Thread: Atheists

You're not really "open to the possibility", though. You're theoretically open to the possibility, just like we're all theoretically open to the possibility that satan's playing a trick on us with fossils, or that the planet is actually flat and our data is wrong.

You'll find very few atheists who think that the existence of god is less likely than the existence of pink unicorns. Most of the people you're referring to are just honest about what they think. I'm not going to shrug and say "Yeah, I guess there could be a teapot floating around in Saturn's rings...", I"m going to say, "No, such an idea is idiotic, and will remain idiotic unless you find something that successfully indicates that there is a teapot there."

When you criticise atheists who categorically say that there is no god, because they should be as open to the possibility of god as they are genies and unicorns, you're just splitting hairs for an intellectually dishonest reason. But, as the xkcd comic says, I'm glad you've found some way to feel superior to them, too.

Originally Posted by KT.

I'm sorry if I offended you and it certainly wasn't my intent to try to appear superior to you or Atheists in general.

This is my argument:

1) God is an unfalisfiable concept.
2) Therefore god is unscientific.
3) Therefore belief systems that involve god are unscientific.

However, science isn't everything. Art for the most part is unscientific, yet it still has merit. Theism and Atheism both have their merits, however neither are for me. I like science. I like to think that I am a logic oriented person. For me, the most logical and scientific answer as to whether a god exists or not is "I don't know now and I may never know ever". I personally find believing in god and not believing in god both illogical to different degrees.

You didn't offend me, I've just heard the "my problem with atheists who are sure there's no god..." line a looooooooooooooot of times. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science and statistics -- the very fact THAT you can't be sure there's a god (ie. the fact of unfalsifiability) renders the proposition unscientific and, since there's no convincing evidence whatsoever that there is a god, it's intellectually dishonest to say that rejecting the idea of god is illogical or unscientific.

(Yes, it's technically correct. Just as it's technically correct to say that there is a possibility that the Earth is flat. But scientists can't go around saying "yeah, the Earth is PROBABLY round, but it'd be unscientific and illogical to say that for sure.")

The thing about people who say they're "sure there is no god" -- show them some real evidence and they'll change their mind. I'm sure there are no unicorns, but show me a peer-reviewed paper on the finding of a unicorn skeleton and I might reconsider.

I've heard the art line, too. I used to use it all the time. Art may not be scientific, but there's some pretty airtight scientific evidence that it exists, so I believe in art. There is also a lot of scientific evidence that art has positive effects on people (even if all it does is make them happier), so I believe art has merit. Not everything falls within the realm of science, but this one question does.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I think my biggest issue with this argument is that the comparison made is inherently linked to the presence of something as a physical entity (invisible unicorns and teapots), but God, as described in pretty much every holy book, is not a physical entity, per se, although there are physical manifestations from time to time. Because of this, it's a false analogy.

Well, it's not a false analogy, because I also said genies and stuff. And Thor, and Zeus. There's no more evidence for "God" (ie. the big J) than there is Zeus, yet almost everyone alive today would dismiss the belief in Zeus as silly. Certainly all would call it unscientific.

You and I have discussed God before, so unless your beliefs have changed, I think I basically know what they are. And I know you have deep and (to you, but not to me, obviously) convincing reasons for believing what you believe, and very strong arguments to support yourself. But this objection isn't one of them. We're talking about evidence -- there's no more reason to believe in unicorns than a god, whether physical or not.

You are saying, essentially, that the god proposition is exempt from needing evidence.

Originally Posted by simonj

Uhmm no. It's pretty definite that the Earth isn't flat. There isn't any possibility there at all.

Of course there is, scientifically speaking.

(All our instruments could be wrong. Our inferences can be wrong. Our senses could be lying to us. Etc. I know it's astronomically unlikely, but that is, after all, what we're talking about here.)

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Not really. I'm saying the examples given (invisible pink unicorn, teapot around saturn's ring) aren't valid comparisons to an incorporeal being because they are concrete examples. God, from what we're arguing about, isn't necessarily a physical being. Teapots and unicorns would be. In what way does this imply that the god proposition is exempt from needing evidence? And how does this point not fit into my belief structure of which you are well-versed?

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending, but I recognise that I did.

If you're saying that the philosophically relevant difference between god and pink unicorns is physical-being-ness, in response to the point that there's no evidence for either and therefore both are as likely as each other (to put it all simply), you're saying that, because god isn't a physical being, it doesn't require evidence to be a convincing proposition.

I'm not saying it "doesn't fit into your belief structure", I just meant to say that while I find your beliefs and arguments interesting and compelling, I don't think this is a sound objection. Unless there's some reason that physical-being-ness is a philosophically relevant difference that I have just missed and can't see, which is also entirely possible. But then you'll have to explain that.

KT.: occam's (/ockham's/however you spell it) razor is kind of my point. If there's no reason to believe X exists, and you have a system that can coherently (logically) and feasibly (physically) function without it, the reasonable position to take is to say X does not exist. If you, as I say, insist on splitting hairs and feel it's necessary to say "X MIGHT exist, because technically we can't prove it doesn't", you also need to say that about everything for which there is no evidence. If you need to remain "open" to the idea of a god, you also, logically, must remain just as "open" to the idea that Satan is messing with our GPSes and instruments and even our consciousnesses to trick us into thinking the Earth is flat. Or the idea that, though our inference may seem strong, our conclusions about "round Earth theory" are simply incorrect.

THAT is why I have so little patience for people who say "you can't disprove god any more than you can prove it, so both positions are illogical".

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I think I've said this to you before: I don't really understand the need for some people to make an absolute statement on the existence of God. Making such a statement requires that we truly understand what God is, and it is far more probable that such a being is beyond our collective comprehension at the moment. So the question is: What piece of evidence would exist as proof of God's existence? How do we know that it would be proof?

Assuming that we can currently understand God strikes me as hubris, personally.

I'm not sure what would suffice as proof; perhaps the whole universe would have to pass some kind of Turing test to prove that there IS a higher agency. As for evidence, some well-documented examples of supernormal phenomena would be a good start. If you believe in God-the-abstract-being, presumably you believe It has some effect on our physical world, no? That's why physical evidence is needed. It's pointless to argue about an abstract god that has NO effect (and never has) on our physical world, but nobody really seems to think that. If the God you're talking about has no physical properties, It still has to physically manifest itself (even if only in the creation of the universe) to be worthy of any debate.

I'm still not understanding the objection. "There's no evidence for God or gods, and there's no evidence for unicorns, therefore each is as likely as the other" is my argument. You're saying the comparison is false. Then what, if not evidence, makes God more likely than unicorns? Or, if something satisfies the criterion of evidence to you, what is it?

It strikes me as hubris to say that God is all powerful and all knowing, and then presume to know His desires. I'm not saying that's you -- it's more of a religious thing. I'm just saying.