Where's the evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

I will eat anything.

- edited now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would say I do not believe in a god, like I do not believe in lots of things.

I do NOT though, claim that I believe those things do NOT exist. I have no idea if they exist, I only know that at this moment I do not believe they do.

Why is atheism so difficult to understand.

You do not I assume believe in Leprechauns?

Do you believe they do NOT exist as well?

I understand atheism as being without god- ism. That is what it means isn't it.
I also understand that a claim that ONLY non belief in God is proper atheism is merely a bit of linguistic imperialism from those who hold that position. The beginnings of sectarianism if you like.

In terms of Leprechauns, in debating Leprechauns chiefly with your lord Hillside leprechauns were described variously as jolly little irish men physically found at the end of rainbows to something equal to God.

If those who wish to drag up Leprechauns eventually decide on what a Leprechaun is then clearly as a theist I could believe in a leprechaun which was exactly the same as God.

Any ridicule thence would properly be aimed at definition diddling.

Arguments of the leprechaun kind go like this.

A. Do you believe in Leprechauns?
T. Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows for which there should be material evidence but isn't so far so the idea is a bit ridiculous.
A. No, leprechauns are the same as God.
T. Well I believe in God
A. Har Har Har Har Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows Har Har Har Har.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Do I 'know' that god or gods don't exist - nope, and I've never claimed I do - indeed it would be intellectually dishonest so to do as it would require full and complete knowledge of everything that exists, may have existed or might exist in the future everywhere in the universe. Do you know what, I'm not that arrogant. Hence I am agnostic.

Do I believe that god or gods exist - nope, I don't believe they exist - reason being that I have never seen any evidence for their existence sufficient to support a belief in their existence.

I therefore choose to live my life on the basis that god or gods don't exist until or unless someone were to provide evidence sufficient for my to change that view.

So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?

Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?

[ProfessorDavey]

So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?

Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?

I wouldn't bring truth into it.

For it to be in any well relevant it would need to be 'true' not just 'true for me'.

In effect the 'true for me' is no different than a belief or a lack of belief and it is hardly news that some people believe in god and others don't. I don't think that many who do believe in god see it as an entirely subjective 'feel' - I think they believe that god actually exists, not just in the minds of believers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wouldn't bring truth into it.

For it to be in any well relevant it would need to be 'true' not just 'true for me'.

In effect the 'true for me' is no different than a belief or a lack of belief and it is hardly news that some people believe in god and others don't. I don't think that many who do believe in god see it as an entirely subjective 'feel' - I think they believe that god actually exists, not just in the minds of believers.

In other words they have made steps in a commitment or a hazard that God actually is.
Would you say that is true the other way of someone in your position?

[BeRational]

In other words they have made steps in a commitment or a hazard that God actually is.
Would you say that is true the other way of someone in your position?

No the two position are not equal. For me I have not made a commitment that god is not, any more than I would do for an infinite number of things.

The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.

[ProfessorDavey]

So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?

Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?

Not really as once again you are blurring atheism with agnosticism.

God/gods either exist or they don't - we don't know which therefore we should take the notion of truth (i.e. proven) out of it. The 'true for me' bot doesn't seem to fit well in this context as the debate between theists and atheists is based on the notion of god as a subjective entity that only exists in the minds of believers, but as an objective entity that exists regardless of whether people believe in it (or people even exist).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No the two position are not equal. For me I have not made a commitment that god is not, any more than I would do for an infinite number of things.

The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.

I understand your first statement.

This statement though is highly suspect though
''The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.''

Given that science discovers things by demonstration. Rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, the demonstrating bringing something into existence.
 
The default position is that something may or may not exist.

You seem to want God to maybe exist and have the luxury of saying he cannot exist because he hasn't been demonstrated. There are all sorts of problems with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really as once again you are blurring atheism with agnosticism.

God/gods either exist or they don't -
 we don't know which therefore we should take the notion of truth (i.e. proven) out of it. The 'true for me' bot doesn't seem to fit well in this context as the debate between theists and atheists is based on the notion of god as a subjective entity that only exists in the minds of believers, but as an objective entity that exists regardless of whether people believe in it (or people even exist).

I'm asking questions Prof. I agree with much of what you say.
We are going to have continued problems while we have sentiments floating about like I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated.
There is one questionable assumption for me in your post. Namely that we cannot know whether Gods exist or not..........I agree with our problems of demonstrating either positions but claiming we don't know seems a step of belief.

[Enki]

So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?

Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?

[ProfessorDavey]

We are going to have continued problems while we have sentiments floating about like I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated.

I've no idea where that sentiment comes from, certainly not from me. I wouldn't never say:

'I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated'

What I might say is:

'I don't know if there is a God but as there is no credible evidence to support the existence of God I chose not to believe in the existence of god/gods'

That is entirely different - god either exists or doesn't exist - whether or not people believe in the existence of god/gods it entirely irrelevant to whether god/gods actually exist (unless to define god as something that is subjective only existing in the minds of believers).

There is one questionable assumption for me in your post. Namely that we cannot know whether Gods exist or not..........I agree with our problems of demonstrating either positions but claiming we don't know seems a step of belief.

I never said we cannot know, I said we do not know - if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't.

[Shaker]

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist.

Surely for the sake of accuracy that should read:

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God does exist

shouldn't it?

[floo]

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?

Whilst it is possible to believe there is an outside chance a god could just possibly exist, it would be really hard to accept it is the Biblical god, as it seems like the stuff of fairy tales.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.

My position too - not sure why this is so challenging to Vlad.

Turn it on its head theists don't know that god exists, but believe he does (were they to actually know the whole concept of belief/faith would be blown out of the water). If theists have a level of humility and broadmindedness they should also accept the possibility that god/gods might not exist, just as atheists typically accept that god/gods could exist, but there is insufficient evidence for them to believe that to be the case.

[BeRational]

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?

You seem confused.

I can accept the possibility of anything. But I do not believe it until it can be demonstrated.

By default, we should accept nothing until it can be demonstrated.

That's just the way logic and reason is.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist.

I have answered this question so Vlad could you please answer the reverse question.

Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea where that sentiment comes from, certainly not from me. I wouldn't never say:

'I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated'

What I might say is:

'I don't know if there is a God but as there is no credible evidence to support the existence of God I chose not to believe in the existence of god/gods'

That is entirely different - god either exists or doesn't exist - whether or not people believe in the existence of god/gods it entirely irrelevant to whether god/gods actually exist (unless to define god as something that is subjective only existing in the minds of believers).
I never said we cannot know, I said we do not know - if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove
his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't.

Forgive me I thought you might also be following Be rationals post

I thought we were actually getting somewhere but you seem to have returned to drawing on the mighty rod of strong assertion in terms of the issue of knowing whether God exists and God not proving his existence.
You have the burden of demonstrating that these have never happened or can never happen rather than extrapolating your own personal lack of experience.

Secondly I'd like to take issue with what I see as a misunderstanding by you of omnipotence which surely means the potential to act or not act. An omnipotent God could choose to reveal himself and indeed the conditions under which he could be perceived.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have the burden of demonstrating that these have never happened or can never happen rather than extrapolating your own personal lack of experience.

No I don't - if you believe this has happened then you need to provide that evidence. The onus isn't on me to provide evidence that something hasn't happened - that is a ludicrous assumption.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Not really No.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really No.

Why?

Note that most of the atheists here are willing to accept that they could be wrong in their beliefs - why not you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I don't - if you believe this has happened then you need to provide that evidence. The onus isn't on me to provide evidence that something hasn't happened - that is a ludicrous assumption.

If you are asserting it hasn't happened then you have a burden.

[Shaker]

Not really No.

Seems like you demand a level of open-mindedness from atheists that you're unwilling to apply to your theism.

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondly I'd like to take issue with what I see as a misunderstanding by you of omnipotence which surely means the potential to act or not act. An omnipotent God could choose to reveal himself and indeed the conditions under which he could be perceived.

Which is why I said:

'if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't'

Note can, not would have.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you are asserting it hasn't happened then you have a burden.

I'm not claiming anything has happened - no burden on me Vlad.