What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2014, 02:50 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 02:36 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief.

[Image: 57962f1170c215044a100ee51d95f77d.jpg]

Where do I find a "Have no response, so post a meme" meme?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 03:12 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(31-01-2014 08:50 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 03:43 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Given the variation and highly subjective nature of what would be deemed to be acceptable evidence, I have no idea why this dependence on the lack of evidence results in a lack of belief.

... and yet despite applying different labels to yourself and espousing somewhat different epistemology you seem to share the lack of belief. You seem to have come to the conclusion that you don't currently have a god belief.

Am I correct in my understanding based on your comments in the other thread? If so, how do you come by your lack of belief?
I would assume this is you attempt to say I'm really an atheist. Some would say I am.

Anyway, as I've always said I will always answer questions put to me. As a teenager I was an atheist, and used similar arguments as many have here. I have changed from this perspective of focusing on what I don't believe, to what I do. Hence my 'strong' agnosticism and realisation that we really have no understanding to justify either side.

I don't identify with the statement of how do I come by my lack of belief. I have no belief towards a god based on the obvious lack of intervention on its part (if it exists). I would require something beyond what I've experienced in life to believe. I cannot rationalise any religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 03:15 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 02:50 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 02:36 AM)sporehux Wrote:  [Image: 57962f1170c215044a100ee51d95f77d.jpg]

Where do I find a "Have no response, so post a meme" meme?

Ok I'll bite: please explain what you mean by this statement?
"Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief."

Answer =

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 03:41 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 03:15 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 02:50 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Where do I find a "Have no response, so post a meme" meme?

Ok I'll bite: please explain what you mean by this statement?
"Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief."

Answer =

The naturalist assumes that the nothing exists beyond the natural.Occam's Razor justifies this by removing anything beyond what we can observe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 04:02 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 03:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 03:15 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Ok I'll bite: please explain what you mean by this statement?
"Occam's razor is of use to a naturalist who cannot prove their belief."

Answer =

The naturalist assumes that the nothing exists beyond the natural.Occam's Razor justifies this by removing anything beyond what we can observe.

That would be a strawman Naturalist that you just created, congratulations on the Intelligent Design there, (maybe the intelligent bit is a stretch).

So this implausible "naturalist" cough'strawman , will use his mighty Occams razor to banish every alternative his own dogmatic agenda, that about right.
[Image: slow-clap-gif-2.gif]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2014 05:49 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Quote:Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed the fact that no one has even tried to come up with an answer to the question I posed to you guys blah blah blah, sad attempt to move the goalposts...


My reply to your original question, before you attempted to shift the goalposts, was on the very first page, in post #4:


(28-01-2014 12:21 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Trot your "greator/gawd/deity/whateverthefuck" out in front of us and have it perform all sorts of magic tricks. Have it create a new planet just like ours populated with all sorts of species of animals somewhere between here and the moon.

.......


Have it conjure a fucking PLANET where we can all see it and send a shuttle out to look around, kick the tires, etc. Easy-peasy for the supposed creator of the fucking universe.

.....hang a new planet out there right in our face.



......if this fictional person told us first what s/he was going to change, then changed it, and perhaps reversed it back and forth a few times on cue. S/he could make the new planet vanish back into nothingness and reappear again and again. Or fill the solar system up with new planets.

......If it was big enough to create the fucking universe, it should leave some pretty big turds behind.

..... New. Planet. Get to working on it.




[Image: go-fuck-yourself-disney-with-a-vengeance....gif?w=480]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 07:12 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 03:41 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  The naturalist assumes that the nothing exists beyond the natural.Occam's Razor justifies this by removing anything beyond what we can observe.

You're not talking about Materialist Bias, are you? Because, we've talked about that already.

As soon as you use that as a justification for refuting people's arguments, you leave yourself open to asking whether you're in the Matrix or if you're about to be trampled by an invisible unicorn herd at every moment of your life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 03:12 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(31-01-2014 08:50 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... and yet despite applying different labels to yourself and espousing somewhat different epistemology you seem to share the lack of belief. You seem to have come to the conclusion that you don't currently have a god belief.

