Post Any Evidence For God Here

[BigBallinStalin]

[crispybits]

Personally, I reckon the Klingons had the right idea:

[john9blue]

Atheism is already mainstream in nearly every developed country outside N.America and civil society has not collapsed.On the contrary we are talking about some of the most civilised countries around.Naturally change is difficult,painful even.One of the biggest problems as atheism gains appeal is that ex-theists are often much more zealous and impressionable than those who never believed and they bring their intolerant attitudes acquired as believers with them.I agree it's the future and the internet with its inexorable scrutiny of ideas is the battleground,and one where ultimately theism will decline slowly over time.

moral decay does not happen overnight. people in (insert "progressive" european country here) still follow moral codes (both government-enforced and otherwise) which are heavily influenced by religion. religion influences everything, or as you might say, "poisons" everything, regardless of whether some dude in europe acknowledges it or not (it even influences the way this dude was raised... the morals taught to him as a kid were probably influenced to some extent by religion)

also, are these countries "civilized" because of atheism, or is atheism a result of a high standard of living? again, has this system been shown to be stable over a long period of time? i don't think it has.

[tzor]

Damn, is this thread still alive!? What a waste of time, we all know religious people can't be reached through logic,

The strong atheist has no logic. Logic patiently points out that you can't prove a negative.

Now if you want to insist that religious people can't be reached by burning straw men, well then, a lot of people can't be so reached.

[crispybits]

Damn, is this thread still alive!? What a waste of time, we all know religious people can't be reached through logic,

The strong atheist has no logic. Logic patiently points out that you can't prove a negative.

Now if you want to insist that religious people can't be reached by burning straw men, well then, a lot of people can't be so reached.

The strong atheist position you describe (There is definitely no God) is not the same as the currently popular atheist position (There might be a God, but I have seen no evidence that proves it, and in the absence of any evidence I have to assume the claim that there is a God is unfounded). I think it was Bill Nye in a conversation about science who touched on this by saying that he is not a believer in ghosts, but he would love it if someone could show him one. It's about whether you have an open mind and are willing to say "you know what, I was wrong about that" if presented with evidence that counters your beliefs. Funnily enough not something that religious people or institutions in general are well known for.

moral decay does not happen overnight. people in (insert "progressive" european country here) still follow moral codes (both government-enforced and otherwise) which are heavily influenced by religion. religion influences everything, or as you might say, "poisons" everything, regardless of whether some dude in europe acknowledges it or not (it even influences the way this dude was raised... the morals taught to him as a kid were probably influenced to some extent by religion)

also, are these countries "civilized" because of atheism, or is atheism a result of a high standard of living? again, has this system been shown to be stable over a long period of time? i don't think it has.

Research has shown that there is a high correlation between atheism and education. As more and more people are taught to think critically more and more people reject religion. Of course there is also a correlation between the educational level of a society and the standard of living of a society, but if asked what was more likely, that someone had developed better critical reasoning skills and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, or that someone was able to afford a bigger house or a better car or a bigger TV and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, I think it would be obvious which is more likely to be related.

Nobody is claiming that atheism has swept the world and transformed it into a more civilised place. In pretty much every country there are still around 40-50% (at least) of the population that identify themselves as religious, including the supposedly atheist ones like Sweden, France or the Czech Republic.

However the argument that it's never been done before is no argument at all against anything. If it had been tried, and it had failed because of the lack of religion, then I may be more sympathetic to claims that God-less societies are unworkable and will suffer inevitable moral collapse. The truth though is that it's never been tested long term in any society comparable with the ones we live in worldwide today. Neither had industrialisation maybe 250 years ago, but we still did that. Neither had republics and democratic forms of government maybe 3-400 years ago, but we still went ahead and did them. All societies change based on what that society believes to be the best path, and yes sometimes mistakes are made, but the solution is not to try and halt the change, the solution is to engage with the change, and to keep using every bit of energy we all have to making sure that whatever aspect of society we are talking about, the changes bring about a better society tomorrow than we had today.

