The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[PhDP]

Atheism, to be atheism, must have at least one positive statement of faith: natural = without deity.

 

It's not a statement of faith, it's parsimony. I could say that Belenos is the force behind mutations, and the lack of belief in Belenos' presence is a faith because it implies that; mutations = without Belenos. Same thing for god, why would we believe in the existence of god in the universe, it explains nothing.

 

We can't even say it explains religious beliefs/experiences, as people from different regions of the world believe in different things. If you were born in Japan, you would probably bash the concept of god and believe in Kami.

 

Please point to the peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows deity is "imaginary".

 

Again, it's parsimony, we have absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of an anthropomorphic god. Why would science produce peer-reviewed scientific papers about a hypothesis based on no reliable evidences ? There's no scientific paper that proves shamanism to be bogus, AFAIK.

 

So, it is the onus of atheism to falsify the existence of deity.

 

We have a lot of work then, because there's an awful lot of mythological creatures out there, and most of us don't believe in them so we need to provide evidences. Let's start with "A" then; Aed, Amaterasu, Ajatar, Alseid....

 

Most fairy tales can't, and won't, be falsified. Your argument is a stawman, atheists don't say; god doesn't exist, they say; god's existence is highly improbable ('weak atheism').

 

I find this situation quite annoying, it's nearly impossible to have a civil discussion about the concept of God because theists won't accept the burden of the proof (which is probably a good strategy, when you think about it). How can I prove the inexistence of the christian god ? I can't, and christians can't prove the inexistence of the gods from other mythologies, they can't prove the inexistence of Kami and spirits, et cetera...

 

The connection also comes because many atheists -- like creationists -- refuse to admit that their faith is a faith. They want science to "prove" their faith. Therefore they misrepresent science and reasoning as having "shown" that deity does not exist.

 

The "connection" is that we have a war between two faiths -- atheism and theism -- and the battleground is science.

 

Actually, it's not true at all. I think science has made the belief in the supernatural unnecessary, but I certainly don't believe science has shown that god doesn't exist. It's a very important distinction, we can reject a hypothesis because we don't need it anymore, even if we can't disprove it.

[Mr Skeptic]

atheists don't say; god doesn't exist, they say; god's existence is highly improbable ('weak atheism').

 

That would be most atheists. However, since they almost always lump themselves with strong atheists, this creates some confusion. A better claim is that god's existence is not necessary to explain the physical universe.

 

I find this situation quite annoying, it's nearly impossible to have a civil discussion about the concept of God because theists won't accept the burden of the proof (which is probably a good strategy, when you think about it).

 

And why should they? Strong Atheists won't accept the burden of proof either, and neither side has shown any proof that the other side is wrong. Sure, a few individuals on both sides have made attempts to prove their side, but those are few and far between. Usually, whoever makes the initial claim that the other side is wrong in a particular argument is expected to provide some evidence for that position, since they are the ones making a claim.

[PhDP]

That would be most atheists. However, since they almost always lump themselves with strong atheists, this creates some confusion. A better claim is that god's existence is not necessary to explain the physical universe.

 

I agree. But most atheists are 'weak atheists'. AFAIK, 'strong atheism' is quite rare. I don't believe in god just as I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I accept that I can't prove the inexistence of these entities but I refuse the burden of the proof.

 

And why should they? Strong Atheists won't accept the burden of proof either, and neither side has shown any proof that the other side is wrong. Sure, a few individuals on both sides have made attempts to prove their side, but those are few and far between.

 

'Strong atheists' should accept at least some of the burden of the proof.

 

Usually, whoever makes the initial claim that the other side is wrong in a particular argument is expected to provide some evidence for that position, since they are the ones making a claim.

 

I agree, but obviously, atheism exist because theists have proposed the existence of some supernatural deity. How could we have made the initial claim ?

 

And if we have to prove god's inexistence, if we have to share the burden of the proof, it means we also have to prove the inexistence of all the other supernatural entities. Why is god a special case ? Why theists won't accept to play by the rule ?

[Rev Blair]

It's up to the theists to prove the existence of their god. Until they provide such proof, their claim has no validity. At this point there is more evidence of Sasquatch than there is of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim deity, and there is no reason to believe Sasquatch exists.

 

Oddly enough, I can't remember the last time my Prime Minister ended a speech with "Sasquatch bless Canada," though, and talk of Sasquatch-based educational and aid programs are nonexistent. The Sasquatch lobby is not trying to interfere with a woman's right to choose, fundamentalist Sasquatch believers are not being appointed to courts and scientific ethics panels.

[Mr Skeptic]

And why should they? Strong Atheists won't accept the burden of proof either, and neither side has shown any proof that the other side is wrong.

It's up to the theists to prove the existence of their god. Until they provide such proof, their claim has no validity.

