Theli

This one is almost funny.
But it's the method used by many christians.
If X says that god doesn't exist... Question X.
If Y says that god doesn't exist... Question Y.
In the end they'll end up with an argument like the following:
"How can I know that I know that god doesn't exist outside existence?"
And then one must wonder, how excacly does he learn about his surroundings? If he doesn't base his knowledge on evidence, then on what?
I would like to see him using this line of logic in real life. See how far he will go.

And ofcourse, he splits after the first page of the thread, just when we have found the error in his logic. Bad luck, I guess...

diana

Just an observation: disprove a fact? If it is a fact, there is no disproving it.

That's a nice combination of circular reasoning and loaded language, by the way. You managed to slyly assert that the EoG is a fact when in fact that's what you're trying to prove, while implying that atheists are idiots for trying to disprove said "fact." Very concisely executed mish-mash of fallacious reasoning.

And you continue on your winning streak with this attempt to shift the burden of proof and straw man. You must have studied your logical fallacies well to be able to combine them so...effortlessly. Wow.

(In case you're wondering, the Straw Man in question is built on your apparent definition of "atheist," which isn't actually what most of us would tell you the word means.)

No. When you put forth any claim here, we will hound you until you support it. If you cannot, we will explain to you, as politely as possible under the circumstances--depending upon how arrogant and insulting you've been toward us, usually--why it is illogical to accept your assertion.

You mean, "picking apart" like I'm doing (pointing out logical flaws and implied insults and the fact that you have yet to make a point)? Or do you mean "picking apart" as in mocking your spelling and grammar and typos?

We generally try to avoid the latter, as it's bad form and misses the point. We focus on the former, as it is part and parcel to debate--which is what we do here.

Yes, it is. However, the ability to debate effectively cannot discount emotions entirely. You're applying this rule yourownself, in implying that atheists are trying to "disprove a fact" and implying that we're more interested in "picking apart" arguments rather than trying to understand the point: it's called poisoning the well. It is designed to convince the audience of the debate that we aren't worth listening to. When we see you doing this, many become angry at your implied insults. You, my friend, are attempting to manipulate the proceedings through emotion.

As the good book says, you should take care to remove the beam from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from ours. (Or, as we say: pot, kettle--black.)

There is one other tiny point I'd like to address before I move on. You suggested, in the above line, that you have a "theory." I hereby challenge your right to use that word in regards to your religious beliefs.

A theory must be falsifiable. I've yet to see a religious doctrine that sets up a condition through which the belief may be proven wrong, which is imperative for a theory.

If you cannot find such a condition, you don't have a "theory"; you have dogma.

What's a lost cause? You wouldn't imply that we're too closed-minded to bother with and therefore declare yourself triumphant without even putting your money where your mouth is, would you? I didn't think so, as that would be more poisoning of the well.

If you wish us to give your theory a shot, we'll be happy to. All we ask is that you set up the conditions for it, the test theory, postulate a conclusion, and tell us how to determine whether the experiment is a success or failure.

For example, your theory might be that God answers prayers. This is, of course, based upon the assumption that God exists--but if he answers prayers, it would demonstrate that your assumption is also correct.

So you'd need a test group and a control group of equal sizes. Let's do this double-blind, so we don't insert any bias into the proceedings. Since the bible says that God pays more attention to the prayers of a righteous man, you'll want all your gineau pigs to be righteous men, so you'll have to first define what criteria a man must meet to be considered "righteous."

Now that you have the rules, select two hospitals: one is the test group and the other is the control group (for comparison). Have your righteous men pray for, say, the swift recovery of the patients in Hospital A.

You must control for all biases and eliminate influencing factors. For example, no fair having the prayer group pray for the recovery of students who visit the school nurse for a cold, then comparing the recovery rate to that of a cancer ward, for example.

Have them pray a certain amount every day for a given period of time. Keep careful journals of all activities and progress. Ensure they have no communication whatsoever with any of the patients at Hospital A, as this might skew the results.