There is a place in that for religion too. Don't get me wrong here, I'll stick up for your right to believe anything you want to believe in. I'll also stick up for someone else's right to call it ridiculous bullshit. Most importantly though, I'll make damn sure that I stand up and be counted when decisions are made that affect society that they are made based on evidence and reason and an ethical code that is based on compassion, responsibility and fairness, and not on what some religious text from hundreds or thousands of years ago says about what they thought God said we should be doing back then. Perhaps most importantly, I'll oppose any organisation or individual that brainwashes kids into core beliefs about the biggest questions of all before they are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to understand the concepts being discussed and independently form their own opinions.

[tzor]

The strong atheist position you describe (There is definitely no God) is not the same as the currently popular atheist position (There might be a God, but I have seen no evidence that proves it, and in the absence of any evidence I have to assume the claim that there is a God is unfounded).

I guess I generally tend to get the strong Richard Dawkins type, especially on the internet. Remember that the previous post indicated "logic." In the absence of evidence logic can only say that there is no evidence. (Since there may be evidence but we are unaware of it.) One may choose to assume anything under these conditions, but this not derived from logic.

It's about whether you have an open mind and are willing to say "you know what, I was wrong about that" if presented with evidence that counters your beliefs. Funnily enough not something that religious people or institutions in general are well known for.

Well it's not something that people in general are well known for.

Nobody is claiming that atheism has swept the world and transformed it into a more civilised place. In pretty much every country there are still around 40-50% (at least) of the population that identify themselves as religious, including the supposedly atheist ones like Sweden, France or the Czech Republic.

Stepping back a moment, I should point out that many so called "atheist" movements were often led by delusional utopian megalomaniacs desiring absolute power and causing untold death and destruction in their wake. A small number of the founding fathers of the United States, on the other hand were agnostics, which is as close to atheism as you can get in the 18th century. On the whole, the nation was better off for them.

There is a place in that for religion too. Don't get me wrong here, I'll stick up for your right to believe anything you want to believe in. I'll also stick up for someone else's right to call it ridiculous bullshit. Most importantly though, I'll make damn sure that I stand up and be counted when decisions are made that affect society that they are made based on evidence and reason and an ethical code that is based on compassion, responsibility and fairness, and not on what some religious text from hundreds or thousands of years ago says about what they thought God said we should be doing back then. Perhaps most importantly, I'll oppose any organisation or individual that brainwashes kids into core beliefs about the biggest questions of all before they are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to understand the concepts being discussed and independently form their own opinions.

Well, first of all, we can go on for ages about "brainwashing." Just because something is old doesn't mean it's wrong. If that were the case, I would recommend you no longer ride in any vehicle because the wheel is an old as the caveman. In fact one could even argue about "survival of the fittest." Anything that doesn't work doesn't survive all that long. I think we will need to go into specifics here, because at this point we are so vague as to argue almost anything. What beliefs and questions are we considering?

[crispybits]

I guess I generally tend to get the strong Richard Dawkins type, especially on the internet. Remember that the previous post indicated "logic." In the absence of evidence logic can only say that there is no evidence. (Since there may be evidence but we are unaware of it.) One may choose to assume anything under these conditions, but this not derived from logic.

No, the point is that you cannot assume anything in the absence of evidence. The only logically correct position is to assume nothing. The current atheist movement does not (generally) assume anything, but starts from the default position that for something to be considered true, it must be backed up by some evidence. In the absence of evidence, no claim, be that the definite existence or the definite non-existence of God is logically sound.

However, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a definite claim is made the logically correct position is to not believe that claim unless the claimant can provide evidence. In this way, it is logically correct to not believe in the existence of God unless someone who claims that he does exist provides evidence. This is not the same thing as belief in the definite non-existence of God.