 

See what I mean? If an atheist claims there is no god, he should provide proof for that claim too. And if someone were to claim Big Foot doesn't exist, it is also up to them to prove the claim.

 

That's how science works; whoever makes a claim has to back it up. A scientist would never (professionally) claim that Big Foot doesn't exist; he might claim that none of the evidence for Big Foot is conclusive & therefore reject the claim that Big Foot exists via Occam's Razor. But if he did he would back up that claim by demonstrating that the evidence for Big Foot is faulty. An unbacked claim is an opinion, nothing more.

[iNow]

So what? Atheists are correct, or, at the very least, anti-theists are.

 

 

Purple unicorns, man. Purple unicorns. If you doubted them, I wouldn't tell you that it was up to you to prove they didn't exist. Why the special needs of religion? <pun intended>

[Rev Blair]

Okay, you are claiming that there's a relatively benevolent, sometimes wrathful god. By Occams razor i can say that's a rather bizarre claim and you have produced no evidence to support it. There is no reason why such a being should exist.

 

Going a little further though, if such a being did exist he is guilty of several counts of genocide, as recounted in the Bible. He has dictated a variety of contradictory statements. His followers often break his edicts with no consequences. The explanations given for the natural world in the Bible do not hold up to even casual scientific scrutiny. His son, who was apparently such an important political threat that the establishment strung him up, does not exist in the historical record.

 

Nobody has been able to provide evidence of this god, and people who claim to have seen him are generally considered to be mentally ill or lying for money, even by his other followers.

 

Using Occam's Razor, there is no reason to believe in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree. But most atheists are 'weak atheists'. AFAIK, 'strong atheism' is quite rare. I don't believe in god just as I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I accept that I can't prove the inexistence of these entities but I refuse the burden of the proof.

 

Well if all you are saying is "I don't believe god exists", that is a statement of opinion, and no one can prove you wrong. If you are saying "there is not enough evidence to show that the existence of a god is at all likely" you're on pretty solid ground. Very few people would challenge these statements, and most of those people will be very stupid to do so.

 

'Strong atheists' should accept at least some of the burden of the proof.

 

Well, if you say that god doesn't exist, then you are taking the position of a strong atheist, even if that is not your actual position.

 

I agree, but obviously, atheism exist because theists have proposed the existence of some supernatural deity. How could we have made the initial claim ?

 

For one thing, the initial claim was made millennia ago, and the people who made the claim are dead and rotten (or in heaven ).

 

For another, the claim that a god doesn't exist is a completely separate claim. Both are claims of knowledge, and each stands on its own ground. If I were to describe a new type of animal that hadn't been seen before, and claim it doesn't exist, I would still be making a claim, just like I would if I said it existed.

 

And if we have to prove god's inexistence, if we have to share the burden of the proof, it means we also have to prove the inexistence of all the other supernatural entities. Why is god a special case ? Why theists won't accept to play by the rule ?

 

Yes, but only if you want to claim that those supernatural entities don't exist. You could instead say that those who claim they exist are ridiculous and that you won't even bother listening to them until they get themselves some evidence.

 

It's the difference between "I don't believe you" and "You are wrong."

 

Okay, you are claiming that there's a relatively benevolent, sometimes wrathful god.

 

All I'm claiming is that anyone who makes a claim, has to back it up if it is to be considered science. Re-read the scientific method: you can't have a hypothesis and then just say it's a fact. Even if it is a very reasonable hypothesis. But you can freely reject a hypothesis that has no or dubious evidence.

[ParanoiA]

So what? Atheists are correct, or, at the very least, anti-theists are.

 

Purple unicorns, man. Purple unicorns. If you doubted them, I wouldn't tell you that it was up to you to prove they didn't exist. Why the special needs of religion? <pun intended>

 

He didn't say "doubt", he said "claim" - huge difference. Making a claim is a demand for recognition of fact. Doubt is a hesitation of belief. Further, a claim is an implication, doubt is an inference.

 

See what I mean? If an atheist claims there is no god' date=' he should provide proof for that claim too. And if someone were to claim Big Foot doesn't exist, it is also up to them to prove the claim.

 

That's how science works; whoever makes a claim has to back it up. A scientist would never (professionally) claim that Big Foot doesn't exist; he might claim that none of the evidence for Big Foot is conclusive & therefore reject the claim that Big Foot exists via Occam's Razor. But if he did he would back up that claim by demonstrating that the evidence for Big Foot is faulty. An unbacked claim is an opinion, nothing more. [/quote']

 

This is so obviously sensible that I'm failing to understand why you're having to defend it. Great post and couldn't agree more.

[Rev Blair]

But you can freely reject a hypothesis that has no or dubious evidence.

