Atheism Poll

[Mike Cl]

If we are to have meaningful dialog we have to use words as they are defined or we will always be talking past each other.

Evidence.


noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

I believe in theism. That doesn't mean I know its true, it means I think its true based on the information available in comparison to the belief we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that caused all we observe unintentionally a counter claim atheists never really defend because (ahem) atheists don't make any claims.

Mike, you can say otherwise until your blue in the face but atheism is a belief. Its a counter belief to theism. Its not a scientifically established fact, or a fact established in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Prove me wrong show the experimental data that proves mindless forces came into existence or always existed, caused the universe and human beings to exist without any plan or intent to do so and caused all we observe... end this silly debate once and for all.

Drew, I use the definition for evidence as shown above.  Obviously you chose to use another definition.  We will not be able to agree to the definition to be used. 

I realize you 'believe' in theism.  Which I read as hoping/wishing, for you can produce no evidence, only a positive statement--without support or reason.  We do not know to what we owe our existence nor the existence of the universe.  Maybe 'mechanistic forces, maybe mindless forces, maybe we are just the side effect of some system, or some other situation or cause we cannot, at this time, comprehend.   The scientific world is not trying to prove any one cause, but to determine what the cause of our existence is; not that mindless forces, or mechanistic forces, or any other particular force is the cause. 

Well, Drew, I'm blue in the face right now.  Atheism is NOT (no matter how badly you want to believe so) a belief.  I do not have a belief system.  Nor does atheism require it.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief.  I am a nonbeliever in the truest sense of the word.  I don't believe anything.  I use reason for thinking something or not thinking something.  The scientific world is not trying to prove that mindless forces or non-mindless forces created anything.  The scientific world is trying to find out what forces were the cause of our universe and world.  And you have a misconception about what a theory is.  A theory is establishing a fact by experiment and accepting that established fact as real and a thing--not a belief.  But every theory can be retested by anybody at any time and can be shown to be wrong.  That theory is then rejected.  Nothing is cast in stone.  The scientific world tackles questions one at a time without trying to prove any particular view.  What is proven is then proven--until proven wrong.  If there was one established theory about a cause or god(s), I would accept it.  There is not one.  And never will be--except for those who 'believe'.

[Sorginak]

Not this tired old debate again, which only ever repeats on the same loop:

Theist - I have evidence
Atheist - Show me the evidence
Theist - *evidence*
Atheist - That's not evidence
Theist - Sure it is.
Atheist - No, it's not.

[Simon Moon]

The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

If you seriously think that your straw man is a legit corollary to my post, no wonder you are convinced by your bad arguments.

I do not detest the notion of a creator god, I am just unconvinced that one (or more) exists. There may be specific gods who's existence I would detest, if true, but not the concept in general. But that is not my reasons for disbelief.

I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist

You mean to be intellectually honest? To admit that we don't know things? What a horrible concept.

If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

You can't post without failing "logic 101", can you? Sorry to inform you, but the burden of proof is all yours. It is not up to us to prove your claim false, it is up to you (if you care about convincing anybody) to prove your claim true. Just to remind you, you are the one that is "multiplying entities without necessity", as is stated by Occam's razor.

So far, have scientists ever drilled down into any phenomena, and NOT found natural explanations? Everything we now understand about the universe, was once thought to have supernatural explanations. Lightning, disease, floods, earthquakes, famine, planetary orbits, etc, etc, were all once thought to be supernaturally controlled. The record has not been kind to you 'superstitionalists'.

I do not believe anything on faith. Please let me know what you think I believe on faith.

All I have to examine is the natural world. If some sort of god(s) exists, I currently have zero justification to believe it.

Please, by all means, present some evidence that your god exists. I am open to accept any claim that is accompanied by demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and sound/valid logic.

And no, your fallacious arguments presented in your link, are not, in any way, shape or form "evidence".

For arguments sake, lets say I accept your 'logical' arguments as being sound and valid (to reiterate, they are not). Now comes the important step, how do we go about testing whether they are actually true?

[Drew_2017]

Mike,

Well, Drew, I'm blue in the face right now.  Atheism is NOT (no matter how badly you want to believe so) a belief.  I do not have a belief system.  Nor does atheism require it.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief.  I am a nonbeliever in the truest sense of the word.  I don't believe anything.

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists. But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Saying I lack belief is really a non-answer but lets compare to other statements.

Is there enough evidence to conclude for a fact or an opinion that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or do you lack belief in naturalism also? If so do you refer to yourself as an a-naturalist and do you find your self debating naturalists who state the belief (or fact) we owe our existence to naturalistic forces only? Is there evidence you accept as in favor of belief in naturalism or like theism do you deny there are any facts that comport with naturalism?

