'There Is No God', or 'I Believe There Is No God'?

Started by trdsf, September 01, 2016, 11:43:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

trdsf

I wish to argue that the former is correct.  Well, both are, but there is sometimes some blowback on the flat statement "There is no god" because someone inevitably says, "You can't prove that!"

True enough.

Of course, proving there isn't a god isn't my problem -- the onus is on the believers to prove there is since it's their assertion.

Moreso, I posit that one can legitimately make the claim that there is no god, on the simple basis that the god hypothesis has no empirical support.

By analogy, I am not expected to say that I "believe" there is no phlogiston, or luminiferous aether, or caloric.  These are deprecated theories, long since superseded by better explanations of phenomena, and while there is an infinitesimal chance that some observation might lend them some support, no one expects me to be agnostic about them.

I argue that the same applies to the god hypothesis.  It is an ancient theory of how the universe works, long since obsoleted by better observations and better evidence, and I should not be expected to pay it even lip service anymore.  If evidence turns up, we'll contend with it then, but after ten thousand years or more of human observation, not one single solitary concrete and incontrovertible shred of evidence has appeared.

As such, I shouldn't need to 'believe' there is no god any more than I should have to 'believe' there is no Planet Vulcan between Mercury and the Sun or that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  I can legitimately say, pending an actual offer of evidence, that there is no reason to accept the hypothesis in the first place -- to wit, there is no god.

Thoughts?
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Gawdzilla Sama

I tell them to prove me wrong. They then blather on for a while. No opinions are changed.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

trdsf

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2016, 06:22:24 AM
I tell them to prove me wrong. They then blather on for a while. No opinions are changed.
Yes, but that's a tactic for dealing with a believer.  I'm just talking about whether it is logically proper to say 'there is no god' rather than the hedge 'I believe there is no god'.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Mike Cl

Quote from: trdsf on September 01, 2016, 11:43:26 PM
I wish to argue that the former is correct.  Well, both are, but there is sometimes some blowback on the flat statement "There is no god" because someone inevitably says, "You can't prove that!"

True enough.

Of course, proving there isn't a god isn't my problem -- the onus is on the believers to prove there is since it's their assertion.

Moreso, I posit that one can legitimately make the claim that there is no god, on the simple basis that the god hypothesis has no empirical support.

By analogy, I am not expected to say that I "believe" there is no phlogiston, or luminiferous aether, or caloric.  These are deprecated theories, long since superseded by better explanations of phenomena, and while there is an infinitesimal chance that some observation might lend them some support, no one expects me to be agnostic about them.

I argue that the same applies to the god hypothesis.  It is an ancient theory of how the universe works, long since obsoleted by better observations and better evidence, and I should not be expected to pay it even lip service anymore.  If evidence turns up, we'll contend with it then, but after ten thousand years or more of human observation, not one single solitary concrete and incontrovertible shred of evidence has appeared.

As such, I shouldn't need to 'believe' there is no god any more than I should have to 'believe' there is no Planet Vulcan between Mercury and the Sun or that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  I can legitimately say, pending an actual offer of evidence, that there is no reason to accept the hypothesis in the first place -- to wit, there is no god.

Thoughts?
I pretty much think as you do.  Except, I think there is proof god does not exist--any of them.  The absence of  evidence is proof.  I don't have to prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist by producing evidence that she does not exist.  That is not possible.  But there is no proof of any kind that she does exist.  The absence of any evidence for her is proof she does not exist.  If a god hypothesis could be produced and then tested, then there might be a chance that god could exist--until the hypothesis was proven false.  But that is not possible to construct.  The absence of any kind of evidence demonstrates (at least for me) that god(s) don't exist. 

This is where belief and faith come in.  That is the only way a god can exist; and that is where people make one up and then insist it is real by believing in it and having faith that it exists.  I don't  believe in anything or have faith in anything.  I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow; I think it will because of all the evidence that suggests it will.  If it doesn't, then I'll revise my thinking.  I don't need to rely on belief or faith.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

widdershins

For you and I all of that is, of course, true.  There is no God, obviously.  You can say that with the same confidence that you can say there are no fairies.  Just because people believe it doesn't necessitate any lenience when examining any evidence or lack thereof.  You have me convinced.

