The atheist argument - explanation and advice.

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The only problem with that is that there is no agreement about what might constitute such evidence. That is why "faith" has become the entry qualification for believers. Some atheists know that the evidence factor is a red herring, but because "God exists" for believers they are still obliged to adopt a lifestyle which accommodates to those subsequent sometimes troublesome social forces, whether they are interested in "God" or not. Therein, at the social response level, lies the need for "rationality".

There is plenty of consensus on what evidence is. Just look it up in a dictionary. How could you expect skeptics to predict what you'll try to present as evidence? Show something -anything- and let it be evaluated. Ball's in your court, not the skeptics', seeing as how you're the one making the knowledge claim about the existence of a god.

The demand for evidence is not a red herring; the rest of your word salad is. The demand for evidence is commonplace in everyday life, and you do it as routinely as anyone else, I'd wager. Fact is, the demand for evidence is the only relevant issue. Your response is hand-waving due to the fact that you can't provide any evidence.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

What evidence of a God are atheists looking for? What would they accept?
For instance if God appeared to them they'd simply assume he was a hallucination or something.
In other words NO evidence would satisfy them would it?

See my reply above. Present something to be evaluated. Anything. The criteria for what constitutes evidence is well-described in any good dictionary.

1 Reply

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

FBM said: The criteria for what constitutes evidence is well-described in any good dictionary

Wait, I'm asking YOU and the other atheists here what evidence YOU'D accept that there is a God? YOU tell me.. Wink

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
FBM said: The criteria for what constitutes evidence is well-described in any good dictionary

Wait, I'm asking YOU and the other atheists here what evidence YOU'D accept that there is a God? YOU tell me..

I would accept whatever you presented that logically and empirically entailed the existence of a diety. Got anything?

0 Replies

Here is a good response from somebody named George Ricker:

When it comes to evidence of the historicity of Jesus, that really does not touch on whether or not a god exists at all.

I have always thought that if the deity claimed by most religions could exist, it’s existence would be apparent and obvious to all.

Yet, somehow, the universe looks exactly as I would expect it to look if there were no god in it.

Finally, if a god exists that is concerned about my ultimate welfare and if there are penalties for not believing in the reality of that god, then I would expect that the god in question (a) would know what evidence would convince me of its existence and (b) would be required by its own nature to provide the evidence I need in a manner that I would find convincing.

Posted: May 25th 2009

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Thanks for that Edgar.

In a recent trial of two Muslim converts who murdered a British soldier in London, the defense offered by the perpetrators was that they were "Soldiers of God". That trial is an extreme case where rationality is required to resolve a social situation allegedly precipitated by religious belief. But atheists are obliged to exercise such rationality every time "social obligations" involve decisions about their attendance at religious ceremonies from Christenings to funerals, or indeed what to write on hospital entry forms in the "faith" box. These minor exercises in "rationality about religion" occur on a regular basis.

I point this out in response to the accusation of "word salad". Religion is always a social phenomenon to theists and atheists alike, irrespective of futility of arguing about "what constitutes evidence".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Alright, so anyway. Got any evidence for this god?

1 Reply

@FBM,

For believers their own "existence" may be all the "evidence" they need. But usually believers views of "existence of self" are socially conditioned by being born into a community of believers and they are unmotivated to look for "evidence".
As an atheist, if I were forced (by you) into a statement of "evidence for no God" I would point to the arbitrary and changing nature of the details of religious belief and the tendency to blur definitions of a deity by use of the word "ineffable".
But I stress that what actually matters to theists and atheists alike is the social consequences of belief or otherwise. Atheists should understand that "God is real*" for believers and this affects a large percentage of the population. Psychological and social needs will dictate what constitutes "evidence".

* NB As an atheist I define "real" as a simply a concept which affects life's decisions. I must take care not to define it as "an absolute" since that would be the property that believers assign to a god.

1 Reply

@fresco,

No, appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy. To start with "For believers..." is begging the question.

Do you have any evidence that you can present for scrutiny? It could be physical or simply empirical data. Just about anything other than word salads.

