[LeoMyths]

Well before I begin a post which is comprised of what may already been know by the vast majority of this forum, or what has been brought up before and rejected, I would like to say..

I have spent some time debating in my life and I have decided to take a more observant role and concentrate more on learning about the world and people for a while, accepting the opinions of others as there right to hold even when we disagree rather than there having to be a right or wrong person, and taking it as part of the diversity of life, unless that opinion is to harm others.

Before I do this though I want to present what I find to be a fundamental flaw the logic of many debates between atheists and theists. Firstly I will ask a question to atheists, that argue against the logic of theism. (passive atheists and theists may not apply to this thread as they do not tend to debate).


(Don't worry I am not a militant (any religion or theological stand point) this is not about conversion I am a busy student just taking the opportunity that the internet provides to be part of an interesting conversation)

My questions:

Why as an atheist do you not believe in God?

If you do not believe in God due to lack of evidence what would be need to be observed by you for you to change your theological stand point? (generalisations are fine, no silly answers for the sake of ridiculing the thread please)

Alright thanks people, sorry if this thread has broken any rules.

I will be back in a few hours so that hopefully many posts are received.

[Brevillemonkey]

I don't believe in any gods because there is no physical evidence for god, and there is no physical evidence that points towards the existence of a god. When thinking about what evidence I would need before I changed my mind, i figured any physical event that could not be explained by physical means would suffice, and since this is pretty much impossible (because technically every physical event isn't explained by physical means until we figure it out, and things can go unexplained for decades, even centuries), it leads me to think that the existence of a god or gods is either impossible or unnecessary.

[Gofre]

I don't believe for precisely that reason, there is no evidence whatsoever. I don't limit myself to what I would classify as evidence however, theists are welcome to present anything they like as long as it can stand up to scrutiny.

[The Dark Lord]

I consider myself to be atheist primarily because I find organised religion to be a joke.

[Chucklefiend]

I do not believe in God/s for several reasons:

1) I have seen no empirical evidence which supports the existence of a deity.
2) I find other explanations for the origin of the universe, the derivation of the natural laws and the formation of life more compelling.
3) Postulating the existence of a creator explains nothing; it merely initiates an infinite regression of the same question i.e. if God/s created the universe, what created God? The answer given to this question by theists is often "Nothing, God always existed and is without cause." to which I reply "well then why not skip a step, and posit that an oscillating universe has always existed and is without cause?" The reason we presume that the universe requires an explanation is because of its complexity, but a being capable of intelligently designing the universe must have, by definition, been at least equally as complex and is therefore equally demanding of an explanation.
4) I see no reflection in reality of the benevolent God depicted by most organised religions. Reality is harsh, cold and merciless, and the universe seems indifferent to the suffering of the sentient beings who dwell within it.

[LeoMyths]

Just like to say thanks guys for the responses, I'll be preparing the second and final part of the thread.

[LeoMyths]

In this post I will use the term empirical atheist (one that does not believe due to lack of evidence) and philosophical atheist (one that does not believe due to a philosophical standpoint concerning existence), I will mention the latter more as this post concerns that type. I will also mention theistic equivalent also.

Alright I would first off like to start by explaining why I asked you these questions, my aim here is not to argue the points with you, especially the subjective ones.

Though I think most you know that this thread is not direct at subjective points,if it was it would only result in an everlasting debate which I dislike, but I felt I should point that out anyway.

I asked this question because at the crux of many theological debates (especially ones from either end of the spectrum) evidence can be found as the subject of outright disagreement

Evidence is often what the theist is lacking from the point of view of their opponent within the debate, and there is an ambiguity as to the degree of necessity of evidence for claims being made by the theist, so I asked this question to confirm whether or not evidence was an important factor amongst atheist, as opposed to just assuming.



Right, now that I have discussed the atheist (the main factors of atheism) and the theist (the inadequacy of the position of theism from an atheists perspective) I will discuss the false premise and the imaginary burden, which I will do simultaneously.


The false premise is not to out rightly oppose any side but address something that I believe should not be present in theological debates.

"It is impossible to prove a negative", a correct statement, one that aids in the solidification of the atheistic position that it is not their responsibility to disprove, or provide evidence against, the existence of God.

Another statement that strengthens their position is that "the burden of proof lies with the person that made the claim", both are correct and apply to a wide range of arguments.

As I had been debating for quite sometime before I decided to take part in theological debates, I found that despite the fact that these statements were entirely justified, something did not feel right about the situations that these statements were being used in.

During a theological debate I mentioned this to an atheist and he responded by stating, "you cannot claim that these rules do not apply to you because you are arguing for the existence of a being that is very "important", and thus too important for these rules to apply".

That must have been it right? My theism (yes I am revealing my theological position) was corrupting my ability to debate, so I just left.

So I retired from theological debates for around two-three years or so and viewed them as a never ending back and forth debate, filled with ad hominems, and discontent for each side in most cases, they lacked any logical end. (sorry for the life segment story, it ties in I assure you, as boring as it may be).

