Atheism is DEAD!

[ToadBrother]

Not all definitions of a diety claim power of the natural world. Many just claim the diety exists and they can communicate with it.

Do you have any evidence for this kind of god either?

Even there you see many different definitions. The evangelical chistian notion of god is different from the catholic which is different from the united.

And yet the similarities are greater than the perceived differences. The Judeao-Christian god is seen as an active creative force in the Universe. Maybe some early Gnostic Christians and Gnostic Jews might have had different views, but certainly no Christian in the last 1500 years has considered God to simply be some nebulous voice in the sky, and I don't think even the Gnostics believed that, tending more to the view that Satan was a near equal to God, rather than just an errant angel.

[Riverwind]

Do you have any evidence for this kind of god either?

What would constitute evidence? Many people have gone through dramatic personal transformations as a result of what they claim to be the intervention of a deity. You could claim that the transformation had some biochemical reason but that would be a matter of belief like the belief that a deity had something to do with it.

The Judeao-Christian god is seen as an active creative force in the Universe.

Some Christians claim that the deity intervenes directly - many say that god only acts through the minds of his followers. Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

What would constitute evidence? Many people have gone through dramatic personal transformations as a result of what they claim to be the intervention of a deity. You could claim that the transformation had some biochemical reason but that would be a matter of belief like the belief that a deity had something to do with it.

How about an actual miracle?

[ToadBrother]

What would constitute evidence? Many people have gone through dramatic personal transformations as a result of what they claim to be the intervention of a deity. You could claim that the transformation had some biochemical reason but that would be a matter of belief like the belief that a deity had something to do with it.

Biochemical processes can be tested. How is that a matter of "belief", unless you want to go completely down the road of epistemological nihilism, but how that would be helpful to a theistic argument is beyond me.

Some Christians claim that the deity intervenes directly - many say that god only acts through the minds of his followers.

I don't know of any major branch of Christianity over the last 2,000 years that makes that particular claim.

[Riverwind]

How about an actual miracle?

That would be necessary if someone claimed a deity was interested in performing miracles.

[ToadBrother]

That would be necessary if someone claimed a deity was interested in performing miracles.

Well, yes, anyone can concoct a theoretical entity that doesn't do anything, or if it does, has those actions explicitly moved into the realms of the undetectable. Is there some point to that, however? I mean, do you think atheism comes crumbling down if I declare a dozen invisible massless faeries live in your left armpit?

At the end of the day, I would want evidence, not some bit of semantic and definitional trickery. You clearly do not possess that evidence.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That would be necessary if someone claimed a deity was interested in performing miracles.

So your deity is useless? What is the point of it existing?

Edited December 20, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

Well, yes, anyone can concoct a theoretical entity that doesn't do anything, or if it does, has those actions explicitly moved into the realms of the undetectable.

Exactly. And the converse is also true - i.e. if you want to be atheist all you have to do is pick a definition of a diety which requires physical evidence which then allows you to claim that a such a deity likely does not exist.

Creationism/intelligent design is not a science because the definition of deity can be modified to suit the evidence. i.e. if an explanation for a previous miracle was found then the goal posts can be moved to some other phenomena that currently does not have an explanation. Atheism justified with 'lack of evidence' has the same problem. At their core theism and atheism are a belief system - not a matter of facts or evidence.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

So your deity is useless? What is the point of it existing?

Does a rock have point of existing? Do you have a point of existing? A diety does not require a point or a purpose.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Does a rock have point of existing? Do you have a point of existing? A diety does not require a point or a purpose.

Alright let me redefine that as why do people make them up then?

[Riverwind]

Alright let me redefine that as why do people make them up then?

I don't know. You would have to ask those 'people'. My point is you can't claim there is no evidence for a deity unless you are clear what kind of deity you are talking about.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't know. You would have to ask those 'people'. My point is you can't claim there is no evidence for a deity unless you are clear what kind of deity you are talking about.

There is no evidence for any deity by any definition of deity. Apparently I can.

[ToadBrother]

Exactly. And the converse is also true - i.e. if you want to be atheist all you have to do is pick a definition of a diety which requires physical evidence which then allows you to claim that a such a deity likely does not exist.