Russells teapot or the FSM are good examples here. Both are unverified, unfalsifiable entities. Neither has any traction in the belief systems of modern society (beyond the popular support for the FSM as an ironic symbol for atheism)

Well it's not something that people in general are well known for.

Agreed. However when engaging in debates about anything then a dogmatic position unable to admit to the possibility of error is useless. Even on the most basic scientific "truths" scientists are willing to admit that they may be wrong. Science is all about proving someone else wrong. It's how scientists gain fame within their field, and the bigger the theory you can topple the more notoriety you will gain. Critical thinking in general subscribes to that same principle.

Stepping back a moment, I should point out that many so called "atheist" movements were often led by delusional utopian megalomaniacs desiring absolute power and causing untold death and destruction in their wake. A small number of the founding fathers of the United States, on the other hand were agnostics, which is as close to atheism as you can get in the 18th century. On the whole, the nation was better off for them.

Can you name a few of these delusional megalomaniacs please.

Well, first of all, we can go on for ages about "brainwashing." Just because something is old doesn't mean it's wrong. If that were the case, I would recommend you no longer ride in any vehicle because the wheel is an old as the caveman. In fact one could even argue about "survival of the fittest." Anything that doesn't work doesn't survive all that long. I think we will need to go into specifics here, because at this point we are so vague as to argue almost anything. What beliefs and questions are we considering?

Just because something is new doesn't mean it's wrong either. The age of an idea has nothing to do with it's correctness. Some wrong ideas have persisted for centuries before being corrected, even within scientific circles. Newton's laws of motion were canon for over 300 years before Einstein came along and blew them out of the water with relativity. The idea that diseases were "bad humours" existed in one form or another from ancient greek right through to post-medieval times. Ideas also do not necessarily follow Darwinistic evolutionary principles, because they do not have the same characteristics as living beings.

We are meant to be questioning every belief. Of particular interest are any beliefs being used as justification to shape society. In the context of this bit of this debate, we are questioning the idea that any religious teachings should be able to be used to influence secular legal institutions. Some of the principles expounded by religion can be justified by other means (thou shalt not kill / steal) and others it's much more tricky (gay marriage / abortion). The basic premise is that to use religion a a justification for something requires evidence for God. If you cannot provide that evidence, then you have to provide some other form of argument why something or other should be banned or allowed, and that argument should be backed up by evidence or principle that can be demonstrated to be true.

Finally, brainwashing refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated". The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. (Wikipedia). Religion seems to fit this definition pretty nicely, especially when it's being hammered into the head of an emotionally and intellectually undeveloped child.

[BigBallinStalin]

Neither had republics and democratic forms of government maybe 3-400 years ago, but we still went ahead and did them. All societies change based on what that society believes to be the best path, and yes sometimes mistakes are made, but the solution is not to try and halt the change, the solution is to engage with the change, and to keep using every bit of energy we all have to making sure that whatever aspect of society we are talking about, the changes bring about a better society tomorrow than we had today.

Ah, so the "Iraqi Society" believed that having Saddam Hussein as dictator was the best path?

[john9blue]

Research has shown that there is a high correlation between atheism and education. As more and more people are taught to think critically more and more people reject religion. Of course there is also a correlation between the educational level of a society and the standard of living of a society, but if asked what was more likely, that someone had developed better critical reasoning skills and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, or that someone was able to afford a bigger house or a better car or a bigger TV and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, I think it would be obvious which is more likely to be related.

this paragraph is a giant jumbled mess of cause and effect. you really thing people become atheists because of their schooling? i can understand how learning about, say, evolution can make someone more likely to be an atheist, but schooling in general has little to no effect on someone's core beliefs.