Earlier this year however I discovered through thought and something which I observed, but can not recall right now, that the request for evidence was an unavoidable double edged blade that would negate the burden of proof for either side if used.

Strong claims I know, and they may serve to roll a few eyes but I will explain what they are based on below.

Is it the optimal position for an empirical atheist to demand for evidence?

There is no way for any human being to ask for a highly specific form of evidence for the existence of God this is accepted and know already.

The only type of evidence that can be asked for is a general standard of evidence, in this case it is phenomenon that can not be explained by science, this is often confused with a phenomenon which is not yet to be explain, giving rise to the God of the gaps counter.

A phenomenon that can not be explained is required as evidence because the position of an empirical atheist is that "the universe is already being explained quite well through observation alone, therefore there is no need to acknowledge the possibility of an inexplicable reason for everything as there has not been an observed event that has been proven to be an inexplicable phenomenon".

This, is where the double edged sword lies.

This kind of double edged sword can only lie in empirical debates of the existence of inexplicable beings, or things, because looking for evidence in such cases is not possible.

An atheist has the position that evidence is required, naturally what must be asked is what form of evidence can validate theism, the only logical response would be a phenomenon that can not be explained by science.

Hopefully now it can be seen that theist is being asked to prove that for the phenomenon that they have presented (this could be any that the human race is far from having the means to observe closely, or one that is still a mystery, or one that the theist has decided to take the position that all scientific tests and results for this phenomenon are coincidental) that there does not exist a scientific explanation, that there is no scientific explanation which can be found now or at any time.

The theist is now the one being asked to prove a negative, (it is the same as an atheist being asked to prove that a universe exists for which there is no God, the theist is being asked to prove a phenomenon exists for which there is no science).

The empirical atheist is now the one making the claim that for every phenomenon in the universe there exists a scientific explanation, this claim is not being made outright but it must be implied for that atheistic position to be logical (you are an atheist because for one you are yet to see an event that can not be explained by science, and you therefore conclude that no event cannot be explained by science, therefore the position of the theist is false <----- this position does not apply to the philosophical atheist).

By asking for evidence you immediately reverse your roles, this finally establishes through reasoning why it is illogical to ask an atheist or a theist for empirical evidence which can act to strengthen either side (the false premise).

The burden of proof cannot exist when the only form of proof that is relevant requires a negative to be proven (the imaginary burden), the burden is being passed to the person who asks for proof to be provided, back and forth constantly, whether it is the empirical theist (one who asks for evidence of the existence of a universe without a God to validate atheism), or the empirical atheist (one who asks for evidence of a universe with a God to validate theism).

Note that I only talk about the universe and not all of existence, only our universe can be observed by us at this moment in time and including all of existence starts an entirely different debate, a philosophical one.

With that being said the only correct form of theological debate is philosophical one.

Anyway thank you all for reading, I hope you have fun in your future debates and found this post interesting.

This post does not attack atheism or theism but the types of arguments that both take part in quite often.


Thanks Again

[LeoMyths]

If you read all of that wow well done XD

[Gofre]

(Original post by LeoMyths)
If you read all of that wow well done XD

To make sure I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that atheists are demanding proof in the form of phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically, and thus hold the opposing position that everything can be explained scientifically and therefore have a burden of proof upon themselves also?

[LeoMyths]

(Original post by Gofre)
To make sure I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that atheists are demanding proof in the form of phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically, and thus hold the opposing position that everything can be explained scientifically and therefore have a burden of proof upon themselves also?

No I am saying that taking the position of empirical atheist or theist places the burden of proof on your own shoulders.

Not atheists in general, philosophically rooted atheism does not carry the burden of proof nor does philosophically rooted theism.

So it is the empirical ones that hold this implied claim by demanding this proof, this is of course only valid if you hold the position that scientific explanation successfully rebuts argument for the existence of God, but that is another subject, a philosophical one.

Also empirical atheism of theism is illogical, meaning the burden of truth cannot exist and is imaginary.

[Gofre]

(Original post by LeoMyths)
No I am saying that taking the position of empirical atheist or theist places the burden of proof on your own shoulders.

Not atheists in general, philosophically rooted atheism does not carry the burden of proof nor does philosophically rooted theism.

So it is the empirical ones that hold this implied claim by demanding this proof, this is of course only valid if you hold the position that scientific explanation successfully rebuts argument for the existence of God, but that is another subject, a philosophical one.

Also empirical atheism of theism is illogical, meaning the burden of truth cannot exist and is imaginary.

We seem to be getting our wires crossed then. Would you be able to provide brief summations of your reasoning for these two claims please?
"I am saying that taking the position of empirical atheist or theist places the burden of proof on your own shoulders."
"Also empirical atheism of theism is illogical"

[Hylean]

This is a very common thread topic, please use the search function or look at "Does God Exist?"