Ask an Atheist

[MaineShark]

or faith in the lack of a god.

Common fallacy.  I don't have to have faith in the non-existence of entities.  They simply don't exist until proven otherwise by their supporters.  This applies to any fantasy entity:  god, unicorns, leprechauns, or bigfoot.

No, that's not a fallacy.  I don't claim to know that unicorns, leprechauns, or bigfeet don't exist.  I'm a rational person, and I can't claim knowledge that I don't possess.

Anyone making a claim is required to prove it.  Whether you claim that god or gods exist, or if you claim that god or gods do not exist, you are making a claim, and are required to prove your assertion.

Ask an astrophysicist if dark matter exists.  He'll tell you of the evidence that supports its existence (eg, the observed curvature of space-time, which requires more mass than has been observed in visible matter).  But he's never actually seen dark matter, and he won't claim to know that it exists.

Joe

[TackleTheWorld]

Anyone making a claim is required to prove it.  Whether you claim that god or gods exist, or if you claim that god or gods do not exist, you are making a claim, and are required to prove your assertion.

Joe

No, that is a logical fallacy.  The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive because it is impossible to prove an arbitrary negative. 

For example, I say dark matter exists but offer no evidence, I just challenge you to prove it doesn't exist.  You say you can't see it, I say it's invisible.  You say you can't read it with your spectrograph, I say it's too fine to be detected that way.  You say the formulas that calculate gravity work well without reference to dark matter, I say there are errors, we just haven't found them yet.  No matter what you point to, I say you're pointing in the wrong direction.  You would have to point to every object in the universe, one at a time, and identify it as non-dark matter to satisfy me.  That is impossible.

[MaineShark]

No, that is a logical fallacy.  The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive because it is impossible to prove an arbitrary negative.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone who chooses to make a claim.

For example, I say dark matter exists but offer no evidence, I just challenge you to prove it doesn't exist.  You say you can't see it, I say it's invisible.  You say you can't read it with your spectrograph, I say it's too fine to be detected that way.  You say the formulas that calculate gravity work well without reference to dark matter, I say there are errors, we just haven't found them yet.  No matter what you point to, I say you're pointing in the wrong direction.  You would have to point to every object in the universe, one at a time, and identify it as non-dark matter to satisfy me.  That is impossible.

What's your point?  None of that addressed what I said.  I haven't claimed that god exists, and offered no evidence.

You are under no obligation to prove that god or gods don't exist.  But if you are unwilling to offer that proof, then don't make the claim.

If you don't know, for a fact, the answer to a question, then just admit that.

I don't know that there is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster, and you'll never hear me claim any such knowledge.  I find the existence of Loch Ness Monsters to be extremely unlikely, and I could detail the reasons for that, but I will never claim that I know that there is no such thing.  I know the things that I have directly experience.  I believe the things that I deduce from evidence I find credible.  I postulate the things that I can induce from the previous two.  And I do not mix the three.

So, if you are going to claim to know that god or gods exist, prove it to me, and I may believe it.  And if you are going to claim that no gods exist... well, we already know that you can't prove any such thing, so what business do you have claiming knowledge that cannot possibly exist?  Admit you don't know.  Say that you believe no gods exist, and give your reasons if you care to.  Postulate as to the reasons why others might believe something you find doubtful.  But don't claim knowledge you don't (and can't) have.

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

Asserting the non-existence of gods is not making a claim, but simply observing the state of nature.  No more evidence is necessary, as nothing need be proven.

[Braddogg]

Joe, is it sunny out right now, at 10:16 PM on Saturday night?  You can't say no, because it could be sunny out and you just aren't capable of detecting it's sunniness, because the sunniness exists on another plane of existence -- just like a god could exist on another plane of existence despite all logical and experiential data to the contrary.  The rules of logic exist for a reason (and for reason), and you don't get to rewrite them as you please.  There's a good reason positives must be proven before they are believed, because the negative can never be proven.  Can you think of a negative that can be proven about anything?

[MaineShark]

Asserting the non-existence of gods is not making a claim, but simply observing the state of nature.  No more evidence is necessary, as nothing need be proven.

"Observing the state of nature"?  I've never "observed" a water buffalo, to the best of my recollection.  I've seen pictures and videos reported to be such, but I did not verify their accuracy.