Quote:

...I would point to the arbitrary and changing nature of the details of religious belief and the tendency to blur definitions of a deity by use of the word "ineffable".

This would only point to a multiplicity of expressions, descriptions wrt a deity, not to the existence or lack of a deity itself. How would it be evidence that there is no god in the universe? Seems to point more directly to the limitations of human understanding, or perhaps, language. A theist could point to the plurality of religious claims as evidence that there is something singular behind them all. It would be a flawed argument; I'm just showing how that observation could be used in an argument for either side of the debate, and is therefore useless as evidence.

Empirical data entailing logical necessity would be useful as evidence. Got anything?

1 Reply

@FBM,

I am coming from the position that "reality is a social construction". What you are calling domains of "empirical" and "objective evidence", I approach as "shifting scientific paradigms" in the sense of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific revolutions. Evidence/data is never independent of a guiding hypothesis. In short it lies, in the eye/needs of the observer. The social reality position is supported by the idea that the social medium of language is the substrate for all "thought" and "observation". (Ref: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis).
I argue that "religious belief" is one of the consequences of the human ability to attempt to control "their world" and "plan ahead" by use of language (and the metalanguage of mathematics). It is the realization and fear of the limits of their control that gives rise for the need to evoke "the Big Caring Controller" in order to give their lives "meaning".
So I am suggesting that your focus on "evidence" is merely a sub-section of a more comprehensive analysis of what we call "human nature" (as opposed to non-human/ non linguistically directed nature in which "mental life" and "religion" don't seem to be analytic requirements).
I hope this goes some way to help you digest the salad.

1 Reply

@fresco,

That does help a lot, thank you. Smile

I approach the atheist's demand for evidence with Hume's Problem of Induction, by the way. For me, it cuts to the chase with more alacrity than Kuhn.

0 Replies

Quote:

FBM said: I would accept whatever you presented that logically and empirically entailed the existence of a diety. Got anything?

How about the 37 miracles of Jesus? Heck he was almost as big as David Blaine.. Smile

"Even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."- John 10:38

Bringing little girl back to life
Bringing widows son back to life
Bringing Lazarus back to life
Stilling the storm
Feeding 4000
Walking on sea
Feeding 5000
Coin in fishes mouth
Withering fig tree
Big catch of fish
Water into wine
Another big fish catch
Healing leper
Healing Centurions servant
Healing Peters mother-in-law
Healing sick at evening
Healing paralysed man
Healing haemorraging woman
Healing two blind men
Healing mans withered hand
Healing Canaanite womans daughter
Healing boy with seizures
Healing blind man
Healing deaf and dumb man
Healing another blind man
Healing crippled woman
Healing man with dropsy
Healing 10 lepers
Restoring a cut-off ear
Healing noblemans sons fever
Healing crippled man at Bethesda
Healing a born-blind man
Casting out demons into pigs
Curing a mute lunatic
Casting out dirty spirit
Curing a possessed blind-dumb man
Appeared to his followers after his death

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jmrcls.html

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

My friend, I am not sure how your post addresses the problem FBM is expressing. Could you expand?

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

He's testing the waters love. Told him I saw a crocodile on the beach last night before I left.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Any credible evidence that those things are more than just myth? If we use old stories as evidence, we'd have thousands of gods running around.

0 Replies

Quote:

FBM said re miracles: Any credible evidence that those things are more than just myth?

How much eyewitnesses evidence do you want? Would the entire population of Israel and the Roman army garrison be enough?
And don't forget, after the gospels were written, NOBODY--not a single person-- ever came forward to say "Hey, I was alive in Jesus's time and none of that happened!"
So to say 'Jesus never existed' would be like saying Buddha, Mohammed or Elvis never existed either.. Smile

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

While I would not be sure that would compel a non believer my friend, I concede it is not quite as unreasoned as it looked from the outset.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Been thinking about this thread since I first noticed it.

JohnJonesCardiff. What was the reason you felt you should start this thread? about as mentioned topic.

1 Reply

The atheist argument - explanation and advice.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know