Convincing believers, however, that's a different story.  They don't hold actual logic in such esteem as we.  Some of them think they do, but they want to redefine logic to mean "whatever makes sense to me".  They don't want to hear the real definition of logic.  They don't want to know what logic really means.  They just want to be able to use the word because if they do it sounds better for their argument.

And let's face it, these people have literally never used a legitimate, honest argument.  Think of all the arguments you've heard.  You won't find one that's honest.  What if you're wrong?  Prove there is no God.  I know it in my heart.  God believes in you.  The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.  In those arguments you have, "Just accept I'm right", shifting the burden of proof, "I KNOW I'm right so you should just accept it", "Fuck you, I'm right" and "Fuck you again, I'm still right".  I cannot think of one single honest, intelligent argument I have ever heard from the religious camp.

These people aren't big on logic.  They don't care about honesty (though they think they do.  A lie becomes the truth in your head if you just tell one more lie to yourself).  And their arguments are very rarely even about convincing us of anything.  Their arguments are generally about scoring points.  A discussion with the religious is rarely an avenue of discovery.  It's almost always a back and forth match where they are very much keeping track of the points they scored, but never yours.  They are not trying to impart knowledge.  They are not trying to convince you.  Oh, it would be nice for them if they could, but only because of how many points that is worth toward convincing them that they are really, really right.

And that's what most of these conversations are really about.  They aren't there for you, they are there for themselves.  It's a psychological trick they unwittingly play on themselves to help them hold onto their beliefs.  When you believe in fantastical things for which there is no evidence certain steps must be taken to maintain those beliefs.  The more fantastical your beliefs the more must be done to maintain those beliefs.  Think about the type of people you usually have these conversations with.  By and large, the greatest share of them I have been in have been with people in the more extreme religions.  Fundamentalist, mostly.  People who believe that they are under constant attack for their beliefs.  But then they say, "Merry Christmas" to an atheist and he says it right back.  That's not very attacky.  So what do they do?  They pick fights.  They piss people off.  They make us angry and when we're good and steamed they get to say, "Aha!  You just called me a jackass!  You're persecuting me!"

While your argument is sound and, in my opinion, utterly correct, it doesn't matter.  You're preaching to the choir.  If you try preaching this to people who have twisted their brains into believing lunacy is logic and logic (real logic) is used by assholes who want to persecute them it will have no effect except to feed their sick psychological need to feel persecuted.
This sentence is a lie...

widdershins

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 02, 2016, 10:35:44 AM
I pretty much think as you do.  Except, I think there is proof god does not exist--any of them.  The absence of  evidence is proof.  I don't have to prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist by producing evidence that she does not exist.  That is not possible.  But there is no proof of any kind that she does exist.  The absence of any evidence for her is proof she does not exist.  If a god hypothesis could be produced and then tested, then there might be a chance that god could exist--until the hypothesis was proven false.  But that is not possible to construct.  The absence of any kind of evidence demonstrates (at least for me) that god(s) don't exist. 

This is where belief and faith come in.  That is the only way a god can exist; and that is where people make one up and then insist it is real by believing in it and having faith that it exists.  I don't  believe in anything or have faith in anything.  I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow; I think it will because of all the evidence that suggests it will.  If it doesn't, then I'll revise my thinking.  I don't need to rely on belief or faith.
Oh, you take me back to my days on UFO forums.  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", one particularly nutty UFO nut would tell me.  That was occasionally right before she told me that absence of evidence of humans making crop circles (each one had to be examined separately so that if the evidence could not be produced every single time it still left the door open for belief) that was proof that they weren't created by humans.

Again, you are utterly correct in my opinion.  Again, though, it doesn't matter to people who believe lunacy is logic.
This sentence is a lie...

GSOgymrat

It depends on the context of the discussion but in most cases I would go with "I believe there is no god." For most people god is a belief based on faith, not physical evidence. When it comes to god I think most theists are saying based on their subjective experience and understanding of reality they believe in god, where based on my subjective experience and understanding of reality, I do not believe. Also if you say "there is no god" as a statement of fact when the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe in some kind of god it is reasonable for the theist to ask for evidence why your extraordinary claim is true.