Is there enough facts and data to conclude Santa Claus (defined as a mystical person who can travel world wide on a sleigh and deliver presents on Christmas Eve) or do you merely lack that belief?

Ditto aliens disbelief or lack of belief
Ghosts
goblins
fairies
Flying spaghetti monster

[trdsf]

I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.

I suppose that depends on whether or not he actually believes the blithering nonsense he spouts.  If not, then yes, a smart and talented manipulator.  If he does believe it, yeah, he's an idiot.

[Mike Cl]

Mike,

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists.

Redefined from what and by whom?  I've stated what my working definition is. 

[Baruch]

Not this tired old debate again, which only ever repeats on the same loop:

Theist - I have evidence
Atheist - Show me the evidence
Theist - *evidence*
Atheist - That's not evidence
Theist - Sure it is.
Atheist - No, it's not.

Bill Clinton - Depends on what the definition of "is" is ;-)

[Mike Cl]

Mike,

But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Drew, I wonder about your reading comprehension ability.  Or your ability to restate what someone has said.  As clearly as I can I will tell you what I think.  I contend that there are not ANY facts--not one--that supports the existence of god(s) or a creator.  Not a 'few' or 'not enough'--not ANY.  It is not my 'opinion'--it is a fact.  And if I am wrong in that last statement, please point me toward those facts that I am unaware of. 

Of course I deny god(s) exist.  There is no proof it does.  I have proof nature exists--none for god(s).  The second proof is given that god(s) exist, I will instantly become a believer. 

Why have 'qualms' about what theists believe?  It matters not what your private beliefs are.  What matters is that theists insist that I believe as they do and they pass laws that forces their views onto me.   

[Simon Moon]

Mike,

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists. But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

You really are a horribly muddled thinker when it comes to logic.

Let me take these one at a time.

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists.

I don't really care what you want to call my lack of belief in gods. It is the concept that is important, not the label.

But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist.

Oh please...

The only thing that is necessary to disbelieve existential claims, is for there not to be enough demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, and valid/sound logic to support the claim. It is not up to us to find evidence for the nonexistence for any existential claim.

If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Well, deistic creator god types of beliefs tend to be benign.

But the vast majority of creator god believers, believe in a specific theistic god, with all the dogma and doctrine that goes along with that belief. And those beliefs don't live in a vacuum. Beliefs inform actions, and those actions can and do lead to real world, negative outcomes.

We have billions of people, who have differing god beliefs, that all claim that their version of their god wants them to: kill infidels, start wars, persecute homosexuals, have their religious based pseudoscience taught in public schools, want everyone else to obey their holy book's morality, etc.

And NONE of their beliefs are supported by evidence or logic.

Saying I lack belief is really a non-answer but lets compare to other statements.

Is there enough evidence to conclude for a fact or an opinion that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or do you lack belief in naturalism also? If so do you refer to yourself as an a-naturalist and do you find your self debating naturalists who state the belief (or fact) we owe our existence to naturalistic forces only? Is there evidence you accept as in favor of belief in naturalism or like theism do you deny there are any facts that comport with naturalism?

What else do we have to examine besides the natural world?

By all means, present the same level of evidence for the existence of your god, as we have for the natural world. Until the time anyone is able to do that, what should be our warrant to believe that your god exists?

[Drew_2017]

Drew - There are many creators.  We do possess Aristotle's efficient and final causes.  Why do you need an uber-creator?  I don't need Big Bang theory to know that I can act in reality, and that I have an motive in doing so.  If G-d only has material and formal causes ... aka nature ... then in fact humans are superior in that respect to G-d.  Not as big or powerful, but much more personal.  If G-d is potentiality, and we are actuality ... then how does G-d act?  Thru us.

I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

[Baruch]

I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

Well then, admit your demigod-hood then.  You can actually do things.  Rocks cannot.  Materialism is like Rock-Paper-Scissors ... where Rock always wins ;-)

"What else do we have to examine besides the natural world?" ... well you could examine yourself or other people ... we aren't natural, we are artificial.  But if you prefer rocks, go right ahead.  I used to be an avid rock collector.  Once I got over my autism though, I am more human oriented now.  It is insulting to other living organisms to say they are natural ... as if they aren't alive, no more than rocks.  But when your body is recycled ...

[Sorginak]

I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

I've always considered theists on atheist forums to be masochists, or self-serving martyrs when they finally earn getting forum banned.  No, I wouldn't personally ban you.  It just seems to me the goal of some theists on atheist forums.

[Mike Cl]

I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!

[Baruch]

Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!

Billions of demigods have been invented by humans, the usual way ... they are called babies ;-)

[Baruch]

I've always considered theists on atheist forums to be masochists, or self-serving martyrs when they finally earn getting forum banned.

Hamlet much?  Must be crowded even when you are the only one in your nut shell.