Atheism: new religion?

[Cyclone]

I agree. But it was Dawkins who presented it- his claim that he would cease to be atheist if evidence for God was forthcoming.

Obviously, as would we all. That's what being scientific is all about, following the evidence.

 

Now why would a rationalist put forward something that, as you say, doesn't really make sense?

It does make sense. As you rightly point out though, such evidence would have to be quite involved as many things could conceivably be faked by beings who were technologically advanced enough.

 

Now it's not a massive deal- anyone can make a mistake.

 

But, the atheist community, in threads like this, continually perpetuate it by claiming the same, that there is imaginable evidence that would convince them God is real.

I think the point they are making is that their disbelief is not a matter of faith, it is lead by evidence (or the lack of it).

 

If, as I'm trying to show, there is no possible or conceivable evidence that could suffice, then, I feel it's important that a community which claims to be rationalist, should face up to it and cease making the claim in the first place.

You're actually saying that no evidence could be trusted.

That isn't the same as saying that there is no possible evidence.

[llamatron]

Which is why any atheist demanding proof for god, needs to specify what would actually constitute proof, and, have at least some kind of criteria for what they mean by God.

 

And, if it's a situation in which a believer is claiming god is real, if the atheist is going to quibble with that, or start demanding proof, there still needs to be, somewhere, an idea of what, in that situation 'God' actually means.

 

no-one was demanding proof, they are refusing to believe in a fictional character in the absence of any evidence.

[Cyclone]

Which is why any atheist demanding proof for god, needs to specify what would actually constitute proof, and, have at least some kind of criteria for what they mean by God.

 

And, if it's a situation in which a believer is claiming god is real, if the atheist is going to quibble with that, or start demanding proof, there still needs to be, somewhere, an idea of what, in that situation 'God' actually means.

 

The believer is the one who gets to define god...

 

And I think we could worry about verifying the evidence after some is presented, rather than worrying about it before hand.

[quisquose]

By analysing the many many claims that religions of all types make and finding them to be false.

 

Creation myths for example.

 

But why would you need to prove that something is false. How has science proven that Santa clause doesn't exist? It hasn't really spent a lot of time searching for him. Why would any rational person believe in sky fairies and jolly fat men who deliver presents? When there is no evidence for something other than statements made by other people, why would you give it any credence?

 

Exactly.

 

Whilst god might not be disprovable, religions have made various claims about their God which have been disproved.

 

I find the arguments of so called "sophisticated theologians" to be very dishonest because they argue for some sort of wishy-washy deist supernatural intelligence in public, but always with the intent of supporting the concept of the God of Bible/Koran/Whatever in private.

[llamatron]

The believer is the one who gets to define god...

 

And I think we could worry about verifying the evidence after some is presented, rather than worrying about it before hand.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716

 

Here is one bit of proof from a believer. Votes on whether we should disprove it?

[Chris_Sleeps]

If, as I'm trying to show, there is no possible or conceivable evidence that could suffice, then, I feel it's important that a community which claims to be rationalist, should face up to it and cease making the claim in the first place.

Evidence and experience would be empiricism. Atheism isn't one solidly rational block. I believe in karma in a way that I can't explain beyond "I believe it to be true".

[onewheeldave]

Isn't the question academic since nobody is presenting any evidence.

 

Well, Dawkins/the atheist community, by stating they will change their minds if evidence is forthcoming, seem to be implying that there is possible evidence.

 

And, before evidence can be presented, there needs to be at least some criteria for what would count as evidence.

 

So, if evidence is possible (for Gods existence), sufficient to convince an atheist- what are the criteria for it being valid?

 

And, if there is no such evidence, then can we lay to rest the old "as an open-minded atheist, I'll happily change my views if presented with convincing evidence that god is real", because, it the light of the replies from atheists on this thread, it's starting to look, at best, an empty meaningless statement, and, at worst, outright trickery.

[six45ive]

I just don't agree with your opinion. Fact is that many 'believers' do not share your opinion that they need to base it on reason or evidence.

 

Perhaps part of the problem is the term 'believer' which suggests that the basis of their feelings about God can be soley described in terms of facts which they believe.

 

If a person 'feels' the presence of God in their lives, as many 'believers' do, then they often will feel no need to find proofs to justify it.

 

And, of course, vocal atheists can immediately jump in with 'how do you know the feeling relates to a real God and isn't just a delusion' etc. And, that would, in that scenario, be a strawman, because the 'believer' never claimed that it wasn't- the fact is, they don't really care- from their perspective, they have a meaningful relationship with God, in comparison with which, finding 'proof' is not a priority, or of importance to them.

 

So, I did read your post, I didn't ignore it, I just don't agree with it.

 

This thread's moved on at a fair pace since last night and I've not managed to read the intervening posts so apologies if this has been dealt with but I'll answer the post above.

 

I would ask the believer who 'feels' god in their lives; 'how do they distinguish that it's god they are feeling? How do they differentiate between the feeling of god and a different entity such as satan for example?'

So it's not about proving it to me, it's simply me understanding the religious person as to where they are coming from regarding their belief or what they proclaim to 'feel'.

[onewheeldave]

Obviously, as would we all. That's what being scientific is all about, following the evidence.

I think the point they are making is that their disbelief is not a matter of faith, it is lead by evidence (or the lack of it).

 

Of course- it goes without saying that science is evidence based. The thing is that that is best represented by simply stating it e.g. "That's what being scientific is all about, following the evidence."

 

As opposed to saying that I'll change my mind about God is evidence is forthcoming, while knowing full well that there can be no such evidence.

 

If atheists or scientists want to get, what is after all, a very simple point across, they'd do well to simply state it in a straightforward manner.

 

You're actually saying that no evidence could be trusted.

That isn't the same as saying that there is no possible evidence.

 

Just out of interest then, do you think there is possible evidence- if so, what would it be.

 

If you can't think of any, then do you have grounds for claiming it could exist (evidence).

[six45ive]

Well, Dawkins/the atheist community, by stating they will change their minds if evidence is forthcoming, seem to be implying that there is possible evidence.

 

And, before evidence can be presented, there needs to be at least some criteria for what would count as evidence.

 

So, if evidence is possible (for Gods existence), sufficient to convince an atheist- what are the criteria for it being valid?

 

And, if there is no such evidence, then can we lay to rest the old "as an open-minded atheist, I'll happily change my views if presented with convincing evidence that god is real", because, it the light of the replies from atheists on this thread, it's starting to look, at best, an empty meaningless statement, and, at worst, outright trickery.

 

The evidence for god would be quite simple. A being/entity that could suspend all and every/any laws of physics/nature at will.