Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

You could- assuming that such evidence is possible- because, if it isn't, a lot of time could be saved by simply proving that it isn't possible, then we could dismiss what is basically a debate-stalling dead-end, couldn't we?

 

I mean, as rationalist atheists, the aim is to progress the discussion, isn't it??

[onewheeldave]

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

 

Like gravity?

 

And, if a being demonstarted suspension of gravity (or other law of physics), how can we conclude it is God, rather than merely a technologically advanced being who is not god?

[llamatron]

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

You are asking for us to specify what might prove something we don't believe exists, its mental. Firstly a believer has to define it. That i something we cannot do otherwise it could be the spaghetti monster. Without getting past this stage we can't go any further.

 

Say it is the spaghetti monster then proof would be finding a creature made of spaghetti. Then we would have to decide whether it was a monster or not.

[Chris_Sleeps]

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.

No he doesn't. 'If' shows the conditions that would need to occur, and neither implies that evidence does nor does not exist in any way.

[six45ive]

Like gravity?

 

And, if a being demonstarted suspension of gravity (or other law of physics), how can we conclude it is God, rather than merely a technologically advanced being who is not god?

 

Read my post again and don't project your mindset onto it or try and twist the post by saying something that doesn't even begin to cover what my statement said.

 

"A being/entity that could suspend all/any laws of physics/nature at will."

 

The important bit is the last two words 'at will'. At my will, your will, anybody's will. A being/entity that says what it's going to do/what I or you want it to do and simply does it instantly as soon as the 'will' commands it.

[Obelix]

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.

 

To believe in God[1] - as opposed to have faith in God which is a different matter means that a valid workable, testable, falsifiable hypothesis must be formulated to account for what God is, and his/her/it's capabilities.

 

Evidence forms part of that hypothesis - but it must primarily be testable and it must be capable of being falsified as part of the testing and proof.

 

If you can do that, you will find that a lot of scientific people[2] will suddenly start to believe in God very quickly. Science requires a certain mindset, but that mindset is quite accommodating to other ideas and will happily accept them. 20 years ago the inflationary Universe was well known, and inside of five years cold dark matter was found and people happily rewrote most of cosmology to accommodate the new discovery. In the 1960's geology underwent an almost unimaginably huge shift when plate tectonics were discovered and people accepted that the continents moved all over the globe. Science is open to new ideas and theories - but they have to be science and you have to show people the evidence.

 

Now if you don't have any evidence, then people are not going to change their minds. To do so would be irrational, and science hates being irrational. Speculations are not, so far considered as evidence I'm afraid.

 

[1] For God choose any mono or pantheistic religion

[2] Not all atheists are scientists, and vice versa, but since people talk about evidence, it's fair to treat it in a scientific framework.

[onewheeldave]

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'.

 

Welcome back

 

Good question. I think that a person who 'feels' God in their lives, will tend not to worry themselves with 'proving' that it's really God.

 

The best way i can attempt an answer is to use a non-God, but related, example.

 

I believe Jung- a famous psychotherapist around the same time as Freud, who used certain non-scientific practices such as the I-ching and used the concept of 'archetypes' (beings with certain god-like properties), was once asked- how do you know they are real, and not just aspects of your own mind.

 

Just like God, these things seem to be, from a scientific perspective, unprovable.

 

Jung's answer was, in essence, that he couldn't prove they were real, and, that it was of no importance to him, because, they worked, in his life.

 

He felt that, through his interactions with such things, he got good results. And, he did not care if those results came via real, existing entities, or whether they came via aspects of his own mind.

 

Similarly, if some one feels God at work in their lives, and, that it is good, they're probably not going to be worrying about trying to prove the unprovable- why should they?

 

Why should they attempt to do something impossible (prove the unprovable), when the only likely result is going to be stress?

 

When a rationalist watches TV, do they insist on taking off the back, just to prove that it's got working circutry inside, or do they simply sit back and relax, in the knowledge that the TV is working fine?

[onewheeldave]

No he doesn't. 'If' shows the conditions that would need to occur, and neither implies that evidence does nor does not exist in any way.

 

Yes, but he's not directing it to professional logicians and scientists- he's directing it to the general public and to religious believers who tend to use 'if' in it's everyday practical sense.

 

If he's interested in perpetuating rationality and sincere debate, he should make it clear that he knows full well, there is no possible evidence that would convince him God exists.

 

If, in contrast, he's after an ego-boost, a debate staller, 'winning' the argument etc, then fair play- he's on to a winner with that one

[llamatron]

Yes, but he's not directing it to professional logicians and scientists- he's directing it to the general public and to religious believers who tend to use 'if' in it's everyday practical sense.

 

If he's interested in perpetuating rationality and sincere debate, he should make it clear that he knows full well, there is no possible evidence that would convince him God exists.

 

If, in contrast, he's after an ego-boost, a debate staller, 'winning' the argument etc, then fair play- he's on to a winner with that one

 

but he doesn't so why would you claim he does?

[onewheeldave]

Read my post again and don't project your mindset onto it or try and twist the post by saying something that doesn't even begin to cover what my statement said.

 

"A being/entity that could suspend all/any laws of physics/nature at will."

 

The important bit is the last two words 'at will'. At my will, your will, anybody's will. A being/entity that says what it's going to do/what I or you want it to do and simply does it instantly as soon as the 'will' commands it.

 

And why can't that be done by advanced technology? Chips integrated into the beings brain mean it could 'will' the things to happen instantaneously.

 

Does it need to be able to do your/my will as well? some form of mind-reading technology would suffice for that.