However the argument that it's never been done before is no argument at all against anything. If it had been tried, and it had failed because of the lack of religion, then I may be more sympathetic to claims that God-less societies are unworkable and will suffer inevitable moral collapse. The truth though is that it's never been tested long term in any society comparable with the ones we live in worldwide today. Neither had industrialisation maybe 250 years ago, but we still did that. Neither had republics and democratic forms of government maybe 3-400 years ago, but we still went ahead and did them. All societies change based on what that society believes to be the best path, and yes sometimes mistakes are made, but the solution is not to try and halt the change, the solution is to engage with the change, and to keep using every bit of energy we all have to making sure that whatever aspect of society we are talking about, the changes bring about a better society tomorrow than we had today.

industrialization wasn't even POSSIBLE until 250 years ago. that's a pretty bad example.

republics and democracies are way older than that. and the difference between those and atheism is that in one case, you are adding something, and in the other, you are taking something away.

question: if atheism is the "default position" of every person, and atheism is good for society, then why does every successful society have tons of religious people? the evidence doesn't match your theory.

There is a place in that for religion too. Don't get me wrong here, I'll stick up for your right to believe anything you want to believe in. I'll also stick up for someone else's right to call it ridiculous bullshit. Most importantly though, I'll make damn sure that I stand up and be counted when decisions are made that affect society that they are made based on evidence and reason and an ethical code that is based on compassion, responsibility and fairness, and not on what some religious text from hundreds or thousands of years ago says about what they thought God said we should be doing back then. Perhaps most importantly, I'll oppose any organisation or individual that brainwashes kids into core beliefs about the biggest questions of all before they are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to understand the concepts being discussed and independently form their own opinions.

i agree with this

[BigBallinStalin]

john, you're using vague standards here.

"question: if atheism is the "default position" of every person, and atheism is good for society, then why does every successful society have tons of religious people?"

What's your criteria for "successful"?

And compared to what?

For example, the US was a "god-fearing, Christian" country in the 1800s, and it had slavery. So... now what? Should we say, "oh that slavery thing wasn't related to religion," or "nonetheless, that kind of society was.. good." ???

[chang50]

Research has shown that there is a high correlation between atheism and education. As more and more people are taught to think critically more and more people reject religion. Of course there is also a correlation between the educational level of a society and the standard of living of a society, but if asked what was more likely, that someone had developed better critical reasoning skills and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, or that someone was able to afford a bigger house or a better car or a bigger TV and therefore had developed a certain core belief about how the universe worked, I think it would be obvious which is more likely to be related.

this paragraph is a giant jumbled mess of cause and effect. you really thing people become atheists because of their schooling? i can understand how learning about, say, evolution can make someone more likely to be an atheist, but schooling in general has little to no effect on someone's core beliefs.

Crispy never said 'schooling',he used the word education.I left school 40 years ago,my education has continued ever since.For me it's a virtuous circle.You are more likely to acquire critical thinking skills in a society where atheism is mainstream,and said skills most often will reinforce scepticism and atheism in return.
You might find this incredible but I studied Biology up till 16 years old and I can't remember evolution being prominent in the curriculum,genetics certainly,evolution not a big issue.When I became aware of the whole evolution creationism debate in your country much later I was astounded,and still am to a degree.

[2dimes]

I did not intentionally leave but see it was the best response now that I wandered back.

[2dimes]

1) Rape victims

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 NAB

Stolen from here

Since there's no commandment against raping anyone, then I guess it's all right to rape those in the top 10 list shortly before killing them in the name of our Dear Lord, the murder prohibitionist, Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost/God--whichever one he is at the moment.

If they're female and you rape them within city limits it also gives you justification to kill them - double bubble!!

Well you two fit right in, since it quite clearly stated the rapist was also to be stoned. Cast away.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, I'm a good cherry-picker! If it ain't in the 10 Commandments, then I'ma go do it--unless I don't wanna. HO HO HO!

[2dimes]

And I was with you there as a kid. Later I switched up to something just as good. Following the replacement too literally.

I totally wouldn't mind getting pantsed here so I'm going to pants dude. Then he's embarrassed and kills himself.

Later still I learned to understand, I need to take your personal needs into consideration and then, treat you the way I would want to be treated if I were you.