I don't have to pick. I lack belief in anything supernatural, no matter how much or how little effect it's adherents may claim it has. It's up to them to provide them evidence. It's not my job to prove them wrong, it's their job to prove themselves right. In short, my atheism is nothing more than the null hypothesis.

Creationism/intelligent design is not a science because the definition of deity can be modified to suit the evidence. i.e. if an explanation for a previous miracle was found then the goal posts can be moved to some other phenomena that currently does not have an explanation. Atheism justified with 'lack of evidence' has the same problem. At their core theism and atheism are a belief system - not a matter of facts or evidence.

A belief system is a system of beliefs. Atheism is a pretty useless system of beliefs. Could you tell me what my system of beliefs is, I'd dearly love to be enlightened. Thus far you've told me I don't accept certain kinds of evidence, only to demonstrate you don't have any particular line of evidence. Now you're telling me I have a system of beliefs, so do tell, what are the tenets that I seem to accept.

[Riverwind]

It's up to them to provide them evidence.

Why? You are the one expounding the virtues of your belief system here. You are the one that needs to show that the logical basis for your system is sound. If you want to say that you do not believe that any diety exists - even a type of diety which does not interact with the physical world - then you are making a statement of faith. Not logic.

A belief system is a system of beliefs. Atheism is a pretty useless system of beliefs. Could you tell me what my system of beliefs is, I'd dearly love to be enlightened. Thus far you've told me I don't accept certain kinds of evidence, only to demonstrate you don't have any particular line of evidence. Now you're telling me I have a system of beliefs, so do tell, what are the tenets that I seem to accept.

Your system of beliefs is founded on the presumption that the physical world is all there is and if there is no physical evidence then something cannot be true. You obviously get something from that system of beliefs because you are willing to defend it. Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

Why? You are the one expounding the virtues of your belief system here.

I don't have a belief system, and I never expounded the virtues of anything. I'm not here to convert. I could give a damn what you believe.

You are the one that needs to show that the logical basis for your system is sound.

It's sound for me. If you don't like it, don't believe it. I think you're assuming a good many things about me that are really your own prejudices.

If you want to say that you do not believe that any diety exists - even a type of diety which does not interact with the physical world - then you are making a statement of faith. Not logic.

I'm invoking the null hypothesis. Do you actually accept that a dozen massless invisible faeries live in your left arm pit?

Your system of beliefs is founded on the presumption that the physical world is all their is and if there is no physical evidence then something cannot be true. You obviously get something from that system of beliefs because you are willing to defend it.

I'll defend my world view, sure. But you've stated hardly constitutes a system. If, as you say, the physical world is all I accept, then that's a single data point. Can you please tell me what your definition of the word "system" is?

[DarkAngel_]

TB i agree with you, evidence is key to anything. a rock has uses, as does a god however, because just like the rock we use gods as tools.... of what? is a good and troubling question...

but in all honest we have no proof of a god and lots of proof in a god as well as proof in no god, and no proof at all.... it is useless.

weak atheism is atheism with lack of proof of god, true atheism is just no belief in a god or deity as defined.

it is simple to answer, we don't see the evidence in meta-physicians and religion.

[Riverwind]

I'm invoking the null hypothesis.

You cannot specify a null hypothesis without specifying the criteria that would be used to falsify the hypothesis. IOW - you seek to get the answer you want by framing the question.

Do you actually accept that a dozen massless invisible faeries live in your left arm pit?

Did I say I did?

Can you please tell me what your definition of the word "system" is?

Depends on the problem I am trying to solve. I use whatever definition will allow me to determine what I need to determine.

[ToadBrother]

You cannot specify a null hypothesis without specifying the criteria that would be used to falsify the hypothesis. IOW - you seek to get the answer you want by framing the question.

Huh? The null hypothesis simply says "claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Do you actually accept that a dozen massless invisible faeries live in your left arm pit?

Did I say I did?

And why don't you?

Depends on the problem I am trying to solve. I use whatever definition will allow me to determine what I need to determine.

Okay, in the context of this conversation, what is your definition of the word "system"?

Edited December 20, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

Huh? The null hypothesis simply says "claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

The null hypothesis is the 'default' position. i.e. what is the chance that random chance could explain the phenomena. To answer that question you must first declare any assumptions on the nature of the processes being analyzed.

And why don't you?

