A False Dilemma, in Atheism

Multiple people have pointed out to you that most atheists don’t believe “No evidence = no god”.

Most believe “No evidence = no reason to believe theist claims about this god”

 

I agree that there is no way to prove there is no god - or certainly not a way for science to do so. At most, lack of evidence means we don't know. I would agree that is a false dilemma.

For example, there could be a Spinosa type god that exists, but doesn't interact with what's going on in our universe. Or, there could be a god who takes care to not supply evidence - demanding that we go on faith alone if we want to believe there is a god.

Also, there is the question of what is evidence.

 

Exactly

So many claims about god in human history; hundreds of millions of gods .... no evidence to date. Maybe? I dunno, but I see no reason to roll the roulette wheel to decide which set of religious rules I should follow.

 

Yet you are the one always posting your beliefs as a truth.

A real contrarian.

 

How is one supposed to prove the existence of God? Mankind does not have a suitable method for doing so.

 

Individual "Gods" can be disproven by examining the literature that claims to explain it. Pick any one of them and the "Miracles" are pure impossibility. No ancient flying cities or six armed humans, no reanimated humans....no miracle flood or mud men.

 

I don't see an empirical way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is an individual conclusion one comes to from personal experiences and influences.

The point of the OP is not "Since 'no evidence = no God' is a fallacy, therefore, God!" It is just an exposè of the fallacy. It proves nothing. It is not an argument FOR God.

I suppose defensive atheists thought i was implying this as some kind of 'philosophical proof!' of God, when that is not my intent, nor even possible, imo.

..people are so touchy about their beliefs, these days.. no philosophizing or logical analyses of beliefs is allowed!

..part of the PC mandate of Progressivism. Anything goes if ripping up Christianity, but don't touch the sacred cows of progressive ideology!

 

Incredulity is not a strong argument against any God. We already premise a supernatural Being, with supernatural powers.. ability to create a universe, for example.

So the argument, 'Nobody could do that!' Does not apply, if you accept the premise of a God.

But any claim of origins is non testable and a matter of belief, including atheistic naturalism. They posit a mysterious, unobservable 'force', abiogenesis, somehow started life. Then they posit another unobserved belief of common descent, that all living things evolved from a single cell.

Neither of those beliefs can be observed, repeated, or tested. ..just like a supernatural belief.

So incredulity can go either way, and works against any worldview.

 

i don't make excuses.

 

The argument certainly does apply to all thinking people or even the curious. It only fails to apply in the minds of the devout and purposefully ignorant.

 

That is a handy, self serving definition!

But it is kind of judgemental to brush all atheistic naturalists as 'purposefully ignorant!' for holding to their beliefs. They are very devout, and zealous for their beliefs, but one should allow some freedom of conscience, to believe as they see best.

So, if people believe as you do, they are, 'thinking & curious!', but if not they are, 'purposefully ignorant!'

Isn't that just religious bigotry?

 

Thank you Will. You've renewed my faith in humanity! ..maybe a logical progressive really does exist!

It was supposed to be a simple logical problem, but many atheists felt a call to arms, it seems..

..no doubt my less than winsome personality and the chip on my shoulder doesn't help, either..

 

How do you know there were none of these?

 

Actually I provided evidence /proof they are not paid.

 

No, you're stepping over the line again in your attempts to attack science. Science doesn't say what you suggest.

Every question can be answered with, "God did it". So, religion can claim a perfect record on knowing stuff.

However, I don't see that as superior to, "I don't know" when the answer isn't actually known.

 

No, you cited a claim.

I cited an LDS leader being paid in excess of $100K.

And, I pointed out that the claim you cited makes a statement about "clergy" and that I don't know exactly what the LDS church considers to be clergy.

Maybe "clergy" doesn't include church leadership.

 

What you showed was opinion, not proof.

So you want to know if the 70s are considered clergy? They in fact do circulate among the wards speaking to members. I guess that qualifies them as clergy. My opinion of course.

 

If you would like to learn about abiogenesis, I recommend this college text. I own the book and bought it shortly after it came out.

 

I suppose it can be seen as some kind of religious bigotry in the way you are bigoted against Islam or Atheism. Personally I do not see it that way, it is simply an educated opinion and the decision to debate on an internet forum.

 

Physics and Biology.

 

Then your argument fails because it's special pleading.

 

...taking deists seriously when have the Expense of Government for the right wing to complain about, instead of social morals from a God, for free.

 

You continue to show no reliable data to support your claims. You claim a fallacy by YOUR standards, yet the exact same argument could be used in reverse, denying that your god exists.

As for "logical analysis" perhaps you should take some courses in logic. It does not support what you claim and is a strawman argument.

 

What straw man are you attacking, here?

Did you even read my post, or just launch into progressive talking points?

'Attack Science!!'

'Goddidit!!'

..love these narratives.. too bad they have nothing to do with anything actually said...

 

I see no arguments or rebuttals. Denial, dismissal, and ad hom is a poor substitute for reason.