[Army of GOD]

size of my dick

[BigBallinStalin]

And I was with you there as a kid. Later I switched up to something just as good. Following the replacement too literally.

I totally wouldn't mind getting pantsed here so I'm going to pants dude. Then he's embarrassed and kills himself.

Later still I learned to understand, I need to take your personal needs into consideration and then, treat you the way I would want to be treated if I were you.

Are you a Pants Egalitarian?

And if you happen to see AoG's dick, tell us how you felt at that moment.

[2dimes]

1. I'm a hypocritical Pharisee reformed.

2.With the naked eye? Can't see it.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. I'm a hypocritical Pharisee reformed.

2.With the naked eye? Can't see it.

1. Oh, I'm more of a Phatisee.

2. It's because Obama.

[2dimes]

Phat... Hold on. Are you for or against?

[BigBallinStalin]

Neither. I'm forward for Freedom.

[2dimes]

Neither. I'm forward for Freedom.

'Cause you don't belong to me and I don't belong to you?

Yeah yeah yeah!

[crispybits]

this paragraph is a giant jumbled mess of cause and effect. you really thing people become atheists because of their schooling? i can understand how learning about, say, evolution can make someone more likely to be an atheist, but schooling in general has little to no effect on someone's core beliefs.

As chang said, I didn't say schooling, but education. Education statrs off as learning by rote, you learn the times tables by repeating them back over and over again. As we get older that changes into understanding how to multiply and being able to do the actual calculations in our heads. As we progress higher and higher in the edcuation systems, free critical thinking is (or at least should be) more and more important, until you get to the PhD and post-docs who are responsible for coming up with brand new ideas about the world and then going about finding tests to see if those ideas are true or false. More education = a more critically trained mind = more atheism.

industrialization wasn't even POSSIBLE until 250 years ago. that's a pretty bad example.

republics and democracies are way older than that. and the difference between those and atheism is that in one case, you are adding something, and in the other, you are taking something away.

question: if atheism is the "default position" of every person, and atheism is good for society, then why does every successful society have tons of religious people? the evidence doesn't match your theory.

An atheist society wasn't even possible until now either. For hundreds of years a public declaration of atheism had you at risk of being arrested, tortured and killed because the church and the state went so closely hand in hand and dissent was much more stamped down on than it is now. By the way the industrial revolution came right on the back of the "age of reason", which is the period in time when western civilisation started to really value critical thinking, holding no ideas as sacred, and science as we know it today really took off. The time of Newton. The time of philosophers like Locke and Voltaire. We moved away from dogma in a big way during that time, and it led to the technological advancements that are still happening today.

You're right about republics, that was a bad example, but the underlying point was that nothing has ever been done until it's done. We are all free to make arguments why something that has never been done will succeed or fail, why it will cause problem X or solve problem Y in society, but in the end the only way to really know if something will work is to let it happen. This is a fundamental part of society changing over time to embrace new ideas and new philosophies. You state that moral decay is inevitable if we get rid of religion, but I'm not saying we get rid of religion, I'm simply saying way make it rated R and we keep it as far away as possible from making any decisions for society as a whole.

Finally, I didn't say that atheism is the default position of every person, but you're right it is. Imagine a nursery school full of children whose parents have never mentioned religion to them. Now can you point out the christian kid, or the muslim kid, or the buddhist kid. Not the child with christian or muslim or buddhist parents, but the child who has developed a faith in a certain religious philosophy. Religion is something we are taught, we are all born without it. Spirituality, the belief in some vague higher power, may well be innate, but religions are not.

What I actually said was that the default position of logical atheism is that we should not believe a claim until we see evidence for that claim. It's actually closer to agnosticism in that regrd than strong atheism, but with the proviso that we start in the position of nothing is true and then proceed to build our views of the world based on the evidence shown for us, so the correct position is not to believe any God-myths until such time as evidence is provided for them.