FaithIsFilth

What's a god? There are millions of different definitions. Some simply define god as the Universe. In that case, we can say that god does exist. If one does not make the claim that god has always existed and does not make the claim that he controls everything in our Universe, that god could exist (computer programmer), but I personally wouldn't consider that to be a god. Many probably would, though. The idea of a god who has always existed as a thinking being with magic powers, is an illogical concept to me. That's as far as I'm willing to go. Calling it an illogical concept. I wouldn't say that I know for a fact that there is no god. I have no problem with people telling their kids that there is no god though, and I certainly wouldn't consider that to be indoctrination. I've always said that telling your kids there is no god is no different than telling them that there are no monsters under their bed.

Mr.Obvious

"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Gawdzilla Sama

"I have no reason to believe there is a god or gods."
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

trdsf

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 02, 2016, 10:35:44 AM
I pretty much think as you do.  Except, I think there is proof god does not exist--any of them.  The absence of  evidence is proof.  I don't have to prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist by producing evidence that she does not exist.  That is not possible.  But there is no proof of any kind that she does exist.  The absence of any evidence for her is proof she does not exist.  If a god hypothesis could be produced and then tested, then there might be a chance that god could exist--until the hypothesis was proven false.  But that is not possible to construct.  The absence of any kind of evidence demonstrates (at least for me) that god(s) don't exist. 

This is where belief and faith come in.  That is the only way a god can exist; and that is where people make one up and then insist it is real by believing in it and having faith that it exists.  I don't  believe in anything or have faith in anything.  I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow; I think it will because of all the evidence that suggests it will.  If it doesn't, then I'll revise my thinking.  I don't need to rely on belief or faith.
And, it is not incumbent upon us to keep looking for evidence.  If some is presented, that's one thing, but it's the responsibility of the proponents of the hypothesis to come up with it, not for us to just accept it provisionally and try to break it down.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Munch

There is no father christmas.

Now obviously there are countless depictions of father christmas all over the world, and there are people who dress up like him, make up new stories about him, but the character is a story we tell children until they learn, and say 'there is no Santa'.

The idea of father christmas can then carry on to when that kid grows up and has children themselves, until their kid says the same, or asks the question 'is he real?".

I remember when I was a kid, and a school friend told me there's no such thing as him, it was then I thought about it, came to my mum, and told her I don't think father christmas is real, and she nodded and told me how it all worked with the cookies and milk and the list to Santa and early night on Christmas eve, it all fell into place.

Why is it, that every other person in the western culture goes through this as a child, and the clarity of realising you've been told a story by your parents to make-believe, that everyone wakes up to that about father christmas.. but not about God?
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

trdsf

Quote from: widdershins on September 02, 2016, 10:36:57 AM
While your argument is sound and, in my opinion, utterly correct, it doesn't matter.  You're preaching to the choir.  If you try preaching this to people who have twisted their brains into believing lunacy is logic and logic (real logic) is used by assholes who want to persecute them it will have no effect except to feed their sick psychological need to feel persecuted.
Well, not necessarily.  I have as often gotten the "you can't say you know" from our side as from theirs -- but that's because in the main, we do care about evidence, and we do care about logic and we do care about real values of truth and knowledge.  So this is about honing the argument, looking for the weaknesses and gaps in it, checking its solidity and validity, and having it in hand for the intramural debate as well as the external one.

And for some reason, I am reminded of a guy I knew in college who described himself as a 'militant agnostic' and was fond of telling people "I don't know and NEITHER DO YOU!"
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Mike Cl

Quote from: widdershins on September 02, 2016, 10:41:05 AM

Again, you are utterly correct in my opinion.  Again, though, it doesn't matter to people who believe lunacy is logic.
Oh I have hit my head against that wall some many times..................One cannot convince a 'believer' with facts.  Sad and true.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 02, 2016, 03:17:59 PM
Oh I have hit my head against that wall some many times..................One cannot convince a 'believer' with facts.  Sad and true.

But one can plant seeds of doubt.
That's what happend with me.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.