At the end of the allotted time period (two weeks? a month?), compare the recovery rates (and you'd have to predetermine what qualifies as a "recovery," and apply this rule consistently) of Hospital A and Hospital B (which was unprayed-for). Is there a difference in recovery rates? Is it statistically significant?

If it is not, you may feel compelled to explain that someone could have been praying for the control hospital, as well. If you do so, you have just invalidated the entire experiment, as your "theory" is thereby non-falsifiable--IOWs, it isn't a theory at all.

Also, to ensure you haven't just run up against odd sampling of the population, you'd need to repeat this experiment with different prayer groups and different hospitals, and if possible in different cultures. Keep records. Look for trends.

These are the things we are able to do if we in fact are working with theories. If at any point you can explain away results that are not in your favor, you have demonstrated the non-falsifiability of your position, and invalidated the entire experiment.

Would you care to reword your accusation?

d

Asha'man

How exactly do you use evidence to disprove the fact that I have no belief in any gods? What part of “I have no belief” are you going to attack? Nobody has ever provided adequate evidence to convince me that gods exist, so I remain unconvinced. If you really want to disprove that, then you had better provide some convincing evidence that god exists, right?

Proving a universal negative is easy, it’s done all the time. Assume that the negative is positive, and follow the consequences until you reach a logical impossibility.

Now, this can’t be done with the existence of all gods, because there is no specific definition of god to work with, theists keep changing their mind. However, it had been done repeatedly with specific, well-defined gods, such as the Christian one as described by the Bible. We laugh at the absurdity of the Bible for exactly this reason, it proves that the original premise is flawed.

Theli

Something I think we atheists get righfully accused of is having the easy side of the argument.
It's much more difficult to prove existence than disprove existence.
Wich ofcourse makes sense, as there are just a few correct answers, and an almost infinite amount of false answers to what exists.

doc58

>>And I get the notion that no amount of evidence would suffice in the atheist's mind; even though they'll all believe other ideas pretty much on faith.<<

I do not know of any person, theist or atheist, who denies that trees exist.
If God exists, he could make the evidence of his existence as plain as the evidence that trees exist.

So to say no amount of evidence would be enough is ridiculous.
The amount of evidence needed is simple. Just think of a tree.
I am sure he could figure it out.

Jobar

Doc58, trees are common; god(s) is (are) not. I am more than willing to take someone's word that, for example, there are trees in their yard. However, were they to say that there are gods in their yard, their word would not come even close to cutting it. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I do agree with you though, that we can take doubters out into the yard, and show them the trees. And though I have seen plenty of yards with signs about God in them, I have yet to see a yard which contains a god or gods.

doc58

God could easily make himself as commonly known and obvious as a tree. If he was interested in gaining everyones undivided attention and eliminating any debate over his existence (and why wouldn't he be interested in doing this), then he would do so.
Then there wouldn't be any nonsense like "I saw God or experienced God. You should believe", but for everyone, Gods existence would be as plain as your neighbors existence.

The fact that none of this occurs causes me to greatly doubt his existence. A God interested in being worshipped and obeyed would not and should not hide or veil his existence.

Infidelettante

I point out that there are some who have no problem with the idea that there just may be as many gods as there are trees. Everybody here is soooo serious. JT

Sur-reality

you assume so much, how do you know that i am a christian ( should they ever show evidence of thier "beliefs" i would be proud to be in thier ranks)? No what i merely am doing is trying to find for myself a belief, something that makes sense. You if i'm not mistaken have disproved that the christian world views are wrong. But i simply want an answer to this question before i move on to another belief/ religion: If an atheist is one that does not believe in a god or any number of gods, then where is the evidence behind thier belief? just a question that i have found no reasonable answer to.

Mageth

If an atheist is one that does not believe in a god or any number of gods, then where is the evidence behind thier belief?

The evidence, for most atheists, is in the lack of evidence. If there's no smoke or excessive heat in a room, you probably would have a hard time believing that the room was on fire.