[john9blue]

As chang said, I didn't say schooling, but education. Education statrs off as learning by rote, you learn the times tables by repeating them back over and over again. As we get older that changes into understanding how to multiply and being able to do the actual calculations in our heads. As we progress higher and higher in the edcuation systems, free critical thinking is (or at least should be) more and more important, until you get to the PhD and post-docs who are responsible for coming up with brand new ideas about the world and then going about finding tests to see if those ideas are true or false. More education = a more critically trained mind = more atheism.

for many people, it's more like:

more education = more indoctrination = you think you know better than everyone else = atheism (or modern liberalism, there's a reason these two are correlated)

if you talk to people who are intelligent beyond just book-smart memorization skills, you'll find that most of them are agnostic and they lean libertarian (which is far removed from the above). these are the people that realize how much they don't know and are perfectly fine with leaving others alone, instead of forcing others to believe what they believe.

An atheist society wasn't even possible until now either. For hundreds of years a public declaration of atheism had you at risk of being arrested, tortured and killed because the church and the state went so closely hand in hand and dissent was much more stamped down on than it is now. By the way the industrial revolution came right on the back of the "age of reason", which is the period in time when western civilisation started to really value critical thinking, holding no ideas as sacred, and science as we know it today really took off. The time of Newton. The time of philosophers like Locke and Voltaire. We moved away from dogma in a big way during that time, and it led to the technological advancements that are still happening today.

you say an atheist society wasn't possible and then talk about the "age of reason" where we supposedly moved away from dogma. wat?

also, there were plenty of scientific developments during the so-called "dark ages", but the myth that religion (specifically catholicism) suppressed free thought during the middle ages was propagated by enlightenment thinkers who wanted to believe the same shit that you do, to believe that they were "enlightened" and that they were part of a historically significant intellectual movement.

You're right about republics, that was a bad example, but the underlying point was that nothing has ever been done until it's done. We are all free to make arguments why something that has never been done will succeed or fail, why it will cause problem X or solve problem Y in society, but in the end the only way to really know if something will work is to let it happen. This is a fundamental part of society changing over time to embrace new ideas and new philosophies. You state that moral decay is inevitable if we get rid of religion, but I'm not saying we get rid of religion, I'm simply saying way make it rated R and we keep it as far away as possible from making any decisions for society as a whole.

that would have basically the same effect as removing religion... maybe even a worse effect, since people will actively try to shun religious morals.

Finally, I didn't say that atheism is the default position of every person, but you're right it is. Imagine a nursery school full of children whose parents have never mentioned religion to them. Now can you point out the christian kid, or the muslim kid, or the buddhist kid. Not the child with christian or muslim or buddhist parents, but the child who has developed a faith in a certain religious philosophy. Religion is something we are taught, we are all born without it. Spirituality, the belief in some vague higher power, may well be innate, but religions are not.

What I actually said was that the default position of logical atheism is that we should not believe a claim until we see evidence for that claim. It's actually closer to agnosticism in that regrd than strong atheism, but with the proviso that we start in the position of nothing is true and then proceed to build our views of the world based on the evidence shown for us, so the correct position is not to believe any God-myths until such time as evidence is provided for them.

young children are theological noncognitivists. the belief that they are "atheists" is another tenet of modern atheism that doesn't withstand scrutiny (not that most atheists will bother to give the claim any scrutiny)

[crispybits]

I'm simply saying way make it rated R and we keep it as far away as possible from making any decisions for society as a whole.

that would have basically the same effect as removing religion... maybe even a worse effect, since people will actively try to shun religious morals.

I had a longer reply that dealt with all of your points, and I'll post it if you want, just say, but this little gem right here, this is beautiful.

You are saying one of two things here:

(a) You believe that religion is not a strong enough philosophy to survive without child indoctrination by it's devotees supporting it.

(b) You believe that religion is not a strong enough philosophy to survive without secular control over people who do not agree with it.

Or is there a (c) that I missed?