 

So atheists reject the idea that there is a god based on the lack of evidence. We don't have to prove anything. Theists have to prove the existence of their god. We do not have to prove their god doesn't exist. They are the ones making the claim, they have offered no real evidence.

[PhDP]

Mr Skeptic,

 

I like your examples, but I respectfully disagree, I think your interpretation is overly literal. Most of the time when we say "I don't believe X exist", it means "I think the existence of X is highly improbable". By definition, only strong atheists accept as true the notion that "God doesn't exist". Same thing goes for Bigfoot, lots of scientists have said they don't believe Bigfoot exist, but they don't actually accept as true the proposition; "Bigfoot doesn't exist", they simply see no reasons to believe in the existence of such a creature (well, to be fair, we do have some evidences that he doesn't exist, but it's another story).

 

Have you ever said you don't believe in santa claus or in the tooth fairy ? I'm pretty sure you did, and I'm also quite sure that what you really meant was; we have absolutely no reasons to believe in the existence of those entities, so, the probability that they actually exist is very low. You espouse 'weak' "asantaclausist" and "atoothfairyist", until somebody providence evidences, you don't need to do anything. It's the same thing for any theory, any hypothesis... It's no different for god.

[ParanoiA]

PhDP - you really think that subtley isn't worth the distinction? Just because we generally allow our language to "wander" from precision doesn't make the idea pedantic.

[Rev Blair]

But the misconstruation of the idea is pedantry. The theists have made a claim that is not falsifiable, but they they are saying that their claim is valid, or at least that we must lend it validity, because we can't falsify it. That is pedantry.

[Mr Skeptic]

If you mean me, I'm a weak atheist. No need for strawmanning if you meant me, nor for changing the subject if you didn't. I just can't stand to see people corrupting science to bolster their beliefs. Both theists and strong atheists make a claim, and ought to back their claim if they want it considered scientific. Its just how science works.

 

I'm glad ParanoiA agrees with this, and I'm surprised more people don't.

[Rev Blair]

I don't think atheists, strong or weak or someplace in between, are using science to bolster their beliefs though. I think the theists have made claims and need to prove those claims, or retreat from the public sphere.

 

What claims have atheists made? That there is no evidence of deities. If you actually read Dawkins, he's very clear on that. He puts it to a scale. He uses examples of probability. He goes out of his way to point out that he can't say that there is no god, just that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely.

[Reaper]

I don't think atheists, strong or weak or someplace in between, are using science to bolster their beliefs though.

 

Most of us atheists don't necessarily use science, but I've certainly been to atheist bbs, and it's quite amusing to see some of them try (along with using logical fallacies to back themselves up, e.g. the argument from ignorance). You can, however, use scientific arguments against the existence of deities though, if you choose focus on certain aspects of deities or religious claims as Victor Stenger does in his book.

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and iNow, sorry to single you out but I do have to let you know, your probably better off comparing the Bible to the Iliad, or God to the Lochness Monster if you want to have a much stronger argument. If you want to use analogies to help your argument that is, because your current one absolutely sucks.

[iNow]

I'm still supporting the most valid stance.

[Reaper]

I'm still supporting the most valid stance.

 

Acknowledged, but I just want to make sure that who ever supports the most valid stance, does so with valid arguments .

 

 

 

On the side note, I'm actually going to make a blogpost about this topic soon...

[iNow]

Purple unicorns are imaginary and considered ridiculous.

God is imaginary and considered acceptable.

 

You can shove your subjective interpretation of what is and what is not valid up your a... Oh, I meant, thank you for your support and I look forward to your blog post.

 

 

[Reaper]

Purple unicorns are imaginary and considered ridiculous.

God is imaginary and considered acceptable.

 

Well, that's the problem actually, because you are already assuming that God is imaginary. You have to show that it is imaginary first, before you compare it to something else that is. Otherwise, you run the risk of the weak analogy problem. And, I think it's been pointed out already that belief in deities aren't necessarily a product of pure imagination or pure fiction.

 

You can shove your subjective interpretation of what is and what is not valid up your a...

 

 

What I wrote wasn't subjective, you learn about this sort of thing in any philosophy 101 class.

 

Oh, I meant, thank you for your support and I look forward to your blog post.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

[djeinstine]

Well, that's the problem actually, because you are already assuming that God is imaginary. You have to show that it is imaginary first, before you compare it to something else that is. Otherwise, you run the risk of the weak analogy problem. And, I think it's been pointed out already that belief in deities aren't necessarily a product of pure imagination or pure fiction.

 

With no proof, what can we assume then? One cannot even use the Bible because of all of its contradictory statements and gaps. And the Bible's evidence holds less weight for evidence of a "God" existing because there are tons of other books claiming a "God" for itself; Quran being one example.

[Reaper]

With no proof, what can we assume then?

