Atheism: new religion?

[six45ive]

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.

 

Then you'd have chips implanted into people's brains which would be a sign of technology rather then omnipotence.

 

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

 

Yes.....whilst suspending the laws of physics/nature both while the entity is manipulating our minds and not manipulating them. So, for example turning a square into a circle without doing anything to it. Cutting up a live animal while keeping it alive and then putting it back together again without any signs of injury. On top of performing these as acts of will the entity would have to perform them while not performing them.

[Cyclone]

I'm referring to the collection of people who don't believe in God, and, in particular, the vocal ones who post on threads like this, and, the collection of atheists who tend to associate themselves with Dawkins and his views.

 

Now, not all atheist are the same or think the same, but, certainly, the ones I encounter on threads like this, tend to have several major things in common, they tend to come out with the same rebuttals (for example 'you can't prove a negative etc, etc').

That's not a rebuttal of the existence of god of course, it's a rebuttal of the question "how has it been proven that god does not exist", a negative which can't be proven, much the same as you can't prove that I don't have a fish.

 

Interestingly, it's rarely an atheist that starts these types of discussion. I think the people that post on them (myself included) from this side of the discussion believe that incorrect statements shouldn't go unchallenged.

 

So if someone tells you how to fix your PC with a hammer, I'll probably step in and attempt to give you better advice. If someone declares that god exists (because they say so), I'll probably argue the toss.

[onewheeldave]

There is a reason why they all use the old "you can't prove a negative" line. Lets see if you can work out what it is?

 

Some time back I did ask a user of the "you can't prove a negative" what it actually means.

 

I'm still waiting- perhaps you could jump in before him and clarify it?

 

What exactly is a negative in this context?

 

I have actually googled it and , if you do the same, you'll find that it's part of a heated debate- far from a consensus on it.

 

Personally, i know that the more negatives you can stick in a statement, the more confusing it gets, and, confusion is the enemy of debate and of truth.

 

Some people like to add confusion, cos it stretches the debate out endlessly- personally I much prefer to keep things clear, simple and understandable.

[Cyclone]

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.

For there to be evidence I'd say that there first has to be a testable hypothesis though... At the moment there isn't.

 

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 fact that they say "convincing evidence" means that whilst your point is a good one, sufficiently advanced technology could convince someone of anything, they'll have to use their rationality and the evidence (whatever that is) at the time to decide whether they now believe in the supernatural or whether it's just some clever aliens playing a trick on them.

If something demonstrates the breaking of causality and other physical law defying affects, then personally I don't think it makes any difference whether you believe it's a god as described in one of the many religions or a super powerful alien, either way you'd better treat it with respect. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck... Assume it's a duck as you'll gain nothing by assuming that it's a super powerful alien tricking you into thinking it's a duck!

[llamatron]

Some time back I did ask a user of the "you can't prove a negative" what it actually means.

 

I'm still waiting- perhaps you could jump in before him and clarify it?

 

What exactly is a negative in this context?

 

I have actually googled it and , if you do the same, you'll find that it's part of a heated debate- far from a consensus on it.

 

Personally, i know that the more negatives you can stick in a statement, the more confusing it gets, and, confusion is the enemy of debate and of truth.

 

Some people like to add confusion, cos it stretches the debate out endlessly- personally I much prefer to keep things clear, simple and understandable.

 

I did explain, if you ignore my answers that is not my problem.

 

ps googling it, it seems to be theists that think you can prove a negative.

[Cyclone]

Some time back I did ask a user of the "you can't prove a negative" what it actually means.

 

I'm still waiting- perhaps you could jump in before him and clarify it?

 

What exactly is a negative in this context?

 

I have actually googled it and , if you do the same, you'll find that it's part of a heated debate- far from a consensus on it.

 

Personally, i know that the more negatives you can stick in a statement, the more confusing it gets, and, confusion is the enemy of debate and of truth.

 

Some people like to add confusion, cos it stretches the debate out endlessly- personally I much prefer to keep things clear, simple and understandable.

 

I explained it. I gave you a link to a discussion which also explained it, and I gave you another example of a negative that can't be proven.

If you're going to keep pretending that it hasn't been explained then I'd say it's you that's deliberately stretching out the debate by being obtuse.

[onewheeldave]

Then you'd have chips implanted into people's brains which would be a sign of technology rather then omnipotence.

 

 

Yes. But I thought the context was of a being presenting themselves as God and 'proving' it by suspending gravity at will, and, at the will of others.

 

You seem to be adding extra stipulations i.e. it will let you open up it's head and check for chips.

 

that seems somewhat dubious- is it the behaviour of God to allow such invasion?

 

and of course, for each extra stipulation you add, i think you know, deep down, that i will immediately counter by doing the same- e.g. in the case of chips, simply, using advanced technology, made them undetectable by lesser technologies.

 

It all comes back to the same end- that there is no evidence that would convince a true rationalist that God exists.

 

 

Yes.....whilst suspending the laws of physics/nature both while the entity is manipulating our minds and not manipulating them. So, for example turning a square into a circle without doing anything to it. Cutting up a live animal while keeping it alive and then putting it back together again without any signs of injury. On top of performing these as acts of will the entity would have to perform them while not performing them.

 

Now you're talking about things which are logically impossible.

 

For a clearer example, defining a triangle as a 3 sided object (which automatically means that, by the laws of logic alone, an object with 2,4,5,100 sides is, by definition, not a trinagle) and then asking the being in question to produce a trinagle with 4 sides.

[Cyclone]

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).

 

I'd already given you an example of what I'd consider evidence before you asked this question! Breaking causality in a way that demonstrates omniscience.

I don't have any way of verifying that something claiming to be a god and doing that is really just using godlike technology though.

[Cyclone]

Now you're talking about things which are logically impossible.

 

For a clearer example, defining a triangle as a 3 sided object (which automatically means that, by the laws of logic alone, an object with 2,4,5,100 sides is, by definition, not a trinagle) and then asking the being in question to produce a trinagle with 4 sides.

 

An omnipotent being is surely not constrained by logic?

[onewheeldave]

F

 

The fact that they say "convincing evidence" means that whilst your point is a good one, sufficiently advanced technology could convince someone of anything, they'll have to use their rationality and the evidence (whatever that is) at the time to decide whether they now believe in the supernatural or whether it's just some clever aliens playing a trick on them.

If something demonstrates the breaking of causality and other physical law defying affects, then personally I don't think it makes any difference whether you believe it's a god as described in one of the many religions or a super powerful alien, either way you'd better treat it with respect. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck... Assume it's a duck as you'll gain nothing by assuming that it's a super powerful alien tricking you into thinking it's a duck!

 

I agree, it would be an entity to be feared.

 

Nevertheless, in no way could a rationalist conclude that it is God.