Attention, everyone: there is no such thing as an water buffalo!

It simply doesn't work that way.

Just because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I find it highly unlikely that I will ever walk into the God that the Christians worship, but I am a scientist, and I can't rule it out.

Maybe the Pastafarians have it right.  Can you prove that the universe wasn't created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster?  I can't.  I guess the difference is that I'm aware of my limitations, and untroubled by them.

Honestly, atheism is no more logical than socialism.  "The rich always oppress the poor and deny them access to wealth" is simply "observing the state of nature" to a socialist...

Joe, is it sunny out right now, at 10:16 PM on Saturday night?  You can't say no, because it could be sunny out and you just aren't capable of detecting it's sunniness, because the sunniness exists on another plane of existence -- just like a god could exist on another plane of existence despite all logical and experiential data to the contrary.  The rules of logic exist for a reason (and for reason), and you don't get to rewrite them as you please.  There's a good reason positives must be proven before they are believed, because the negative can never be proven.  Can you think of a negative that can be proven about anything?

Yes.  There are no square circles.  Nor are there flat spheres.  Want me to continue?

And yes, I can say that it isn't sunny out.  "Sunny" refers to a sensory experience, and I am not currently experiencing the sun shining on me.

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

Just because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

True, but that doesn't mean I have to prove its nonexistence.

[MaineShark]

Just because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

True, but that doesn't mean I have to prove its nonexistence.

If you want to assert that it does not exist, you sure do.

Or are you going to take it on faith that no such thing as a water buffalo exists?

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

Just because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

True, but that doesn't mean I have to prove its nonexistence.

If you want to assert that it does not exist, you sure do.

"There is no god" is not an assertion but a defense of the state of nature.  We're going in circles now.  Seems there's simply a fundamental disagreement here.

Or are you going to take it on faith that no such thing as a water buffalo exists?

Uhm, there are water buffalo.  To suggest otherwise in the face of scientific evidence would be a conspiracy theory of the highest magnitude!

[error]

I've been swimming in ponds, rivers, lakes and both oceans and I've never seen a water buffalo!

[MaineShark]

"There is no god" is not an assertion but a defense of the state of nature.  We're going in circles now.  Seems there's simply a fundamental disagreement here.

Check the definition of the word "assertion" and get back to me...

Or are you going to take it on faith that no such thing as a water buffalo exists?

Uhm, there are water buffalo.  To suggest otherwise in the face of scientific evidence would be a conspiracy theory of the highest magnitude!

What scientific evidence?  I have never seen one, so it must not exist, right?

Let's try another.  How about life elsewhere in the universe?  I've never seen it, so it must not be possible that life evolved anywhere else but on this particular rock, right?

Joe

[TackleTheWorld]

I don't have to have faith in the non-existence of entities.  They simply don't exist until proven otherwise by their supporters.  This applies to any fantasy entity:  god, unicorns, leprechauns, or bigfoot.

Or Shorty Dawkins. Oh, my God! What am I saying? I'm sorry Shorty.

They killed Shorty!

[Tom Sawyer]

The bastards!

[Jim Johnson]

Shorty's Dead!?!?!?   

Those Bastards!

[jgmaynard]

Logically, the burden of proof is always on the person expressing the positive notion.

Plus, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" If you're going to claim that there is some omnipotent being in the sky, it requires extraordinary evidence. None of the last 10,000 or so major gods of mankind have had extraordinary evidence presented as to thier existence, this one doesn't either.

So, that leaves a quandry... If there is a god, and he is real, why did he instruct Soloman (IIRC) to build a temple 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around? Wouldn't it have been ~31.415 cubits across? Did the creator of the universe not know basic geometry?  ???

Let's go with a chain of logic here......

Let's assume there is a god

Now, chances are that he does not control every particle throughout the cosmos all the time. Probably just kicks back most of the time, drinking pina coladas and splitting a sea every now and again, leaving the laws of chemistry and physics to run most things most of the time.

That means that there is either a god AND the laws of chemistry and physics, or just the laws of chemistry and physics.

Logic 101 dictates that any case is more likely than that same case plus another condition.

Ergo, it's more likely that there is not a god than that there is one.

Quid pro quo.

JM