came across it, would do.

Viper_JB wrote: »

I mean there's no evidence either way really - impossible to prove that something doesn't exist - even more so if it genuinely doesn't.

There could be evidence for or against, but we are not aware of it at present, would be a more accurate statement.

As for "you cannot prove a negative" that's a logical fallacy. If someone claims no money exists in their wallet, and shows you an empty wallet, they have just proved a negative.

Viper_JB wrote: »

I find your views on aliens odd though as it does fly in the face of Christianity, no (making assumptions that you're christian here - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong....or "False" which ever you prefer)

That nicely highlights the exact fallacy of some posters trying to stereotyping people, rather than dealing with the actual points raised. The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination of all, endorse the theory of evolution, and the head of the church Pope Francis has been quoted saying that he would be happy to baptise any aliens if they requested it. Quite consistent with the fact the God is the author of everything created as far as Christians are concerned. Do all Christians agree with this view ? No. Do all Christians disagree with this view? No. Does it prove atheism / theism , No.
- So back to the points.

Cen taurus

TheLurker wrote: »

Humans have a natural tendency to make up supernatural agents in nature. This has been shown to happen, particularly when a person is stressed for feels their life is out of control. Why this happens is not 100% clear, but it seems to be a way to reduce the stress on the brain required to model a complicated natural world around us, easier to view actions in nature in terms we are familiar with (human to human interaction)

And

There is no reasonable evidence any of these supposed beings actually exist. By reasonable evidence I mean evidence that is not simply the assertions of those who believe they do.

Hence atheism.

What is your issue with this reason to be an atheist?

A slightly better quality post/argument. Good. At least you were trying.

You've avoided the run of the mill misrepresentation, add hominem, and instead have concentrated on the post, and instead you attempted to somewhat try and construct a logical sound argument, rather than making personal claims about the other poster. So good, so far.

Now lets have a look at the fallacies / false premises of your argument :

Firstly, for the sake of this post, I'll take your word for the fact that the human natural tendency claim you've made has been proven. I don't know if it has or not, you've posted nothing to support it. Other posters can check that out for themselves.

Now even if people did not exist, this would not mean that God does not exist. So straight away the premise does not support the conclusion. "God does not exist"

Then you immediately take a massive leap from that premise to :

"There is no reasonable evidence any of these supposed beings actually exist. By reasonable evidence I mean evidence that is not simply the assertions of those who believe they do.

Hence atheism."

This is what is termed a typical Non sequitur fallacy in logic, i.e. an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

RikuoAmero

As for "you cannot prove a negative" that's a logical fallacy. If someone claims no money exists in their wallet, and shows you an empty wallet, they have just proved a negative.

Ah...but what if the money is invisible, or immaterial?