Why?

[Sidelle]

Atheists and religious people are often so similar to each other in these threads. Both sides have excellent skills at being self-righteous pricks when they're shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down the throats of people around them.

Yeah I know, I didn't answer your question -- sorry. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I was just making a general observation based on my experiences of reading the metric shit-ton of religious discussion posts that blow up threads like this every time...

Carry on.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Borak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sigh, this is not black and white. You guys are replying to each other too rapidly to establish what evidence you find credible, which is the real issue. There could be a lot of "evidence" supporting god claims, but if it is rubbish, you can safely ignore it.

You have to establish some epistemological common ground and agree upon what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence. Very briefly, I will outline a few forms of evidence, from least credible to most credible:

1. Hearsay (written words/text)
2. Statement of authority (similar to #1 except made by "experts" such as professors / law enforcement / etc)
3. Historical evidence
4. Personal experience (only if it is your own, others fall under hearsay)
5. Scientifc theory (meaning well supported explanatory model, not "guess")
6. Mathematical calculation

If a problem boils down to a mathematical calculation (how far will this tank of gas allow me to drive), you would be ridiculed for ignoring the result because you think you know better. Similarly, if your evidence comes in the form of spoken words, no matter how eloquent, they cannot be given much weight.

OK, so this is a brief list of the TYPES of evidence there are. Now the question is, how much evidence do you need? Well, this depends on how great the claim is. If I claim to have $5 in my pocket, I doubt you would need much evidence for it, you might not even ask me for any. In any event, it would be trivial to produce the evidence. Now if I claimed to have $500,000 in the bank, you wouldn't just believe me saying so, you'd ask for a little evidence, but it wouldn't shock you either.
If I claimed to be worth $1 billion, you'd ask for a TON of evidence, because while billionaires exist they are quite rare and you can probably access a publicly available list of every one of them.

Now, if someone comes to me and states a claim that a supernatural being exists that is greater than this entire universe, what greater claim is there? This claim would require the best and greatest amout of evidence possible, and yet most often all the evidence offered is words in an old book. It doesn't take "faith" to reject a claim supported by the flimsiest of evidence.

If, by evidence, you mean 'things that make it seem to me that something is true', which is what you seem to be saying, I still think that the bald claim that 'thing x cannot be true' needs to be supported by saying '...and I have reviewed all possible evidence'.

What do I say to people who say "How do *YOU* know there isn't a god?". I didn't used to know what to say to people who said "How do you know there is a God?', and I was hoping the other camp had more cogent arguments.

[paulgiamatti]

It's just common sense really. The moment you go from believing in a god or deities to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. Atheism is a prerequisite for being an agnostic.

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

Nah man, there are hundreds of things I don't believe in. Does it really take faith to not believe the veracity of the thousands of legends and myths we are told over a lifetime? I don't give ghosts, gods, monsters, witches etc. differing levels of respect.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Bazia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's just common sense really. The moment you go from believing in a god or deities to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. Atheism is a prerequisite for being an agnostic.

Wow, I think you better check your definitions. I might be wrong, but I don't think so, everything I find says basically the opposite.

[Borak]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If, by evidence, you mean 'things that make it seem to me that something is true', which is what you seem to be saying, I still think that the bald claim that 'thing x cannot be true' needs to be supported by saying '...and I have reviewed all possible evidence'.

Dude, I said before on the first page, I never claimed that gods don't exist (that 'thing x cannot be true'). What you just quoted above, is me saying that the evidence is so lame that I don't believe the claim. I reject THE GOD CLAIM for lack of credible evidence. That does NOT mean I unequivocally accept the NO GOD CLAIM. Can you not accept that subtle position?

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah man, there are hundreds of things I don't believe in. Does it really take faith to not believe the veracity of the thousands of legends and myths we are told over a lifetime? I don't give ghosts, gods, monsters, witches etc. differing levels of respect.

That's an interesting question, does it take faith *NOT* to believe in something? ..I guess not. It takes faith to deny the possibility of something though, unless there is scientific evidence. But really I'm out on a limb there too, because science itself really doesn't know anything for sure, and will happily tell you so.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Borak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dude, I said before on the first page, I never claimed that gods don't exist (that 'thing x cannot be true'). What you just quoted above, is me saying that the evidence is so lame that I don't believe the claim. I reject THE GOD CLAIM for lack of credible evidence. That does NOT mean I unequivocally accept the NO GOD CLAIM. Can you not accept that subtle position?

Dude, can you not tell when I am talking about you and when I am not? I never said that was your claim.

[Troubled]

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/kvOHl9cTrw7tTohXFKjpEExwwz0hualrDsn0-6s1D4DjsRMe*PO7qlttW97WZji-XBcwFp*Xow8E56zaTjaZNfL0xbIoD9xr/gnosticism_graph.png[/IMG]