No reason to. Note that I am not arguing that I believe that a specific diety exists. I am only saying that your claim that there is no evidence for a deity is only true because of the way you have defined a diety.

Okay, in the context of this conversation, what is your definition of the word "system"?

Any discussion of a deity must include the possibility that there are planes of existence beyond the perception of the physical world. Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

The null hypothesis is the 'default' position. i.e. what is the chance that random chance could explain the phenomena. To answer that question you must first declare any assumptions on the nature of the processes being analyzed.

But the point is we're not analyzing a process. We're analyzing a raw claim that no one has brought any evidence to bear upon. In short, I assume non-existence until someone can demonstrate some evidence for existence.

No reason to. Note that I am not arguing that I believe that a specific diety exists. I am only saying that your claim that there is no evidence for a deity is only true because of the way you have defined a diety.

So you reject invisible massless faeries in your left arm pit because there's no reason to believe in them. Interesting... You're allowed to invoke the null hypothesis for that, but I'm prejudicial because I invoke it for other supernatural entities.

Any discussion of a deity must include the possibility that there are planes of existence beyond the perception of the physical world.

But that's assuming the conclusion. First show some evidence of other planes of existence. You don't get a free pass on one claim just so you can make another.

[Riverwind]

We're analyzing a raw claim that no one has brought any evidence to bear upon.

The issue is who defined the 'raw claim' that requires evidence. You are insisting on defining the 'raw claim' to be a diety that is able/willing to directly intervene in the physical world. You can define it that way but you are not addressing all possible claims of a diety.

But that's assuming the conclusion. First show some evidence of other planes of existence. You don't get a free pass on one claim just so you can make another.

You are the one who asked what my definition of the system was. I gave it to you. You disagree. But you prove my point that this entire discussion comes down to the definition of a diety.

BTW - scientists speculate about planes we cannot perceive all of the time.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

The issue is who defined the 'raw claim' that requires evidence. You are insisting on defining the 'raw claim' to be a diety that is able/willing to directly intervene in the physical world. You can define it that way but you are not addressing all possible claims of a diety.

I don't care whether the deity intervenes or not. Provide some evidence for any deity.

You are the one who asked what my definition of the system was. I gave it to you. You disagree. But you prove my point that this entire discussion comes down to the definition of a diety.

BTW - scientists speculate about planes we cannot perceive all of the time.

Are you talking about "planes" or "dimensions". String theory certainly postulates more spacial dimensions, but those aren't planes. There are also metaverse theories. But none of these are supernatural constructs, merely mathematical ones that may or may not have anything at all to do with reality. Even the scientists and mathematicians who formulate admit that freely. Don't go loading a bunch of New Age baggage on top of this stuff. They ain't arguing for heaven and hell.

And you didn't actually supply with a definition of system, you seemed to supply me with more attempted counterarguments to the first point.

[Riverwind]

Are you talking about "planes" or "dimensions".

The link I gave you posulates many universes suspended in some meta-verse that allows them to bump into each other causing big bangs. The hypothesis requires that these universes be real - not mathematical constructs. We will never have evidence that these universes really exist since they exist outside our realm of physical perception.

It is also worth noting that the hypothesis is not universally accepted. Some scientists think it is bunk. But it is still a legimate scientific hypothesis. Given that context I do not feel it reasonable to restricting a discussion of a diety to our realm of physical perception.

They ain't arguing for heaven and hell.

Neither am I. You seem to be caught up in the idea that only concept of a diety is the one described in the Christian Bible. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

There are also metaverse theories.

Is that like when Reed Richards opens a portal to the Negative Zone to battle with Blastaar?

Or is it more like the Earth Prime where Lex Luthor is the world's only hero, and has to save the world from Superman and Wonder Woman and Aqua Man?

Or is it more like when Rachel Summers traveled back through time to get the X-men to stop the assassination of Senator Kelly, resulting in a new reality with a different time-line from the future she lived in?

One thing I've learned from Star Trek is that time travel is going to be exceedingly common in the future, so if changing the past results in metaverses popping up left and right, we're obviously going to have to be extremely cautious. You'd hate to get stuck in the wrong metaverse when you're travelling time.

-k

[Riverwind]

One thing I've learned from Star Trek is that time travel is going to be exceedingly common in the future

Don't forget the alternate realities with the Evil Captain Kirk... Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind