The God Delusion

[Solitary]

:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It wasn't even that long ago that science didn't have any evidence of quarks. My problem with God is that religious organization don't even try to find evidence for God because they have faith without evidence. You would think they would have tried to find real reliable evidence for God after 2,000+ years when He is suppose to be involved in their lives so much, but they haven't.

 No logical evidence that can't be explained away without God by scientific facts and sound logic, and no empirical evidence that can't be explained without God. "The tide goes in, the tide goes out." Won't cut it! Either God effects their lives, or He doesn't, and if He doesn't then He is worthless and the same as if He didn't exist, and the world would be no different than it is or has been.  8-)  Solitary

[BugRib]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.  The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence.  That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?

In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.

Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist.  That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.

Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language.  I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.

That's my take, anyway.

[Solitary]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.  The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence.  That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?

In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.

Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist.  That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.

Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language.  I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.

That's my take, anyway.

There have been many things that were assumed or believed to exist without evidence that were showed later to exist with evidence. Just because something doesn't have evidence doesn't prove it might not some day. You can reasonably assume God doesn't exist, but you cannot prove He doesn't, you can show his attributes are not true because they are contradictory, but again, you can't prove a god can't exist. And yes an invisible pink unicorn does exist and comes out during gay parades.  :roll: Solitary


Are you blind?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.

It's not indefensible, it's just not a good argument. As Solitary correctly pointed out, there are plenty of things in science for which we had no evidence until relatively recently. Absence of evidence in those cases was not evidence of absence, and the same applies to deities. The difference is that theists think it's a good enough argument to justify believing in their chosen deity.

[FrankDK]

> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

> A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?

> In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.

And the more evidence there should be for a particular entity, the less scouring of the universe for evidence is required before dismissing that entity as unlikely.  We can be pretty sure the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist because the ecology in the loch is pretty well cataloged and measured, and if there were a family of giant animals living there, the equations wouldn't balance.  In other words, if the monster did exist, there should be a space for it in the ecology.  Lack of this evidence, which should exist, constitutes evidence of lack.

Likewise, with all the claims made for God, there should be an incredible amount of evidence for this creature, but there is none.  That's evidence against.

Frank

[BugRib]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.  The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence.  That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?

In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.

Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist.  That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.

Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language.  I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.

That's my take, anyway.

There have been many things that were assumed or believed to exist without evidence that were showed later to exist with evidence. Just because something doesn't have evidence doesn't prove it might not some day. You can reasonably assume God doesn't exist, but you cannot prove He doesn't, you can show his attributes are not true because they are contradictory, but again, you can't prove a god can't exist. And yes an invisible pink unicorn does exist and comes out during gay parades.  :roll: Solitary


Are you blind?
[ Image ]

You win...  

[BugRib]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.

It's not indefensible, it's just not a good argument. As Solitary correctly pointed out, there are plenty of things in science for which we had no evidence until relatively recently. Absence of evidence in those cases was not evidence of absence, and the same applies to deities. The difference is that theists think it's a good enough argument to justify believing in their chosen deity.

I just meant it's indefensible as an absolute.  There are cases where absence of evidence clearly is evidence of absence (pink unicorns, omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent deities, etc.), and there are cases where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (diamonds on Mars).

Another saying that's often bandied about in arguments about the supernatural is "You can't prove a negative."  Sure you can.  I can prove that there are no NBA players in my house.

In the case of gods, however, I suppose one can't prove that some supreme being did not create the universe.  But I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the no omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being (i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah/God/Allah) created and has absolute power over the universe.  It's almost certainly a logical impossibility.

[WitchSabrina]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[MrsSassyPants]

All you have to do to become a atheist is think about the ridiculousness of prayer to a sky being that lives in your mind, your soul, your heart, your sky, your home...and...etc etc.  Sometimes I pray....to help me sleep, and to just express gratitude for life.  Not that I really think someone else a million miles away in my next lifetime....but NOT my reincarnated body, just my perfect sky body.....is listening.   Devastated really that I can't believe in Heaven anymore, I love my family, and wish I could live with them forever in a sky box mansion.

[Sal1981]

The God Delusion is ok, but nothing fantastic, IMO.

[Colanth]

But I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the no omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being (i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah/God/Allah) created and has absolute power over the universe.  It's almost certainly a logical impossibility.

It's proved beyond a reasonable doubt to rational people, but theists, and fundies in particular, "know" beyond any doubt, so any "proof" to the contrary must be faulty, whether they can determine exactly what the fault is or not.  IOW, they have "proof" beyond reasonable doubt - for them - that your "reasonable proof" isn't reasonable or proof.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The God Delusion is ok, but nothing fantastic, IMO.

To be fair, it doesn't really seem intended for folks who are already atheists.

[the_antithesis]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists.  But philosophically indefensible.  The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence.  That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?.

But unicorns are real.

[spoil:3016qiaw][/spoil:3016qiaw]

[GurrenLagann]

Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods."  That's it.  That's all he needed to write.

To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.

For you to claim that The God Delusion "does not come close to making them ["good arguments for atheism"]" is absurd.  Making a good argument for atheism is as easy as making a good argument for "a-unicorn-ism"--lack of evidence.  Period.

The problem is that there aren't legions of folk defending unicornism - both in and out of academia - like there is for the God of Christianity and Islam. The God Delusion didn't make a great case for atheism and it isn't absurd to say that. Good arguments 'for' atheism would by necessity taking theistic arguments to task or crafting arguments showing some internal contradiction with a theistic religion, their apologetics or the concept of their god.

[BugRib]

Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods."  That's it.  That's all he needed to write.

To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.

Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude."  If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"?  Or course not.  I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns.  Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.

Of course, I realize that one sentence does not a successful book make.  But, though such a book would probably not sell many (or any) copies, that doesn't change the fact that that one sentence provides a more than adequate justification for atheism.

The problem is that there aren't legions of folk defending unicornism - both in and out of academia - like there is for the God of Christianity and Islam. The God Delusion didn't make a great case for atheism and it isn't absurd to say that. Good arguments 'for' atheism would by necessity taking theistic arguments to task or crafting arguments showing some internal contradiction with a theistic religion, their apologetics or the concept of their god.

First off, the number of people arguing for the existence of a sky daddy has no relevance to whether "lack of evidence" is an adequate reason to be an atheist.  Also, I read The God Delusion twice, and I'm pretty sure it took on every major philosophical and "scientific" argument for God's existence (half of which are so pathetic they don't even deserve a rebuttal--Ontological Argument anyone?  Intelligent Design--the proverbial "God of the Gaps" argument?  Do these childish arguments really even deserve rebuttals by grown-ups?).

It's just that I have lately noticed the emergence of this pretentious internet meme (regards to Dr. Dawkins) that "Dawkins should stay away from philosophy and stick to science," and it's really starting to get tiresome.  There's no area of human inquiry that requires more mastery of logic and reason than science (i.e. natural philosophy).  Guess what?  Scientists are philosophers, and most of them are just as good, if not better, at using the tools of reason, rationality, and logic than the average philosopher--IMHO.

If somebody doesn't like The God Delusion because it's boring, or it doesn't have enough big words, or because it contains nothing they don't already know, that's fine.  But to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.