One cannot even use the Bible because of all of its contradictory statements and gaps. And the Bible's evidence holds less weight for evidence of a "God" existing because there are tons of other books claiming a "God" for itself; Quran being one example.

 

 

You are better of assuming it is a hypothesis or conjecture, just like anything else, and work from there. And I am aware of the issues revolving around the various interpretations. I recently posted something about this subject in my blog if you wish to look at it.

[ParanoiA]

But the misconstruation of the idea is pedantry. The theists have made a claim that is not falsifiable, but they they are saying that their claim is valid, or at least that we must lend it validity, because we can't falsify it. That is pedantry.

 

Science is all about pedantry. Fact is, if I "dream up" a civilization in the far reaches of the universe that is essentially unfalsifiable, then you still have to prove any claim that my civilization doesn't exit. I, equally, must prove any claim that it does exist. In the context of an argument, that claim will be the responsibility of who makes the claims.

 

You can doubt all day long without a shred of evidence or even suspicion, but you can't make statements of fact without proving them.

 

It's only obvious and it compliments the scientific method really. This is what makes the scientific method a method. You can't just say "Awe c'mon guys...geez....purple unicorns??? get outa' here" - it forces you to prove every claim. No matter how silly. That's what gives it strength and integrity and, in theory anyway, should prove to keep it unbiased and protected from dogma.

[Reaper]

Science is all about pedantry. Fact is, if I "dream up" a civilization in the far reaches of the universe that is essentially unfalsifiable, then you still have to prove any claim that my civilization doesn't exit. I, equally, must prove any claim that it does exist. In the context of an argument, that claim will be the responsibility of who makes the claims.

 

Actually, that's not really how it works. The burden of proof, as always, rests with the person making the all the claims. It would be totally up to you to come up with the evidence (or at least an argument that would make the idea plausible).

 

You can doubt all day long without a shred of evidence or even suspicion, but you can't make statements of fact without proving them.

 

Actually, all we have to do is point out that there isn't a shred of evidence. The conclusion that something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence is a completely logical one.

 

Besides which, a civilization at the furthest reaches of the universe cannot really be compared to arguing for the existence of God, because a civilization is not omnipotent, it obeys the laws of physics, it does not make revelations, etc.

 

It's only obvious and it compliments the scientific method really.

 

No, it does not.

 

This is what makes the scientific method a method. You can't just say "Awe c'mon guys...geez....purple unicorns??? get outa' here" - it forces you to prove every claim. No matter how silly. That's what gives it strength and integrity and, in theory anyway, should prove to keep it unbiased and protected from dogma.

 

And I agree with you on the fact that you just can't dismiss it as "purple unicorns", but that really isn't the point. There is no need to prove any claim. In fact, science can never really "prove" anything in the strictest sense, it can only disprove something. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as much as the theists may want to whine about it, it is primarily on them. All an atheist really has to do is point out that there is not a shred of evidence for any of their claims (along with some other arguments, but that's outside the scope of this thread for the moment...)

[ParanoiA]

Actually, that's not really how it works. The burden of proof, as always, rests with the person making the all the claims. It would be totally up to you to come up with the evidence (or at least an argument that would make the idea plausible).

 

We're saying the same thing Reaper. Whoever enacts the exercise of "claim" owns the burden of proof. That is keeping with the scientific method and you are agreeing with this here. You're just not recognizing that by saying "Civilization X does not exist" - THAT is a claim.

 

Actually, all we have to do is point out that there isn't a shred of evidence. The conclusion that something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence is a completely logical one.

 

No it's not since you cannot search the area of space that contains the civilization. This is how the god thing works too. God is defined in such a way that the entire possible area of existence cannot be searched for evidence, therefore cannot be disproved. You cannot make claims without supporting evidence.

 

And I agree with you on the fact that you just can't dismiss it as "purple unicorns", but that really isn't the point. There is no need to prove any claim. In fact, science can never really "prove" anything in the strictest sense, it can only disprove something. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as much as the theists may want to whine about it, it is primarily on them. All an atheist really has to do is point out that there is not a shred of evidence for any of their claims (along with some other arguments, but that's outside the scope of this thread for the moment...)

 

I don't see how this disagrees with a thing I said. You're repeating the same points - "the burden of proof is on the person making the claims" - yes that's right. Glad we agree. This includes ALL claims. Claims that things don't exist, as well as claims that things DO exist.

 

It is not necessary for their to be an argument that something DOES exist in order to make a claim that it DOESN'T. Think about that first. I can't say "Fairies that eat brains do not exist in the next galaxy". NO ONE has ever purported that fairies exist in the next galaxy that eat brains. But I still can't claim they don't exist and pass of the burden of proof to...uh...no one.

 

See, a claim is a claim. No matter if it's claiming a negative, a positive, an existence, a non-existence...