Am I correct in my understanding based on your comments in the other thread? If so, how do you come by your lack of belief?
I would assume this is you attempt to say I'm really an atheist. Some would say I am.

Anyway, as I've always said I will always answer questions put to me. As a teenager I was an atheist, and used similar arguments as many have here. I have changed from this perspective of focusing on what I don't believe, to what I do. Hence my 'strong' agnosticism and realisation that we really have no understanding to justify either side.

I don't identify with the statement of how do I come by my lack of belief. I have no belief towards a god based on the obvious lack of intervention on its part (if it exists). I would require something beyond what I've experienced in life to believe. I cannot rationalise any religion.

I have little interest in defining terms or trying to impose specific definitions upon people. Words are useful only when they convey shared meanings. In my limited observations of your interactions with this board various people have explained what specific terms mean to them but you have tended to try and force your definition and argue against the strawman you create in doing so rather than arguing against the actual positions held by members, leading to general frustration and eventual disengagement with you in discussion.

The terms are not important. I don't believe. You don't believe. It seems that is common between us. You came to that disbelief and I came by to that disbelief by some form of rational process. It seems the processes were similar. But you seem critical in this thread about people coming to precisely the same conclusion on a comparable logical foundation. Why be critical of a rational process and a conclusion that you seem to agree with?

Let me compare my rational process and yours:
Me: I don't haven't seen compelling argumentation and evidence to lead me to believe that a god or gods exist.
You: "[There is an] ... obvious lack of intervention on its part (if it exists)".
... and our conclusions:

Me: I don't have a belief in god or gods
You: "I have no belief towards a god"

My term for my conclusion: Atheist
Your term for your conclusion: Atheist? I'm not one of those idiots! You just want to poke the religious in the eye! Atheism is reaction to religion. You think you're better than them but your assertion that there is no god is based on no better grounds than theirs! Agnosticism is a reaction to atheism. I know both positions are shit, therefore I am the one who is better than you! Oh. I mean: Agnostic.

I'm fine with your choice of terms and the semantic distinction you draw for yourself between your definition of atheist and your definition of agnostic. Just understand that for most people who call themselves atheists the distinction between their "atheist" term and your agnosticism is very fine indeed. You don't get to claim superiority for making exactly the same arguments and coming to the exact same conclusion but choosing a different word to describe your conclusion.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Hafnof's post
01-02-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2014 01:52 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 02:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So if there was a creator there would be no existence?
Ugh.. wtf why are you assuming a creator exists ?? its almost as logical to assume that a metrosexual superman exists in the 4th dimensions!

for fucks sake man.. understand the absurdity of the idea of God![Image: facepalm.gif]
Quote:Your claim of chaotic and random would be based on what, quantum indeterminacy?
No its based on something called "Common sense"
Quote:some atheists show a lack of consideration and the desire for soft targets.
Its not our fault that theists can't provide us with Scientific evidence supporting their hypothesis of God.

Quote:If you claim it's not potentially false, what evidence do you hold to justify this? .
Oh i have !

We CANNOT observe&interact with anything beyond this world!

If you can provide me evidence to disprove that claim then i'll accept that naturalism is a "potentially false" premise..
Quote:So anything which there is no evidence for, does not exist is untrue? That's quite a claim.
"Extraordinary claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence"
~~ Carl Sagan Drinking Beverage

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
I have been with you guys all the way regarding Brownshirts position. One of his comments was that he neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or gods, to which my reaction was "That is a non-sensical, meaningless statement. You must either believe or not believe".

However, I have been pondering this statement. If it's true that there are levels of belief and disbelief (strong theist to strong atheist), then there must be a middle ground where Brownshirts statement exists. I suppose this stems from coming to the conclusion that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable, and therefore not worth his attention.

The problem I have with this is that it could be said that nothing is 100% knowable. If this is the case, then Brownshirt would have to say that he neither believes nor disbelieves anything and so there is nothing worth his attention.

These are my initial ponderings and may change tomorrow as it is the first time I have considered this middle ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: